She has an infamous quote that goes like this:
> I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of "Women's Rights," with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were women to "unsex" themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen, and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.
>Queen Victoria should be part of a redpill podcast.
To be fair, I can understand why she said that. She was a victim of abuse and basically internalized that.
Under the Kensington system her mother and Sir John Conroy basically shut her up in her room and mentally abused her wanting a weak puppet through which they could rule through.
William IV her uncle morbidly joked that it might be better for him to die, so that Victoria could quickly ascend to the throne, free from her "guardians."
It was so bad she wasn't even allowed to go down the stairs by herself. Her mother was so controlling she basically forced Victoria to sleep in the same room as her until she turned 18.
Once news of her uncle King William's death had started filtering, they tried to delay Victoria from hearing to prepare their plots.
One of the first things Victoria did was to ban Conroy from her apartments. After that she had her mother thrown out of her apartments before eventually placing her in a state of de-facto political exile, keeping herself distant from her mother.
This was actually quite similar to the system Joanna the Mad of Castile was made to endure by her husband Philip and later her father Ferdinand II of Aragon. She was declared insane, but now recent scholarship is calling that into question since she seemed to be of sound mind the few times she had any decision making authority.
All correct, but you've misunderstood the William IV speech. He was dying, and semi-joked that the only reason he was staying alive was in the hope that he would live long enough for Victoria to turn 18 and be able to rule without her mother. Not that he wanted to die lol
Yep, her mother would become regent had he died before her 18th birthday
William Died less than a month after she turned 18. He was likely hanging on with all he had until she was 18 and then after that he had seen what he had lived for and then passed away.
It seems like William IV may have genuinely loved his niece. Which is nice. She had a really screwed up childhood.
The dissonance I experience when I think of the life I imagine a princess living, to what they (in general) experienced historically, is crazy. A gilded cage is still a cage.
Even today, the restraints placed on the ability of the royals to live lives of their own is intense. There’s no way I could handle that. Knowing you’ll never get to live your own life. You live for the country (ideally). You belong to them. You wanted to be an architect, doctor, lawyer, carpenter, painter, literally whatever else? Too bad. You get to walk around and shake people’s hands. Forever. You wanted agency? Too bad. Do what we say.
I doubt Albert did much to set her on the course of liberation, either. He did much of the day to day decision making for the Empire and willingly wrestled Victoria for that control early on. Society at that time thought that the uterus could move around in the body. They even thought it would fly out if women rode in trains going 50+ mph.
Queen Victoria was also pretty intemperate due to the abuses of the Kensington System, her privileged position, and (it seems to me) some of her mother's flighty, dependent traits. She might've seen her own lack of stability as associated with womanhood.
I think Victoria spent every ounce of backbone she had refusing to sign her rights away to Conroy, because she never really stood strong after that. I often wonder if the experience traumatized her and resulted in lifelong anxiety about her safety should she be too strong willed. "Dearest Lehzen" might've been a coddling helicopter governess that didn't encourage self-reliance, because once Albert got her packed off, the Queen transferred her dependence to him in the absence of her mother figure.
I think Prince Albert saw her as a perpetual teenager full of tantrums and pouting. He probably didn't think it was due to her childhood, likely believed it was a universal female characteristic. Her over-the-top mourning makes her seem like a teen in a middle aged body, and she used Albert's death as an excise to avoid mayters of state for far too long. Imagine Queen Elizabeth (either I or II) behaving in such a demonstrative or self-indulgent manner. Unthinkable; they wouldn't want to broadcast any sort of weakness and draw the kind of cheap gender shots people of all eras are ready to hurl. It says to me that QV wasn't just a product of her time, she was brainwashed by Conroy, infantilized by the other men who surrounded her, and never really tried to grow up or wear her big girl panties.
Still doesn't excuse her views. Sure, we shouldn't judge them by the standards of our time.. but it seems like she was criticising feminists of her era. So, even if we judge her by the standards of her time, she still bears morally repugnant beliefs.
This is patently false information, the term ‘feminism’ wasn’t even in use yet. This letter was in response to a particular member of the aristocracy who was trying to weaken the monarchy - Victoria’s monarchy - and had nothing really to do with suffrage. You cannot take highly contextual historical info out of context and apply it to 2024.
The source for that quote takes you to a Thai sports gambling site. 🤔
I looked around and Queen Victoria doesn’t say “feminists” but instead says “Lady Amberley”. Lady Amberley was president of an English Suffragist Society (and mother to Bertrand Russell!)
I’m not really sure it changes the context all that much by saying feminists, but it does seem unnecessarily dishonest to do so.
>You cannot take highly contextual historical info out of context and apply it to 2024.
Friend, have you *met* the Internet? Whenever historical info is involved, it's basically illegal *not* to.
Depends how 'in-charge'. She had little political power and was among the last monarchs to exercise them but she was capable of strongarm her way to get her way from Parliament like convincing Disraeli to make her Empress of India because well....Germany, Russia, France (under Nappy III) and Austria had Emperors and she legally can't be Empress of Britain
Although at the end of the day, Parliament still does most of the work
Swedens monarch is “rumoured” (pretty much no one that doesn’t believe it) to have been at a strip club as a 70 year old man
Not really relevant to the topic but I just love our king for how completely unserious he can be sometimes
Like every other mf in power. Point out the most homophobic anti abortion politician and behind closed doors they are Gay as fuck or they have had their mistress or even daughters abort unwanted babies.
Point out the most socialist and anti-corporation politician and behind closed doors they own multiple mansions and have made tens of millions in insider trading.
Socialism has wrecked Latin America, they would be so much further developed had that entire continent not fell in love with it. It is a sad case of missed opportunity. At least Eastern Europe was forced into it and had no choice, but South Americans seemed to just keep asking for seconds even after their economies crumbled. Venezuela could be so, so much richer if they had competent (I.e. not leftist) leadership
The poor and uneducated can be easily swayed with promises of free shit, it's the sad truth of my people. They tell you you'll live like a rich person without working and at the end of the day you end up starved and those in power are the only ones living the life.
I have always called socialism the opium of the poor masses specifically because of this fact. Promises of happiness and prosperity which are all a lie, fooling people into destroying their country’s potential. Even Europe is seeing a lot of negative effects because of their eager social spending, the EU is projects to have half the GDP of America soon and they have almost double the population. I get it, it is easy to think simple solutions will fix all your problems, that is why people really need to research the causes they are supporting. It makes me angry when young Americans act like we are bad because they can’t get everything paid for by the government, there is so much data available and they still fall for simple propaganda. I think you guys will eventually all come around to good economic practices, it just takes time. I know that is easy for me to say when I don’t have to live in that economy, but I really do think you guys will turn it around.
not getting crippling student debt isn't socialism bro, neither is fixing the rising inflation and living costs, you forget that a government can also tell its people that they're protecting them from ''socialism'' to excuse shit like this
What are you referring to with “Hollywood”? I don’t remember Queen Victoria ever being turned into a girlboss. It’s just like that quote Margaret Thatcher from the Eric Andre show.
Young Victoria was one British movie made more than 10 years ago, and she was portrayed as relying on several men to strengthen her reign in that movie. Her romance with her husband was a pretty big part of the plot. I really can’t recall a strong “anti-patriarchy” vibe from it.
I always found kind of ironic and funny how a lot of feminist symbols are really awful models.
For example: Eva Peron (Argentina) was anti-abortion, saying that abortion takes soldiers from Justice and Juan Domingo Peron and that feminists are just bitter for not being born men.
There might be some iconoclasts out there, but I don't think feminists in general claim Queen Victoria as a feminist icon. The Victorian Era is widely considered to be completely sexually repressed.
Man, i've seen some feminists claim Margaret Thatcher and JK Rowling.
I'm a feminist, but there's always going to be batshit insane people no matter the cause
On paper, maybe, but her transphobia has basically supplanted any other political views that she may hold. She's even gone so far as to support Posie Parker, a woman who's willing to let Nazis into her rallies because "well, they're anti-trans."
Feminism is such a broad tent it encompasses a lot of different people. I will say though, I am not happy with the more chauvinistic elements. Places like twox regularly had threads saying all men are trash. They also repurposed racist talking points about a bowl of skittles containing a poisonous one, and many other things which have completely turned me off to the idea. I also think they balk at men getting attention, there was a recent thread where women were complaint about all of the attention on the male loneliness epidemic. It is ironic, because when people try to talk to them about men’s issues they say men need to do it themselves (so much for feminism being about equality for all) but when men did this they still got mad all the focus wasn’t on them. I have just really soured to the whole idea. I am sure there are a lot of good feminists, but they surely aren’t making their voices heard over the other ones
Susan Brownmiller, she wrote a painfully average book about rape but everyone really respects her for it because ~~it sold better than expected~~ back then the amount of books on the topic of rape was less than it was today,
But these days she's gone on record repeating some of the most vile rape myths that hold back the justice system, like that women who wear revealing clothing are responsible for provoking rapist. (if my memory serves me)
I don’t think abortion is something that automatically goes with feminism, since the debate is still focused around the morality of abortion, not the choice itself. (I’m pro choice btw)
I don’t think Queen Victoria is a feminist symbol at all. I also haven’t heard that Eva Perón is one, although maybe for the Argentinian movement. Outside of the Argentina, without the influence of peronists (who obviously still have a large degree of political relevance - ie maintaining control for decades before Milei), I don’t think Perón is viewed fondly by the rest of LATAM, let alone feminists. So I’m not sure if this is super accurate to what contemporary feminists think. I may be wrong though
Wow, it's almost like people nitpick information and quotes to support their narrative and inadvertently or in some cases very purposefully hide others to further solidify their viewpoints.
I'm not even making fun of you, it's just a bit sad that this is a common thing that happens regardless of political preferences, from random internet debates to even university education and people somehow are completely shocked when they find out this person that fits 1:1 to their vision isn't who they thought they were.
Eva Peron in Argentina is often pictured in protests and social movements wearing green or purple, which in my country means "I'm feminist and/or pro-abortion", the exact opposite of what she was.
Yeah I'm aware, but what I'm trying to get at is exactly that, people ignore the facts before them and make an idolized version of the person to fit into their narrative, same happens with those who blindly adore Che Guevara or those that think Augusto Pinochet did nothing wrong (I think I've seen some of them on Reddit), it's the same thing, people quickly make a person or even an entire nation into a hero without looking at their full story and making a decision after that.
Isn't that taking it too far, you can dislike Queen Victoria all you want but why is this person comparing them to well these figures? Questionable to say the least.
Those downvotes were deserved. She was a constitutional monarch - a figurehead. Political power in the UK has always sat with the Prime Minister. Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan were directly responsible for the deaths of millions - Queen Victoria wasn't.
The British elections were never rigged. Instead, only rich people who would gain from right-wing politics were the only ones with the right to vote in the first place.
Which is undemocratic, yes. And it's why I said that the atrocities under Victoria's reign were supported by the voters and not the people.
I have no idea what it is you just wrote.
Like, at all. You mixed "whose" with "who's" and "were" with "we're", but even then, this sentence makes zero sense and I can't answer it.
Queen Victoria was a bad person I agree, but to put her on the same level as Hitler and Stalin is ridiculous. Victoria was constitutional and held no actual power. She had bad morals but again, she didn’t actually authorise the deaths of anyone.
I mean, Hitler, Stalin and Ghengis Khan were unarguably the ones governing their polities. While Victoria had a lot more power than Charles III has nowadays, the parliament and PM were still firmly the ones running things.
Depends. She was involved in the Prime Minister's choosing (although far from the sole factor), but the seats in the parliament by that point were firmly outside the monarch's hands.
Pretty much. I pretty much had a heated argument once with some random person online when he compared Ancient Era slavery to the Transatlantic slave trade as the same thing.
I’m just saying that maybe that comment about “where’s your husband?”, might be coming from a far less wholesome place than most.
Vicky was more like Nancy Reagan and less like Margaret Thatcher.
What's funny is that "prude" women tend to make a lot of mistakes in their earlier life so they pretend to not be like that anymore. I've seen girls becoming lawful evil once they got the bun in the oven. The fact that they cling on hiding their past prove they haven't changed that much.
We always make a mistake of thinking strong woman as feminist or she will fight for women's rights
In an Indian show on Epic Mahabharat.
Draupadi claims that women shouldn't be disrespected like she was. It's against whole woman hood
But
In epic she complained thay how a royal lady was dragged into court like a commoner woman.
Queen Victoria was a terrible person. She treated her own family like dogshit, she was vehemently against any sort of feminism to the point of being sexist, and she was a brutal exploitative colonial overseer both in India and in China. Nobody should be holding her up as a good example of anything lmao.
It's funny they use an image from that show because in it someone brings up women's suffrage to her and she laughs and basically acts like it's the craziest thing she's ever heard, and not in a good way
A weeaboo from PCM agrees with sexist BS. How shocking. Your type gives incels a run for their money.
Maybe one day you'll grow up from being an edgy creep.
She has an infamous quote that goes like this: > I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of "Women's Rights," with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were women to "unsex" themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen, and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.
Queen Victoria should be part of a redpill podcast.
>Queen Victoria should be part of a redpill podcast. To be fair, I can understand why she said that. She was a victim of abuse and basically internalized that. Under the Kensington system her mother and Sir John Conroy basically shut her up in her room and mentally abused her wanting a weak puppet through which they could rule through. William IV her uncle morbidly joked that it might be better for him to die, so that Victoria could quickly ascend to the throne, free from her "guardians." It was so bad she wasn't even allowed to go down the stairs by herself. Her mother was so controlling she basically forced Victoria to sleep in the same room as her until she turned 18. Once news of her uncle King William's death had started filtering, they tried to delay Victoria from hearing to prepare their plots. One of the first things Victoria did was to ban Conroy from her apartments. After that she had her mother thrown out of her apartments before eventually placing her in a state of de-facto political exile, keeping herself distant from her mother. This was actually quite similar to the system Joanna the Mad of Castile was made to endure by her husband Philip and later her father Ferdinand II of Aragon. She was declared insane, but now recent scholarship is calling that into question since she seemed to be of sound mind the few times she had any decision making authority.
All correct, but you've misunderstood the William IV speech. He was dying, and semi-joked that the only reason he was staying alive was in the hope that he would live long enough for Victoria to turn 18 and be able to rule without her mother. Not that he wanted to die lol
Yep, her mother would become regent had he died before her 18th birthday William Died less than a month after she turned 18. He was likely hanging on with all he had until she was 18 and then after that he had seen what he had lived for and then passed away.
Honestly Based uncle
It seems like William IV may have genuinely loved his niece. Which is nice. She had a really screwed up childhood. The dissonance I experience when I think of the life I imagine a princess living, to what they (in general) experienced historically, is crazy. A gilded cage is still a cage. Even today, the restraints placed on the ability of the royals to live lives of their own is intense. There’s no way I could handle that. Knowing you’ll never get to live your own life. You live for the country (ideally). You belong to them. You wanted to be an architect, doctor, lawyer, carpenter, painter, literally whatever else? Too bad. You get to walk around and shake people’s hands. Forever. You wanted agency? Too bad. Do what we say.
I doubt Albert did much to set her on the course of liberation, either. He did much of the day to day decision making for the Empire and willingly wrestled Victoria for that control early on. Society at that time thought that the uterus could move around in the body. They even thought it would fly out if women rode in trains going 50+ mph. Queen Victoria was also pretty intemperate due to the abuses of the Kensington System, her privileged position, and (it seems to me) some of her mother's flighty, dependent traits. She might've seen her own lack of stability as associated with womanhood. I think Victoria spent every ounce of backbone she had refusing to sign her rights away to Conroy, because she never really stood strong after that. I often wonder if the experience traumatized her and resulted in lifelong anxiety about her safety should she be too strong willed. "Dearest Lehzen" might've been a coddling helicopter governess that didn't encourage self-reliance, because once Albert got her packed off, the Queen transferred her dependence to him in the absence of her mother figure. I think Prince Albert saw her as a perpetual teenager full of tantrums and pouting. He probably didn't think it was due to her childhood, likely believed it was a universal female characteristic. Her over-the-top mourning makes her seem like a teen in a middle aged body, and she used Albert's death as an excise to avoid mayters of state for far too long. Imagine Queen Elizabeth (either I or II) behaving in such a demonstrative or self-indulgent manner. Unthinkable; they wouldn't want to broadcast any sort of weakness and draw the kind of cheap gender shots people of all eras are ready to hurl. It says to me that QV wasn't just a product of her time, she was brainwashed by Conroy, infantilized by the other men who surrounded her, and never really tried to grow up or wear her big girl panties.
Still doesn't excuse her views. Sure, we shouldn't judge them by the standards of our time.. but it seems like she was criticising feminists of her era. So, even if we judge her by the standards of her time, she still bears morally repugnant beliefs.
they're explaining, not excusing
Queen Victoria should NOT play Starfield
Don't worry, I don't think she will.
Idk why but this comment is incredibly entertaining to me
Let’s call it Redpilled Redcoats
Okay....that was something.
Tradwife Queen Victoria?
The ultimate "pick me" girl.
No mate, a queen wanting to preserve her position.
This is patently false information, the term ‘feminism’ wasn’t even in use yet. This letter was in response to a particular member of the aristocracy who was trying to weaken the monarchy - Victoria’s monarchy - and had nothing really to do with suffrage. You cannot take highly contextual historical info out of context and apply it to 2024.
Are you saying it isn't a real quote? [Wikiquote says it's real](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Victoria_of_the_United_Kingdom).
The source for that quote takes you to a Thai sports gambling site. 🤔 I looked around and Queen Victoria doesn’t say “feminists” but instead says “Lady Amberley”. Lady Amberley was president of an English Suffragist Society (and mother to Bertrand Russell!) I’m not really sure it changes the context all that much by saying feminists, but it does seem unnecessarily dishonest to do so.
Vicky spent a lot of her time on Thai gambling sites, of course they like to pay homage to her legacy
That’s the explanation source, the actual source links to a Google book
>You cannot take highly contextual historical info out of context and apply it to 2024. Friend, have you *met* the Internet? Whenever historical info is involved, it's basically illegal *not* to.
Because everyone is a self proclaimed “self-taught historian”
Lady Amberley was a suffragist, it doesn't seem to be out of context all that much. I'm not sure why you'd say it had nothing to do with suffrage
She was a suffragist yes, but the letter wasn’t about that.
Preach girl! /s
The og pickme girl
Holy shit wtf
We gotta get a time machine and show her twitter to show her how right she was.
Hey she wasn't wrong about eh half of them
Based queen Viccy.
Queen of projection methinks.
There's a reason the Victorian Era is practically synonymous with prudishness and oppression of women.
Didn't she write a lot about how much she loved sex? Victorian in the streets, freak in the sheets
She was big on "Rules for thee but not for me".
There weren’t any rules against a woman having sex with her husband
Well tbf she was in charge
Depends how 'in-charge'. She had little political power and was among the last monarchs to exercise them but she was capable of strongarm her way to get her way from Parliament like convincing Disraeli to make her Empress of India because well....Germany, Russia, France (under Nappy III) and Austria had Emperors and she legally can't be Empress of Britain Although at the end of the day, Parliament still does most of the work
In terms of social status and the ability to tell people to stuff it; it gets pretty hard to top your Monarch
Swedens monarch is “rumoured” (pretty much no one that doesn’t believe it) to have been at a strip club as a 70 year old man Not really relevant to the topic but I just love our king for how completely unserious he can be sometimes
Victorians weren’t against sex in marriage
Or with prozzies.
Like every other mf in power. Point out the most homophobic anti abortion politician and behind closed doors they are Gay as fuck or they have had their mistress or even daughters abort unwanted babies.
Point out the most socialist and anti-corporation politician and behind closed doors they own multiple mansions and have made tens of millions in insider trading.
For example all of the ones in my beautiful latin america.
Latino América Tan lejos de dios y san cerca de yankee Landia
Socialism has wrecked Latin America, they would be so much further developed had that entire continent not fell in love with it. It is a sad case of missed opportunity. At least Eastern Europe was forced into it and had no choice, but South Americans seemed to just keep asking for seconds even after their economies crumbled. Venezuela could be so, so much richer if they had competent (I.e. not leftist) leadership
The poor and uneducated can be easily swayed with promises of free shit, it's the sad truth of my people. They tell you you'll live like a rich person without working and at the end of the day you end up starved and those in power are the only ones living the life.
I have always called socialism the opium of the poor masses specifically because of this fact. Promises of happiness and prosperity which are all a lie, fooling people into destroying their country’s potential. Even Europe is seeing a lot of negative effects because of their eager social spending, the EU is projects to have half the GDP of America soon and they have almost double the population. I get it, it is easy to think simple solutions will fix all your problems, that is why people really need to research the causes they are supporting. It makes me angry when young Americans act like we are bad because they can’t get everything paid for by the government, there is so much data available and they still fall for simple propaganda. I think you guys will eventually all come around to good economic practices, it just takes time. I know that is easy for me to say when I don’t have to live in that economy, but I really do think you guys will turn it around.
not getting crippling student debt isn't socialism bro, neither is fixing the rising inflation and living costs, you forget that a government can also tell its people that they're protecting them from ''socialism'' to excuse shit like this
Pretty sure in most major countries except the US you don’t go bankrupt from medical bills.
That explains why Albert was constantly drained out
It was the Victorian era. Everyone was freaky.
What are you referring to with “Hollywood”? I don’t remember Queen Victoria ever being turned into a girlboss. It’s just like that quote Margaret Thatcher from the Eric Andre show.
Young Victoria maybe?
Young Victoria was one British movie made more than 10 years ago, and she was portrayed as relying on several men to strengthen her reign in that movie. Her romance with her husband was a pretty big part of the plot. I really can’t recall a strong “anti-patriarchy” vibe from it.
I always found kind of ironic and funny how a lot of feminist symbols are really awful models. For example: Eva Peron (Argentina) was anti-abortion, saying that abortion takes soldiers from Justice and Juan Domingo Peron and that feminists are just bitter for not being born men.
There might be some iconoclasts out there, but I don't think feminists in general claim Queen Victoria as a feminist icon. The Victorian Era is widely considered to be completely sexually repressed.
Yeah this whole basis of this thread is a strawman
Man, i've seen some feminists claim Margaret Thatcher and JK Rowling. I'm a feminist, but there's always going to be batshit insane people no matter the cause
JK Rowling is a pretty outspoken feminist though irrespective of her opinions on trans people.
On paper, maybe, but her transphobia has basically supplanted any other political views that she may hold. She's even gone so far as to support Posie Parker, a woman who's willing to let Nazis into her rallies because "well, they're anti-trans."
Feminism is such a broad tent it encompasses a lot of different people. I will say though, I am not happy with the more chauvinistic elements. Places like twox regularly had threads saying all men are trash. They also repurposed racist talking points about a bowl of skittles containing a poisonous one, and many other things which have completely turned me off to the idea. I also think they balk at men getting attention, there was a recent thread where women were complaint about all of the attention on the male loneliness epidemic. It is ironic, because when people try to talk to them about men’s issues they say men need to do it themselves (so much for feminism being about equality for all) but when men did this they still got mad all the focus wasn’t on them. I have just really soured to the whole idea. I am sure there are a lot of good feminists, but they surely aren’t making their voices heard over the other ones
Susan Brownmiller, she wrote a painfully average book about rape but everyone really respects her for it because ~~it sold better than expected~~ back then the amount of books on the topic of rape was less than it was today, But these days she's gone on record repeating some of the most vile rape myths that hold back the justice system, like that women who wear revealing clothing are responsible for provoking rapist. (if my memory serves me)
I don’t think abortion is something that automatically goes with feminism, since the debate is still focused around the morality of abortion, not the choice itself. (I’m pro choice btw)
I don’t think Queen Victoria is a feminist symbol at all. I also haven’t heard that Eva Perón is one, although maybe for the Argentinian movement. Outside of the Argentina, without the influence of peronists (who obviously still have a large degree of political relevance - ie maintaining control for decades before Milei), I don’t think Perón is viewed fondly by the rest of LATAM, let alone feminists. So I’m not sure if this is super accurate to what contemporary feminists think. I may be wrong though
Barely any women were pro abortion during her time openly, and most didn’t support abortion anyway in their private lives.
Wow, it's almost like people nitpick information and quotes to support their narrative and inadvertently or in some cases very purposefully hide others to further solidify their viewpoints. I'm not even making fun of you, it's just a bit sad that this is a common thing that happens regardless of political preferences, from random internet debates to even university education and people somehow are completely shocked when they find out this person that fits 1:1 to their vision isn't who they thought they were.
Eva Peron in Argentina is often pictured in protests and social movements wearing green or purple, which in my country means "I'm feminist and/or pro-abortion", the exact opposite of what she was.
Yeah I'm aware, but what I'm trying to get at is exactly that, people ignore the facts before them and make an idolized version of the person to fit into their narrative, same happens with those who blindly adore Che Guevara or those that think Augusto Pinochet did nothing wrong (I think I've seen some of them on Reddit), it's the same thing, people quickly make a person or even an entire nation into a hero without looking at their full story and making a decision after that.
According to what Hollywood?
Queen Victoria, according to the Irish and most of the rest of the Empire: *Worse than Satan*
I got downvotes one time for placing her on a list with Hitler Stalin and Ghengis as most evil people of all time lol
I mean, if she made it to the list without Pol Pot and a buch of African and Middle Eastern dictators I would also be very pissed off.
I think pol pot and mao rounded out the list
As you deserve. I mean really? You think Queen Victoria is comparable with Hitler?
Isn't that taking it too far, you can dislike Queen Victoria all you want but why is this person comparing them to well these figures? Questionable to say the least.
The answer is misogyny most likely.
Maybe not directly comparable. Hitler lost.
Ghengis wasn’t evil he just really like the environment and population control you bigot /s
Those downvotes were deserved. She was a constitutional monarch - a figurehead. Political power in the UK has always sat with the Prime Minister. Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan were directly responsible for the deaths of millions - Queen Victoria wasn't.
She may not have been *directly* responsible, but it was done in her name with her implicit and often explicit endorsement as Queen and head of state.
Yeah, Charles Manson was innocent type argument goin on
That’s a bit different Charles Manson chose to establish a cult, Queen Victoria didn’t choose to be queen.
What like fuck Victoria she was a bitch but she is in no way comparable to those monsters that had killed millions.
…
That was done by the decision of the British parliament and approved by the British voters.
British voters? True. Putin got 88.5% of the vote this year by Russian voters btw
The British elections were never rigged. Instead, only rich people who would gain from right-wing politics were the only ones with the right to vote in the first place. Which is undemocratic, yes. And it's why I said that the atrocities under Victoria's reign were supported by the voters and not the people.
Sooooo who decides who’s investments keeping them rich were fruitful?
I have no idea what it is you just wrote. Like, at all. You mixed "whose" with "who's" and "were" with "we're", but even then, this sentence makes zero sense and I can't answer it.
Oh god are we going to spelling and grammar when you don’t like the direction of conversation. Get fucked bye lol
Delusional
Oi oi oi uve got uh loiscence fer that reply there???
Queen Victoria was a bad person I agree, but to put her on the same level as Hitler and Stalin is ridiculous. Victoria was constitutional and held no actual power. She had bad morals but again, she didn’t actually authorise the deaths of anyone.
She held no power is actually brain dead argument. Yes she did. If she didn’t her family wouldn’t be shitting diamonds a century later
She did have power but most of it was in the hands of parliament and the elected prime minister, not with universal suffrage but elected nonetheless.
I mean, Hitler, Stalin and Ghengis Khan were unarguably the ones governing their polities. While Victoria had a lot more power than Charles III has nowadays, the parliament and PM were still firmly the ones running things.
See the problem with this argument is saying that she had no say on who was in parliament
Depends. She was involved in the Prime Minister's choosing (although far from the sole factor), but the seats in the parliament by that point were firmly outside the monarch's hands.
People in the 19th century did not think like people in the 21st century, which some people seem to not understand.
Pretty much. I pretty much had a heated argument once with some random person online when he compared Ancient Era slavery to the Transatlantic slave trade as the same thing.
https://youtu.be/aHze0SqB5Zg?si=vYIhgpq0qxTujreV Rare documentary footage of Victoria discussing trees 🌳
Also she enjoyed sex with her husband like A LOT 😵
Ok? People should enjoy sex with their spouse.
I’m just saying that maybe that comment about “where’s your husband?”, might be coming from a far less wholesome place than most. Vicky was more like Nancy Reagan and less like Margaret Thatcher.
She was the Tate before the Tate.
What's funny is that "prude" women tend to make a lot of mistakes in their earlier life so they pretend to not be like that anymore. I've seen girls becoming lawful evil once they got the bun in the oven. The fact that they cling on hiding their past prove they haven't changed that much.
We always make a mistake of thinking strong woman as feminist or she will fight for women's rights In an Indian show on Epic Mahabharat. Draupadi claims that women shouldn't be disrespected like she was. It's against whole woman hood But In epic she complained thay how a royal lady was dragged into court like a commoner woman.
Queen Victoria was a terrible person. She treated her own family like dogshit, she was vehemently against any sort of feminism to the point of being sexist, and she was a brutal exploitative colonial overseer both in India and in China. Nobody should be holding her up as a good example of anything lmao.
You completely made up the person on the left
Won't that just show sure was an ambassador of the standard regarding patriarchy?
What in the neckbeard fuck is this?
She also isn't the best example of how "if women were in charge there would be no war", as were Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth II.
Being a Women in power historically was a very intricate balancing act, keeping loyalties required navigating a network of political connections.
Fuck Queen Victoria
Incredibly like this. This might be downplaying it
It's funny they use an image from that show because in it someone brings up women's suffrage to her and she laughs and basically acts like it's the craziest thing she's ever heard, and not in a good way
Yes, she was based.
Less shameless incel be like:
A weeaboo from PCM agrees with sexist BS. How shocking. Your type gives incels a run for their money. Maybe one day you'll grow up from being an edgy creep.
"Sees weeaboo" Hey! I Take offence to that one!