Maybe because women were seen as inferior fighters by the British men at that time? Russians had no problems sending women to fight in WWI.
PS. Women and Men did not get the _same_ rights to vote at the same time. 1. The act for the right to vote didn't happen until WWI was nearly over, and 2. Only women over 30 (with heavy restrictions most of which tied to being married to a man) were allowed to vote when that bill was passed in 1918. The bill passed in 1918 allowed _all_ men over 21 to vote, and if you fought in the war, it was reduced to 19+. So saying, "No strings attached" is completely incorrect. They couldn't even fight to gain their voting rights if they wanted to since the bill only allowed for men 19/20 to gain those rights if they fought.
The article even states that if you had read more than the first paragraph.
Edit: Also you act as though women did _nothing_ in WWI to deserve the right to vote. Yes they weren't forced to fight in the front lines and did not die by the millions, but they weren't exactly at home twiddling their thumbs waiting for the outcome. They were in factories, hospitals and doing non-combatant roles to help the war effort. Is that any less a contribution especially given the attitude in those days that women shouldn't be fighting?
First off, don't quote me out of context. I reference their contribution as helping in the war effort at home, and not because they were abstained from fighting. Maybe that's not what you were trying to write, but you seems to imply that considering how you wrote it.
Second off, "any less a contribution" does not mean I'm saying they are equal contributions. It means that even though they weren't fighting, they were doing some part in helping people on the front lines.
Oh I see, it was a figure of speech not intended to be a comparison. I see greater than/less than primarily as comparison operators.
If all you're trying to say is that women did more than nothing during WWII then obviously that can't be argued. Grandparent comment has been deleted but I'm guessing it had something to do with a comparison of contributions?
BTW it's not quoting you out of context when the context is like 200 pixels away, I quoted you for emphasis and brevity trusting that anybody who wanted the full quote had complete access to it.
