Not all Canadians had the right to vote after this. Indigenous men and women were barred from voting. Racial minorities were barred from voting. In fact, it wasn't until 1950 that all Canadians were given the right to vote.
@@NebulaTheOfficial Wow, this takes me back. I was watching that for a grade 10 history project. But I don't know what you're talking about, you can set the video to 1080p
The famous five later started a movement to make women who thy deemed fit sterile. They chose women who couldn’t have kids just because they thought the mothers would pass on unfit traits. Know the full story next time ❤️
@LARA ELMUGAMMER they did help gain rights for women, but primarily for white women. They sterilized disabled and coloured women as well. They also did a lot of harm to indigenous peoples
I feel so annoyed because I need t make a video for my final school project about the same topic and it has to be 2 mins long and this is just perfect. I wish I could somehow replicate this but not make it look like I copied >:(
Ironic isn't it? Edwards v AG Canada was in 1929. It was in 1958 (almost 30 years after) that the U.K. commenced the Life Peers Act, allowing women into the House of Lords.
Fighting for the rights to vote is absolutely noble. I commend the Famous Five for their work and resolve to progress women's rights and roles in the society. However, the narrative at the beginning of the video is not entirely fair as it does not accurately take the value system of the past into account and the reasons for their values. By applying today's moral standard and painting men as tyrannical patriarchs creates a divisive wedge between people and augments "group-think" culture. Please consider how to frame the narratives in order to help the younger generations in understanding the collaboration between men and women throughout history as opposed to pitch people against one another. Thank you.
Okay, I'm still a bit confused about what the definition of "person" was back then since I doubt it's the same as nowadays and even now I don't super understand what it technically means. It's not an individual because otherwise animals would be considered "persons" it's not whether or not they had value as there's a reason why "women and children" first was a saying along with "they killed the women and children". So it doesn't have to do with value or if it does then it's very nebulous on the concept so did a "person" literally just mean someone who had the right to vote? Or was it something else?
I think it means someone who was independent and had rights. The ability to work, vote and take care of themselves. At this time women, like children were under men and were like their property. Though this is my guess.
The autogenerated English subtitles are fairly accurate. You can also find information at www.famou5.ca. The story is written about here: www.famou5.ca/the-story
Not 100% accurate, but it makes life seem even harder than it was for Canadian women and the need for feminism even greater. So who cares that women were allowed to vote as long as they owned property, as it was the law that only people who owned property could vote. Nevermind the fact that men were only given the vote because they thought it was fair that men should have a say in whether Canada should participate in a draft for world war 1. How long was the scope of time when only men had the right to vote in Canada? 10 years or so? Just go ahead and make it seem like hundreds, that'll make the girls if the nation proud to be Canadian! But hey, any historical inacuracies that make women look good is worth lying over and over and over about.
but women were not allowed to own a property, were they ? "men should have a say in whether Canada should participate in a draft for world war 1" - and women did not have sons, brothers, husbands to worry about being drafted ? you are speaking as if women were irrelevant to draft
Obviously we can tell that you aren't a feminist. If you're a true Canadian, you'd understand that women at that time basically had NO rights. So the right to vote that was recieved was a huge thing, and what you're saying is basically that women shouldn't have been given the right to vote, or that what this video is talking about is inaccurate? Well, it may be inaccurate but that last sentence was very rude.
This video is mainly about the persons case than the right to vote women back then were property and were basically slaves. They had to do what they were told and they had to shut up when they needed to speak. They had to stay in the house and do their "duties". They used to even sell then back in the day!
My daughter is the Great Great Grandaughter of Emily Murphy, and she is SO proud of her heritage!
Who only found this because of school wanting them to write about one of the famou5?
Me
Me
Me
Me
Me
Not all Canadians had the right to vote after this.
Indigenous men and women were barred from voting.
Racial minorities were barred from voting.
In fact, it wasn't until 1950 that all Canadians were given the right to vote.
This case is about the right to join the Senate. Not to vote.
Thank you to these women for helping to make Canada a more equal place. 💜
hi this is my online school work anyone else?
Yep
Me
me
I came to watch this because we have to do a project one one of them for school during corona
Bloom sing saaammmeee
Saameeeeee
Same
same
Same thing!
Anybody from school
Husky Pupz what's up
Hi zach sub
To my channel
Just watching tv yo in your I have one mission what happpend after you cut the video
Husky Pupz I did a long time ago
Husky Pupz my dad yelled at me and told me to delete the video but my brother did it... I got the video back though
saying this from the depth of my heart this story inspired me a lot
Thank you for this lovely video, Professor Noggins Game got us interested and were delighted to find this informative clip.
Anyone forced to be here lmao
yes
Yep
mhmm
Yep .-.
Yep
Wtf, how does this have high quality animation, narration, and voice acting?
Is this taken from somewhere.
Yea cuz 240p is hight quality
@@NebulaTheOfficial
Wow, this takes me back. I was watching that for a grade 10 history project. But I don't know what you're talking about, you can set the video to 1080p
Chris J hmm i cant lol
@@NebulaTheOfficial
That's odd, maybe your internet is really slow right now?
Chris J No doubt about that because I’m on Copper
THANK YOU FAMOUS 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thankß
The famous five later started a movement to make women who thy deemed fit sterile. They chose women who couldn’t have kids just because they thought the mothers would pass on unfit traits. Know the full story next time ❤️
@LARA ELMUGAMMER they did help gain rights for women, but primarily for white women. They sterilized disabled and coloured women as well. They also did a lot of harm to indigenous peoples
@LARA ELMUGAMMER they made it possible for women to have rights
my teacher: hipy hopy who this is mine now
this made me cry
I feel so annoyed because I need t make a video for my final school project about the same topic and it has to be 2 mins long and this is just perfect. I wish I could somehow replicate this but not make it look like I copied >:(
Why did you like your own comment
Because I agree with myself xD
Edit: jk I didn't like my own comment.
@@NebulaTheOfficial why not
@@NebulaTheOfficial just because there’s one comment doesn’t mean he/her liked it
Thank you, Famous Five! Without you, i wouldn't have freedom!
Well the famous five also contributed to racism against Indigenous peoples, and the sterilization of many women of colour, and disabled women
@@sheerazmalik8247 oh wow
Didn't know that
@@pmshrimp It’s ok, we learn new things every day. Just make sure you don’t get blinded by a single story
Too bad Emily Murphy and Nellie McClung believed in Eugenics
Ironic isn't it? Edwards v AG Canada was in 1929. It was in 1958 (almost 30 years after) that the U.K. commenced the Life Peers Act, allowing women into the House of Lords.
my favourite part was at 2:03 well it started on 2:03
Anyone from school?
Fun fact: all the comments are about school
Fighting for the rights to vote is absolutely noble. I commend the Famous Five for their work and resolve to progress women's rights and roles in the society. However, the narrative at the beginning of the video is not entirely fair as it does not accurately take the value system of the past into account and the reasons for their values.
By applying today's moral standard and painting men as tyrannical patriarchs creates a divisive wedge between people and augments "group-think" culture. Please consider how to frame the narratives in order to help the younger generations in understanding the collaboration between men and women throughout history as opposed to pitch people against one another. Thank you.
are we all here for school
Okay, I'm still a bit confused about what the definition of "person" was back then since I doubt it's the same as nowadays and even now I don't super understand what it technically means. It's not an individual because otherwise animals would be considered "persons" it's not whether or not they had value as there's a reason why "women and children" first was a saying along with "they killed the women and children". So it doesn't have to do with value or if it does then it's very nebulous on the concept so did a "person" literally just mean someone who had the right to vote? Or was it something else?
I think it means someone who was independent and had rights. The ability to work, vote and take care of themselves. At this time women, like children were under men and were like their property. Though this is my guess.
Can someone please send the same conversation in written form?
The autogenerated English subtitles are fairly accurate. You can also find information at www.famou5.ca. The story is written about here: www.famou5.ca/the-story
What's the song you used?
I saw this in school
based
omg so quirky
grade 5 was the shit
Women ☕️
men ☕
s c h o o l
Hi
bruh
Hey ephram
Not 100% accurate, but it makes life seem even harder than it was for Canadian women and the need for feminism even greater. So who cares that women were allowed to vote as long as they owned property, as it was the law that only people who owned property could vote. Nevermind the fact that men were only given the vote because they thought it was fair that men should have a say in whether Canada should participate in a draft for world war 1. How long was the scope of time when only men had the right to vote in Canada? 10 years or so? Just go ahead and make it seem like hundreds, that'll make the girls if the nation proud to be Canadian!
But hey, any historical inacuracies that make women look good is worth lying over and over and over about.
but women were not allowed to own a property, were they ?
"men should have a say in whether Canada should participate in a draft for world war 1" - and women did not have sons, brothers, husbands to worry about being drafted ? you are speaking as if women were irrelevant to draft
Obviously we can tell that you aren't a feminist.
If you're a true Canadian, you'd understand that women at that time basically had NO rights.
So the right to vote that was recieved was a huge thing, and what you're saying is basically that women shouldn't have been given the right to vote, or that what this video is talking about is inaccurate?
Well, it may be inaccurate but that last sentence was very rude.
This video is mainly about the persons case than the right to vote women back then were property and were basically slaves. They had to do what they were told and they had to shut up when they needed to speak. They had to stay in the house and do their "duties". They used to even sell then back in the day!
boi this sucks
no ti doesn't
gvfuhsfkhgzvhjdgascvkjvgvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vhwytgfystdfuytweduysaytauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuds
no u
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu