Dr. Anna Howard Shaw, President of the National Suffrage Association, said... "I am not gratified, but the vote was better than I had expected. We now have an alignment from which we can move onward. It is now a political and national question, for Congress would not take up a local or sectional matter in this way. It can never be said again that it is a local or partisan question. The National House of Representatives has discussed suffrage and has voted upon it...."According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Josephine Dodge founded this National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage in 1911 because she "believed that woman suffrage would decrease women’s work in communities and their ability to effect societal reforms." The NAOWS had a newsletter called Woman’s Protest (retitled Woman Patriot in 1918) that "continued to be published through the 1920s, generally opposing the work of feminists and liberal women’s groups."
Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge, President of the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage, said... "The deliberations of the House of Representatives today were, of course, of the greatest importance because the final vote was such as to persuade the country forever that the National Congress will not undertake to dictate to the various States what they shall do with their franchise. In my opinion today's work in the House demonstrated that from now on the wave of hysteria in which the suffragists have indulged or of which they have been the victims will be on the wane."
Here's the Wikipedia article "Anti-suffragism," which says:
Anti-suffragism was not limited to conservative elements. The anarchist Emma Goldman opposed suffragism on the grounds that women were more inclined toward legal enforcement of morality (as in the Women's Christian Temperance Union), that it was a diversion from more important struggles, and that suffrage would ultimately not make a difference. She also said that activists ought to advocate revolution rather than seek greater privileges within an inherently unjust system. Progressives criticized suffrage in the Utah Territory as a cynical Mormon ploy....Here's a postcard from 1915:
पोस्ट्स
३९ टिप्पण्या:
Right, women voting, to the extent it differs from how men vote already, just adds stupidity.
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." Emma Goldman
She's all right
And yet at that moment, about 50% of the women in the US had the right to vote.
States had been adding the right since 1865 when Wyoming put it in their Constitution.
Utah, that bastion of misogynistic Mormons gave them the right in 1870.
John Henry
Still not sure its a good idea.
Thus began the presidential candidate's evolution from boring businessman to surrogate boyfriend/father figure.
They were right and now we live in a trivial country country governed by cutieboys.
We were wiser back then.
You know, I think the suffragettes argued that the vote of women would be useful to help clean up politics.
In 1890, the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association merged to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). The new organization's leaders were more pragmatic than their predecessors. Instead of arguing for suffrage in terms of equal rights, they increasingly emphasized arguments based on utility, contending that the vote for women was necessary to clean up politics and fight social evil.
Does anyone think that they succeeded?
It was those damned republicans again. Why do they hate women?
For 86 Dem 72 Rep 3 progressive republicans
Against, 171 dems 33 republicans
Oops. I mean why do the Democrats hate women so?
John Henry
Since that vote was granted have we noted: A lack of domestic and foreign tyrants; Less crime (Especially among and by Blacks); Improved educational scores by our (Public school) students; An increase in the quality of public arts and entertainment; Etc.????
Moose said...
Still not sure its a good idea.
At this point I don't see how there can be any uncertainty on this issue.
By "fight social evil" I assume that they meant Prohibition, and by extension, Prohibition's bastard grandchild, the War On Drugs. How's that workin' out for us?
SJ said...
In 1890, the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association merged to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA)
I can never remember: which of them allows the designated hitter?
1. Voting is overrated.
2. Whether it's good for women to have the vote depends on whether you agree with the type of society that women are going to favor in the voting booth. I don't (many here would agree with me), but many do (probably more).
Interesting that Emma Goldman was against women's suffrage because she didn't think women would support her issues.
SJ said...You know, I think the suffragettes argued that the vote of women would be useful to help clean up politics.
Well, sure. Feminists always think women will be the prefect embodiment of...whatever. Like if women ran the world, there would be no wars. Which certainly would have come as a surprise to Queen Elizabeth or Catherine the Great.
The names say it all:
Dr. Anna Howard Shaw --- Suffragette
Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge --- Anti-Suffragette.
Women pretty much have everything they ever fought for, and they are still stoking the fires over the evil patriarchy.
I can never remember: which of them allows the designated hitter?
Neither; that was the Suffrage Association of American Women. Splitters!
It's not women voting that is a problem per se. It was when Democrats noticed that unmarried women vote for them, that we got measures that attenuate the family.
"For 86 Dem 72 Rep 3 progressive republicans
Against, 171 dems 33 republicans"
The GOP's War on Women began that day because the 33 republicans who voted against caused the measure to fail by 43 votes.
Still not sure its a good idea.
I don't think that the problem is women voting, per se, but rather, single women voting. As evidenced by their voting Obama into office, twice, single women seem more likely than almost anyone else to vote for their own self-interests more than the interests of the country, as a whole. Yes, this is a gross generalization, but who can forget the Julia commercials, and the like, in the 2012 election. That was some of the most blatant vote buying that I have seen. And, single women fell for it. Why get married, if they have Uncle Sugar, and Barack Obama, paying for their having children out of wedlock?
That said, I grew up in an environment that exalted suffrage. My mother had an ancestress agitating for the vote back at least as early as the 1850s. We still have the letters from her and her sisters back in Ohio agitating for emancipation, suffrage, and temperance during that time. (And, yes, they were the prototypical Republican voters of the time that put Lincoln in office). Notably for the leftists here who are into historical revisionism about Lincoln and Dem racism, they based their support of these causes on what we would today consider fairly fundamentalist Christianity.
Maybe I should have qualified my previous post a bit more - that Blue State single women maybe shouldn't have the franchise. Leave it up to the states, and a lot of Red State women would still be able to vote, but maybe fewer Blue state women, given the level of racism and sexism that you tend to see in those states. And, maybe if that had happened, we wouldn't have had the anti-American, incompetent, Barack Obama, or the philandering Bill Clinton, as Presidents.
Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge: "Where suffrage lost me"
It doesn't matter if it is "good" or "bad" to let women vote. They are citizens, and thus should have an equal say in government. That's really the end of the discussion, IMO.
Now feminism is about microagressions and trigger warnings and "free" birth control. Clearly it's gone from a legitimate movement to a farce.
They need something to argue about though since life is great for the ladies, but they need to keep filling the seats.
Was watching a movie a while ago called Matewan, about coal miners striking in 1920. And the coal companies send in the detective agency goons to start killing those pushing for unions. ANd after watching that movie you realize that unions were necessary. IN THE 20's.
Now though the unions have long outlived their usefulness. So too with suffragette feminism versus modern day Feminism.
Revenant wrote:
It doesn't matter if it is "good" or "bad" to let women vote. They are citizens, and thus should have an equal say in government. That's really the end of the discussion, IMO.
I'm not sure off too many people who, in this day, would suggest otherwise.
Suffrage succotash!
In my opinion today's work in the House demonstrated that from now on the wave of hysteria in which the suffragists have indulged or of which they have been the victims will be on the wane."
Let the record show, the wave of hysteria continues unto this day.
When feminism has turned into "you must love Lena Dunham or you are a neanderthal", you know it's gone off the rails.
"Votes for women, votes was the cry!"
But on the Titanic, when death was nigh,
Boats for women, boats was the cry!"
(from a letter to the editor of the New York World newspaper)
I ran across this in John Fiske's 'Civil Government in the United States' (1902). It is an interesting speculation on suffrage.
The historical reason why the suffrage has so generally been restricted to men is perhaps to be sought in the conditions under which voting originated. In primeval times voting was probably adopted as a substitute for fighting. The smaller and presumably weaker party yielded to the larger without an actual trial of physical strength ; heads were counted instead of being broken. Accordingly it was only the warriors who became voters. The restriction of political activity to men has also probably been emphasized by the fact that all the higher civilizations have passed through a well-defined patriarchal stage of society in which each household was represented by its oldest warrior. From present indications it would seem that under the conditions of modern industrial society the arrangements that have so long subsisted are likely to be very essentially altered.
Note that votes for women required a constitutional amendment, but same-sex marriage was already on the books, in the form of the 14th amendment.
It doesn't matter if it is "good" or "bad" to let women vote. They are citizens, and thus should have an equal say in government. That's really the end of the discussion, IMO.
It doesn't matter if it is "good" or "bad" to let children vote. They are citizens, and thus should have an equal say in government.
It doesn't matter if it is "good" or "bad" to let felons vote. They are citizen, and thus should have an equal say in government.
I don't agree with the idea that having citizenship means you ought to have an equal say in government.
Each State ought to be able to decide in their own elections and the Federal Government ought to be able to decide in it's elections.
I would exclude anyone who cannot pass a simple test in the English language. The test would have questions like, "What is your name" and "What is your birthdate" and "Where were you born"
In other words, not questions that require serious thought, but do require a moment to think about it, write it and understand the question as written in English.
"Utah, that bastion of misogynistic Mormons gave them the right in 1870."
Early Mormonism was surprisingly feminist for its time - in a separate but equal manner and minus the polygamy. Unfortunately, it moved towards customary roles of men and women after its founder was murdered and the Saints moved West. But, still buried (and not so buried) within its doctrine is a strong feminist vein.
Oh, how I wish they persevered.
Blogger holdfast said...
By "fight social evil" I assume that they meant Prohibition, and by extension, Prohibition's bastard grandchild, the War On Drugs. How's that workin' out for us?
I believe that when the vote was won, it was due to an agreement that the women would support Prohibition. The disaster of that "cure" for a social evil really does hint that subsequent national efforts at social morality legislation----such as the Great Society----would also be failures.
Brent,
I did not mean any disrespect to the Mormons. My comment was tongue in cheek. Many progressives think of Mormons today as anti-woman.
As you note, this may not have much historical or current basis in fact.
John Henry
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा