A very serious question for the men here at DU:

[Zorra]

Why, in your opinion, do you believe that men in the United States legally and forcibly denied women the ability to legally vote until the year 1920?

Thank you for your consideration of this question.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. A serious yet more relevant question is why they decided to grant them that franchise in 1920.

If you're going to beat us over the head about what men did in 1919, it's fair to take credit for what we did in 1920.

[MGKrebs]

11. I suspect it was getting pretty hard to justify after slaves had been freed and

(supposedly) could vote.

[Zorra]

19. That is not an answer to the question that I asked in my OP. I'm not beating anyone over the head.

I'm asking an intelligent and valid question, because I really want to know what men think about this.

I'm hoping that the men of DU will offer intelligent and reasoned opinions in response.

If you don't want to honestly answer my question, that is fine.

But please do not set up any more strawman/red herring type arguments.

thanks

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. By 1920 the arguments against were obviously considered archaic by most.

Nevertheless, here are comments against the bill in the Senate by US Senator JE Brown] on Wednesday, December 8, 1886.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Brown
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11114/11114-h/11114-h.htm

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the joint resolution introduced by my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BLAIR], proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, conferring the right to vote upon the women of the United States, is one of paramount importance, as it involves great questions far reaching in their tendency, which seriously affect the very pillars of our social fabric, which involve the peace and harmony of society, the unity of the family, and much of the future success of our Government. The question should therefore he met fairly and discussed with firmness, but with moderation and forbearance.

No one contributes anything valuable to the debate by the use of harsh terms, or by impugning motives, or by disparaging the arguments of the opposition. Where the prosperity of the race and the peace of society are involved, we should, on both sides, meet fairly the arguments of our respective opponents.

This question has been discussed a great deal outside of Congress, sometimes in bad temper and sometimes illogically and unprofitably, but the advocates of the proposed amendment and the opponents of it have each put forth, probably in their strongest form, the reasons and arguments which are considered by each as conclusive in favor of the cause they advocate. I do not expect to contribute much that is new on a subject that has been so often and so ably discussed; but what I have to say will be in the main a reproduction in substance of what I and others have already said on the subject, and which I think important enough to be placed upon the record in the argument of the case.

In connection with my friend, the honorable Senator from Missouri [Mr. COCKRELL], I have in a report set forth substantially the reasons and arguments which to my mind establish the fact that the proposed legislation would be injudicious and unwise, and I shall not hesitate to reiterate here such portions of what was then said as seem to me to be important.

I believe that the Creator intended that the sphere of the males and females of our race should be different, and that their duties and obligations, while they differ materially, are equally important and equally honorable, and that each sex is equally well qualified by natural endowments for the discharge of the important duties which pertain to each, and that each sex is equally competent to discharge those duties.

We find an abundance of evidence, both in the works of nature and in the Divine revelation, to establish the fact that the family properly regulated is the foundation and pillar of society, and is the most important of any other human institution.

In the Divine economy it is provided that the man shall be the head of the family, and shall take upon himself the solemn obligation of providing for and protecting the family.

Man, by reason of his physical strength, and his other endowments and faculties, is qualified for the discharge of those duties that require strength and ability to combat with the sterner realities and difficulties of life. The different classes of outdoor labor which require physical strength and endurance are by nature assigned to man, the head of the family, as part of his task. He discharges such labors as require greater physical endurance and strength than the female sex are usually found to possess.

It is not only his duty to provide for and protect the family, but as a member of the community it is also his duty to discharge the laborious and responsible obligations which the family owe to the State, and which obligations must be discharged by the head of the family, until the male members of the family have grown up to manhood and are able to aid in the discharge of those obligations, when it becomes their duty each in his turn to take charge of and rear a family, for which he is responsible.

Among other duties which the head of the family owes to the State, is military duty in time of war, which he, when able-bodied, is able to discharge, and which the female members of the family are unable to discharge.

He is also under obligation to discharge jury duty, and by himself or his representatives to perform his part of the labor necessary to construct and keep in order roads, bridges, streets, and all grades of public highways. And in this progressive age upon the male sex is devolved the duty of constructing and operating our railroads, and the engines and other rolling-stock with which they are operated; of building, equipping, and launching, shipping and other water craft of every character necessary for the transportation of passengers and freight upon our rivers, our lakes, and upon the high seas.

The labor in our fields, sowing, cultivating, and reaping crops must be discharged mainly by the male sex, as the female sex, for want of physical strength, are generally unable to discharge these duties. As it is the duty of the male sex to perform the obligations to the State, to society, and to the family, already mentioned, with numerous others that might be enumerated, it is also their duty to aid in the government of the State, which is simply a great aggregation of families. Society can not be preserved nor can the people be prosperous without good government. The government of our country is a government of the people, and it becomes necessary that the class of people upon whom the responsibility rests should assemble together and consider and discuss the great questions of governmental policy which from time to time are presented for their decision.

This often requires the assembling of caucuses in the night time, as well as public assemblages in the daytime. It is a laborious task, for which the male sex is infinitely better fitted than the female sex; and after proper consideration and discussion of the measures that may divide the country from time to time, the duty devolves upon those who are responsible for the government, at times and places to be fixed by law, to meet and by ballot to decide the great questions of government upon which the prosperity of the country depends.

These are some of the active and sterner duties of life to which the male sex is by nature better fitted than the female sex. If in carrying out the policy of the State on great measures adjudged vital such policy should lead to war, either foreign or domestic, it would seem to follow very naturally that those who have been responsible for the management of the State should be the parties to take the hazards and hardships of the struggle.

Here, again, man is better fitted by nature for the discharge of the duty—woman is unfit for it. So much for some of the duties imposed upon the male sex, for the discharge of which the Creator has endowed them with proper strength and faculties.

On the other hand, the Creator has assigned to woman very laborious and responsible duties, by no means less important than those imposed upon the male sex, though entirely different in their character. In the family she is a queen. She alone is fitted for the discharge of the sacred trust of wife and the endearing relation of mother.

While the man is contending with the sterner duties of life, the whole time of the noble, affectionate, and true woman is required in the discharge of the delicate and difficult duties assigned her in the family circle, in her church relations, and in the society where her lot is cast. When the husband returns home weary and worn in the discharge of the difficult and laborious task assigned him, he finds in the good wife solace and consolation, which is nowhere else afforded. If he is despondent and distressed, she cheers his heart with words of kindness; if he is sick or languishing, she soothes, comforts, and ministers to him as no one but an affectionate wife can do. If his burdens are onerous, she divides their weight by the exercise of her love and her sympathy.

But a still more important duty devolves upon the mother. After having brought into existence the offspring of the nuptial union, the children are dependent upon the mother as they are not upon any other human being. The trust is a most sacred, most responsible, and most important one. To watch over them in their infancy, and as the mind begins to expand to train, direct, and educate it in the paths of virtue and usefulness is the high trust assigned to the mother. She trains the twig as the tree should be inclined.

She molds the character. She educates the heart as well as the intellect, and she prepares the future man, now the boy, for honor or dishonor. Upon the manner in which she discharges her duty depends the fact whether he shall in future be a useful citizen or a burden to society. She inculcates lessons of patriotism, manliness, religion, and virtue, fitting the man by reason of his training to be an ornament to society, or dooming him by her neglect to a life of dishonor and shame. Society acts unwisely when it imposes upon her the duties that by common consent have always been assigned to the stronger and sterner sex, and the discharge of which causes her to neglect those sacred and all important duties to her children and to the society of which they are members.

In the church, by her piety, her charity, and her Christian purity, she not only aids society by a proper training of her own children, but the children of others, whom she encourages to come to the sacred altar, are taught to walk in the paths of rectitude, honor, and religion. In the Sunday-school room the good woman is a princess, and she exerts an influence which purifies and ennobles society, training the young in the truths of religion, making the Sunday-school the nursery of the church, and elevating society to the higher planes of pure religion, virtue, and patriotism. In the sick room and among the humble, the poor, and the suffering, the good woman, like an angel of light, cheers the hearts and revives the hopes of the poor, the suffering, and the despondent.

It would be a vain attempt to undertake to enumerate the refining, endearing, and ennobling influences exercised by the true woman in her relations to the family and to society when she occupies the sphere assigned to her by the laws of nature and the Divine inspiration, which are our surest guide for the present and the future life. But how can woman be expected to meet these heavy responsibilities, and to discharge these delicate and most important duties of wife, Christian, teacher, minister of mercy, friend of the suffering, and consoler of the despondent and needy, if we impose upon her the grosser, rougher, and harsher duties which nature has assigned to the male sex?

If the wife and the mother is required to leave the sacred precincts of home, and to attempt to do military duty when the state is in peril; or if she is to be required to leave her home from day to day in attendance upon the court as a juror, and to be shut up in the jury room from night to night with men who are strangers while a question of life or property is being discussed; if she is to attend political meetings, take part in political discussions, and mingle with the male sex at political gatherings; if she is to become an active politician; if she is to attend political caucuses at late hours of the night; if she is to take part in all the unsavory work that may be deemed necessary for the triumph of her party; and if on election day she is to leave her home and go upon the streets electioneering for votes for the candidates who receive her support, and mingling among the crowds of men who gather round the polls, she is to press her way through them to the precinct and deposit her ballot; if she is to take part in the corporate struggles of the city or town in which she resides, attend to the duties of his honor, the mayor, the councilman, or of policeman, to say nothing of the many other like obligations which are disagreeable even to the male sex, how is she, with all these heavy duties of citizen, politician, and officeholder resting upon her shoulders, to attend to the more sacred, delicate, and refining trust to which we have already referred, and for which she is peculiarly fitted by nature? If she is to discharge the duties last mentioned, how is she, in connection with them, to discharge the more refining, elevating, and ennobling duties of wife, mother, Christian, and friend, which are found in the sphere where nature has placed her? Who is to care for and train the children while she is absent in the discharge of these masculine duties?

If it were proper to reverse the order of nature and assign woman to the sterner duties devolved upon the male sex, and to attempt to assign man to the more refining, delicate, and ennobling duties of the woman, man would be found entirely incompetent to the discharge of the obligations which nature has devolved upon the gentler sex, and society must be greatly injured by the attempted change. But if we are told that the object of this movement is not to reverse this order of nature, but only to devolve upon the gentler sex a portion of the more rigorous duties imposed by nature upon the stronger sex, we reply that society must be injured, as the woman would not be able to discharge those duties so well, by reason of her want of physical strength, as the male, upon whom they are devolved, and to the extent that the duties are to be divided, the male would be infinitely less competent to discharge the delicate and sacred trusts which nature has assigned to the female.

But it has been said that the present law is unjust to woman; that she is often required to pay tax on the property she holds without being permitted to take part in framing or administering the laws by which her property is governed, and that she is taxed without representation. That is a great mistake.

It may be very doubtful whether the male or female sex in the present state of things has more influence in the administration of the affairs of the Government and the enactment of the laws by which we are governed.

While the woman does not discharge military duty, nor does she attend courts and serve on juries, nor does she labor on the public streets, bridges, or highways, nor does she engage actively and publicly in the discussion of political affairs, nor does she enter the crowded precincts of the ballot-box to deposit her suffrage, still the intelligent, cultivated, noble woman is a power behind the throne. All her influence is in favor of morality, justice, and fair dealing, all her efforts and her counsel are in favor of good government, wise and wholesome regulations, and a faithful administration of the laws. Such a woman, by her gentleness, kindness, and Christian bearing, impresses her views and her counsels upon her father, her husband, her brothers, her sons, and her other male friends who imperceptibly yield to her influence many times without even being conscious of it. She rules not with a rod of iron, but with the queenly scepter; she binds not with hooks of steel but with silken cords; she governs not by physical efforts, but by moral suasion and feminine purity and delicacy. Her dominion is one of love, not of arbitrary power.

We are satisfied, therefore, that the pure, cultivated, and pious ladies of this country now exercise a very powerful, but quiet, imperceptible influence in popular affairs, much greater than they can ever again exercise if female suffrage should be enacted and they should be compelled actively to take part in the affairs of state and the corruptions of party politics.

It would be a gratification, and we are always glad to see the ladies gratified, to many who have espoused the cause of woman suffrage if they could take active part in political affairs, and go to the polls and cast their votes alongside the male sex; but while this would be a gratification to a large number of very worthy and excellent ladies who take a different view of the question from that which we entertain, we feel that it would be a great cruelty to a much larger number of the cultivated, refined, delicate, and lovely women of this country who seek no such distinction, who would enjoy no such privilege, who would with woman-like delicacy shrink from the discharge of any such obligation, and who would sincerely regret that, what they consider the folly of the state, had imposed upon them any such unpleasant duties.

But should female suffrage be once established it would become an imperative necessity that the very large class, indeed much the largest class, of the women of this country of the character last described should yield, contrary to their inclinations and wishes, to the necessity which would compel them to engage in political strife. We apprehend no one who has properly considered this question will doubt if female suffrage should be established that the more ignorant and less refined portions of the female population of this country, to say nothing of the baser class of females, laying aside feminine delicacy and disregarding the sacred duties devolving upon them, to which we have already referred, would rush to the polls and take pleasure in the crowded association which the situation would compel, of the two sexes in political meetings, and at the ballot-box.

If all the baser and more ignorant portion of the female sex crowd to the polls and deposit their suffrage this compels the very large class of intelligent, virtuous, and refined females, including wives and mothers, who have much more important duties to perform, to leave their sacred labors at home, relinquishing for a time the God-given important trust which has been placed in their hands, to go contrary to their wishes to the polls and vote, to counteract the suffrage of the less worthy class of our female population. If they fail to do this the best interests of the country must suffer by a preponderance of ignorance and vice at the polls.

It is now a problem which perplexes the brain of the ablest statesmen to determine how we will best preserve our republican system as against the demoralizing influence of the large class of our present citizens and voters who by reason of their illiteracy are unable to read or write the ballot they cast.

Certainly no statesman who has carefully observed the situation would desire to add very largely to this burden of ignorance. But who does not apprehend the fact if universal female suffrage should be established that we will, especially in the Southern States, add a very large number to the voting population whose ignorance utterly disqualifies them for discharging the trust. If our colored population who were so recently slaves that even the males who are voters have had but little opportunity to educate themselves or to be educated, whose ignorance is now exciting the liveliest interest of our statesmen, are causes of serious apprehension, what is to be said in favor of adding to the voting population all the females of that race, who, on account of the situation in which they have been placed, have had much less opportunity to be educated than even the males of their own race.

We do not say it is their fault that they are not educated, but the fact is undeniable that they are grossly ignorant, with very few exceptions, and probably not one in a hundred of them could read and write the ballot that they would be authorized to cast. What says the statesman to the propriety of adding this immense mass of ignorance to the voting population of the Union in its present condition?

It may be said that their votes could be offset by the ballots of the educated and refined ladies of the white race in the same section; but who does not know that the ignorant female voters would be at the polls en masse, while the refined and educated, shrinking from public contact on such occasions, would remain at home and attend to their domestic and other important duties, leaving the country too often to the control of those who could afford under the circumstances to take part in the strifes of politics, and to come in contact with the unpleasant surroundings before they could reach the polls. Are we ready to expose the country to the demoralization, and our institutions to the strain, which would be placed upon them for the gratification of a minority of the virtuous and good of our female population at the expense of the mortification of a very large majority of the same sex?

It has been frequently urged with great earnestness by those who advocate woman suffrage that the ballot is necessary to the women to enable them to protect themselves in securing occupations, and to enable them to realize the same compensation for the like labor which is received by men. This argument is plausible, but upon a closer examination it will be found to possess but little real force. The price of labor is and must continue to be governed by the law of supply and demand, and the person who has the most physical strength to labor, and the most pursuits requiring such strength open for employment, will always command the higher prices.

Ladies make excellent teachers in public schools; many of them are every way the equals of their male competitors, and still they secure less wages than males. The reason is obvious. The number of ladies who offer themselves as teachers is much larger than the number of males who are willing to teach. The larger number of females offer to teach because other occupations are not open to them. The smaller number of males offer to teach because other more profitable occupations are open to most males who are competent to teach. The result is that the competition for positions of teachers to be filled by ladies is so great as to reduce the price: but as males can not be employed at that price, and are necessary in certain places in the schools, those seeking their services have to pay a higher rate for them.

Persons having a larger number of places open to them with fewer competitors command higher wages than those who have a smaller number of places open to them with more competitors. This is the law of society. It is the law of supply and demand, which can not be changed by legislation. Then it follows that the ballot can not enable those who have to compete with the larger number to command the same prices as those who compete with the smaller number in the labor market. As the Legislature has no power to regulate in practice that of which the advocates of woman suffrage complain, the ballot in the hands of females could not aid its regulation.

The ballot can not impart to the female physical strength which she does not possess, nor can it open to her pursuits which she does not have physical ability to engage in; and as long as she lacks the physical strength to compete with men in the different departments of labor, there will be more competition in her department, and she must necessarily receive less wages.

But it is claimed again, that females should have the ballot as a protection against the tyranny of bad husbands. This is also delusive. If the husband is brutal, arbitrary, or tyrannical, and tyrannizes over her at home, the ballot in her hands would be no protection against such injustice, but the husband who compelled her to conform to his wishes in other respects would also compel her to use the ballot, if she possessed it, as he might please to dictate. The ballot would therefore be of no assistance to the wife in such case, nor could it heal family strifes or dissensions. On the contrary, one of the gravest objections to placing the ballot in the hands of the female sex is that it would promote unhappiness and dissensions in the family circle. There should be unity and harmony in the family.

At present the man represents the family in meeting the demands of the law and of society upon the family. So far as the rougher, coarser duties are concerned, the man represents the family, and the individuality of the woman is not brought into prominence; but when the ballot is placed in the hands of woman her individuality is enlarged, and she is expected to answer for herself the demands of the law and of society on her individual account, and not as the weaker member of the family to answer by her husband. This naturally draws her out from the dignified and cultivated refinement of her womanly position, and brings her into a closer contact with the rougher elements of society, which tends to destroy that higher reverence and respect which her refinement and dignity in the relation of wife and mother have always inspired in those who approached her in her honorable and useful retirement.

When she becomes a voter she will be more or less of a politician, and will form political alliances or unite with political parties which will frequently be antagonistic to those to which her husband belongs. This will introduce into the family circle new elements of disagreement and discord which will frequently end in unhappy divisions, if not in separation or divorce. This must frequently occur when she becomes an active politician, identified with a party which is distasteful to her husband. On the other hand, if she unites with her husband in party associations and votes with him on all occasions so as not to disturb the harmony and happiness of the family, then the ballot is of no service as it simply duplicates the vote of the male on each side of the question and leaves the result the same.

Again, if the family is the unit of society, and the state is composed of an aggregation of families, then it is important to society that there be as many happy families as possible, and it becomes the duty of man and woman alike to unite in the holy relations of matrimony.

As this is the only legal and proper mode of rendering obedience to the early command to multiply and replenish the earth, whatever tends to discourage the holy relation of matrimony is in disobedience of this command, and any change which encourages such disobedience is violative of the Divine law, and can not result in advantage to the state. Before forming this relation it is the duty of young men who have to take upon themselves the responsibilities of providing for and protecting the family to select some profession or pursuit that is most congenial to their tastes, and in which they will be most likely to be successful; but this can not be permitted to the young ladies, or if permitted it can not be practically carried out after matrimony.

As it might frequently happen that the young man had selected one profession or pursuit, and the young lady another, the result would be that after marriage she must drop the profession or pursuit of her choice, and employ herself in the sacred duties of wife and mother at home, and in rearing, educating, and elevating the family, while the husband pursues the profession of his choice.

It may be said, however, that there is a class of young ladies who do not choose to marry, and who select professions or avocations and follow them for a livelihood. This is true, but this class, compared with the number who unite in matrimony with the husbands of their choice, is comparatively very small, and it is the duty of society to encourage the increase of marriages rather than of celibacy. If the larger number of females select pursuits or professions which require them to decline marriage, society to that extent is deprived of the advantage resulting from the increase of population by marriage.

It is said by those who have examined the question closely that the largest number of divorces is now found in the communities where the advocates of female suffrage are most numerous, and where the individuality of woman as related to her husband, which such a doctrine inculcates, is increased to the greatest extent.

If this be true, it is a strong plea in the interests of the family and of society against granting the petition of the advocates of woman suffrage.

After all, this is a local question, which properly belongs to the different States of the Union, each acting for itself, and to the Territories of the Union, when not acting in conflict with the laws of the United States.

The fact that a State adopts the rule of female suffrage neither increases nor diminishes its power in the Union, as the number of Representatives in Congress to which each State is entitled and the number of members in the electoral college appointed by each is determined by its aggregate population and not by the proportion of its voting population, so long as no race or class as defined by the Constitution is excluded from the exercise of the right of suffrage.

Now, Mr. President, I shall make no apology for adding to what I have said some extracts from an able and well-written volume, entitled "Letters from the Chimney Corner," written by a highly cultivated lady of Chicago. This gifted lady has discussed the question with so much clearness and force that I can make no mistake by substituting some of the thoughts taken from her book for anything I might add on this question. While discussing the relations of the sexes, and showing that neither sex is of itself a whole, a unit, and that each requires to be supplemented by the other before its true structural integrity can be achieved, she adds:

Now, everywhere throughout nature, to the male and female ideal, certain distinct powers and properties belong. The lines of demarkation are not always clear, not always straight lines: they are frequently wavering, shadowy, and difficult to follow, yet on the whole whatever physical strength, personal aggressiveness, the intellectual scope and vigor which manage vast material enterprises are emphasized, there the masculine ideal is present. On the other hand, wherever refinement, tenderness, delicacy, sprightliness, spiritual acumen, and force, are to the fore, there the feminine ideal is represented, and these terms will be found nearly enough for all practical purposes to represent the differing endowments of actual men and women. Different powers suggest different activities, and under the division of labor here indicated the control of the state, legislation, the power of the ballot, would seem to fall to the share of man. Nor does this decision carry with it any injustice, any robbery of just or natural right to woman.

In her hands is placed a moral and spiritual power far greater than the power of the ballot. In her married or reproductive state the forming and shaping of human souls in their most plastic period is her destiny. Nor do her labors or her responsibilities end with infancy or childhood. Throughout his entire course, from the cradle to the grave, man is ever under the moral and spiritual influence and control of woman. With this power goes a tremendous responsibility for its true management and use. If woman shall ever rise to the full height of her power and privileges in this direction, she will have enough of the world's work upon her hands without attempting legislation.

It may be argued that the possession of civil power confers dignity, and is of itself a re-enforcement of whatever natural power an individual may possess; but the dignity of womanhood, when it is fully understood and appreciated, needs no such re-enforcement, nor are the peculiar needs of woman such as the law can reach.

Whenever laws are needed for the protection of her legal status and rights, there has been found to be little difficulty in obtaining them by means of the votes of men; but the deeper and more vital needs of woman and of society are those which are outside altogether of the pale of the law, and which can only be reached by the moral forces lodged in the hands of woman herself, acting in an enlarged and general capacity.

For instance, whenever a man or woman has been wronged in marriage the law may indeed step in with a divorce, but does that divorce give back to either party the dream of love, the happy home, the prattle of children, and the sweet outlook for future years which were destroyed by that wrong? It is not a legal power which is needed in this case; it is a moral power which shall prevent the wrong, or, if committed, shall induce penitence, forgiveness, a purer life, and the healing of the wound.

This power has been lodged by the Creator in the hands of woman herself, and if she has not been rightly trained to use it there is no redress for her at the hands of the law. The law alone can never compel men to respect the chastity of woman. They must first recognize its value in themselves by living up to the high level of their duties as maidens, wives, and mothers; they must impress men with the beauty and sacredness of purity, and then whatever laws are necessary and available for its protection will be easily obtained, with a certainty, also, that they can be enforced, because the moral sentiments of men will be enlisted in their support.

Privileges bring responsibilities, and before women clamor for more work to do, it were better that they should attend more thoughtfully to the duties which lie all about them, in the home and social circle. Until society is cleansed of the moral foulness which infests it, which, as we have seen, lies beyond the reach of civil law, women have no call to go forth into wider fields, claiming to be therein the rightful and natural purifiers. Let them first make the home sweet and pure, and the streams which flow therefrom will sweeten and purify all the rest.

As between the power of the ballot and this moral force exerted by women there can not be an instant's doubt as to the choice. In natural refinement and elevation of character, the ideal woman stands a step above the ideal man. If she descends from this fortunate position to take part in the coarse scramble for material power, what chance will she have as against man's aggressive forces; and what can she possibly gain that she can not win more directly, more effectually, and with far more dignity and glory to herself by the exercise of her own womanly prerogatives? She has, under God, the formation and rearing of men in her own hands.

If they do not turn out in the end to be men who respect woman, who will protect and defend her in the exercise of every one of her God-given rights, it is because she has failed in her duty toward them; has not been taught to comprehend her own power and to use it to its best ends. For women to seek to control men by the power of suffrage is like David essaying the armor of Saul. What woman needs is her own sheepskin sling and her few smooth pebbles from the bed of the brook, and then let her go forth in the name of the Lord God of Hosts, and a victory as sure and decisive as that of the shepherd of Israel awaits her.

Again, in chapter 4, entitled "The Power of the Home," the author says, in substance: It is, perhaps, of minor consequence that women should have felt themselves emancipated from buttons and bread making; but that they should have learned to look in the least degree slightingly upon the great duties of women as lovers of husbands, as lovers of children, as the fountain and source of what is highest and purest and holiest, and not less of what is homely and comfortable and satisfying in the home, is a serious misfortune. Women can hardly be said to have lost, perhaps what they have so rarely in any age generally attained, that dignity which knows how to command, united with a sweetness which seems all the while to be complying, the power, supple and strong, which rescues the character of the ideal woman from the charge of weakness, and at the same time exhibits its utmost of grace and fascination.

But that of late years the gift has not been cultivated, has not, in fact, thrown out such natural off-shoots as gave grace and glory to some earlier social epochs, must be evident, it would seem, to any thoughtful observer.

If, instead of trying to grasp more material power, women would pursue those studies and investigations which tend to make them familiar with what science teaches concerning the influence of the mother and the home upon the child; of how completely the Creator in giving the genesis of the human race into the hands of woman has made her not only capable of, but responsible for, the regeneration of the world; if they would reflect that nature by making man the bond slave of his passions has put the lever into the hands of woman by which she can control him, and if they would learn to use these powers, not as bad women do for vile and selfish ends, but as the mothers of the race ought, for pure, holy, and redemptive purposes, then would the sphere of women be enlarged to some purpose; the atmosphere of the home would be purified and vitalized, and the work of redeeming man from his vices would be hopefully begun.

The following thoughts are also from the same source: Is this emancipation of woman, if that is the proper phrase for it, a final end, or only the means to an end? Are women to be as the outcome of it emancipated from their world-old sphere of marriage and motherhood, and control of the moral and spiritual destinies of the race, or are they to be emancipated, in order to the proper fulfillment of these functions? It would seem that most of the advanced women of the day would answer the first of these questions affirmatively. Women, I think it has been authoritatively stated, are to be emancipated in order that they may become fully developed human beings, something broader and stronger, something higher and finer, more delicate, more aesthetic, more generally rarefied and sublimated than the old-fashioned type of womanhood, the wife and the mother.

And the result of the woman movement seems more or less in a line thus far with this theoretic aim. Of advanced women a less proportion are inclined to marry than of the old-fashioned type; of those who do marry a great proportion are restless in marriage bonds or seek release from them, while of those who do remain in married life many bear no children, and few, indeed, become mothers of large families. The woman's vitality is concentrated in the brain and fructifies more in intellectual than in physical forms.

Now, women who do not marry are one of two things; either they belong to a class which we shrink from naming or they become old maids.

An old maid may be in herself a very useful and commendable person and a valuable member of society; many are all this. But she has still this sad drawback, she can not perpetuate herself; and since all history and observation go to prove that the great final end of creation, whatever it may be, can only be achieved through the perpetuity and increasing progress of the race, it follows that unmarried woman is not the most necessary, the indispensable type of woman. If there were no other class of females left upon the earth but the women who do not bear children, then the world would be a failure, creation would be nonplussed.

If, then, the movement for the emancipation of woman has for its final end the making of never so fine a quality, never so sublimated a sort of non-child-bearing women, it is an absurdity upon the face of it.

From the standpoint of the Chimney Corner it appears that too many even of the most gifted and liberal-minded of the leaders in the woman's rights movement have not yet discovered this flaw in their logic. They seek to individualize women, not seeing, apparently, that individualized women, old maids, and individualized men, old bachelors, though they may be useful in certain minor ways, are, after all, to speak with the relentlessness of science, fragmentary and abortive, so far as the great scheme of the universe is concerned, and often become, in addition, seriously detrimental to the right progress of society. The man and woman united in marriage form the unit of the race; they alone rightly wield the self-perpetuating power upon which all human progress depends; without which the race itself must perish, the universe become null.

Reaching this point of the argument, it becomes evident that while the development of the individual man or individual woman is no doubt of great importance, since, as Margaret Fuller has justly said, "there must be units before there can be union," it is chiefly so because of their relation to each other. Their character should be developed with a view to their future union with each other, and not to be independent of it. When the leaders of the woman's movement fully realize this, and shape their course accordingly, they will have made a great advance both in the value of their work and its claim upon public sympathy. Moreover, they will have reached a point from which it will be possible for them to investigate reform and idealize the relations existing between men and women.

Mr. President, it is no part of my purpose in any manner whatever to speak disrespectfully of the large number of intelligent ladies, sometimes called strong-minded, who are constantly going before the public, agitating this question of female suffrage. While some of them may, as is frequently charged, be courting notoriety, I have no doubt they are generally earnestly engaged in a work which, in their opinion, would better their condition and would do no injury to society.

In all this, however, I believe they are mistaken.

I think the mental and physical structure of the sexes, of itself, sufficiently demonstrates the fact that the sterner, more laborious, and more difficult duties of society are to be performed by the male sex; while the more delicate duties of life, which require less physical strength, and the proper training of youth, with the proper discharge of domestic duties, belong to the female sex. Nature has so arranged it that the male sex can not attend properly to the duties assigned by the law of nature to the female sex, and that the female sex can not discharge the more rigorous duties required of the male sex.

This movement is an attempt to reverse the very laws of our being, and to drag woman into an arena for which she is not suited, and to devolve upon her onerous duties which the Creator never intended that she should perform.

While the husband discharges the laborious and fatiguing duties of important official positions, and conducts political campaigns, and discharges the duties connected with the ballot-box, or while he bears arms in time of war, or discharges executive or judicial duties, or the duties of juryman, requiring close confinement and many times great mental fatigue; or while the husband in a different sphere of life discharges the laborious duties of the plantation, the workshop, or the machine shop, it devolves upon the wife to attend to the duties connected with home life, to care for infant children, and to train carefully and properly those who in the youthful period are further advanced towards maturity.

The woman with the infant at the breast is in no condition to plow on the farm, labor hard in the workshop, discharge the duties of a juryman, conduct causes as an advocate in court, preside in important cases as a judge, command armies as a general, or bear arms as a private. These duties, and others of like character, belong to the male sex; while the more important duties of home, to which I have already referred, devolve upon the female sex. We can neither reverse the physical nor the moral laws of our nature, and as this movement is an attempt to reverse these laws, and to devolve upon the female sex important and laborious duties for which they are not by nature physically competent, I am not prepared to support this bill.

My opinion is that a very large majority of the American people, yes, a large majority of the female sex, oppose it, and that they act wisely in doing so. I therefore protest against its passage.

[CrispyQ]

155. What a bunch of bullshit.

"Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the joint resolution introduced by my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire , proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, conferring the right to vote upon the women of the United States, is one of paramount importance, as it involves great questions far reaching in their tendency, which seriously affect the very pillars of our social fabric, which involve the peace and harmony of society, the unity of the family, and much of the future success of our Government...."

The bolded part could just as easily be the same reason given today for denying gays the right to marriage.

I could almost feel sorry for men who are so fearful of anyone different than them, if they weren't such self-righteous pricks.

[frazzled]

43. Men "granted" women the franchise? Hardly!

What a completely paternalistic thing to say. Women WON this right for themselves by their persistence and sound arguments, all the way from Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott's opening salvos at Seneca Falls in 1848, to the Tennessee woman in the 36th state to ratify the consititutional amendment in 1920, who convinced her anti-suffrage legislator son, or so the story goes, to break the 48-48 tie by voting for suffrage. And so the 19th Amendment became law.

Nobody "granted" it to us: it was our right all along, and the nation agreed. It took a full seventy-two years for women to accomplish this feat.

[oldhippie]

116. Uh, no. Women could not vote themselves the franchise ......

They had to convince the men, who could vote at the time, to do it for them. Thus, it is entirely truthful to say that men granted them the ability to vote (after being harangued and hen-pecked so long . Sorry if this offends your sensibilities. The only way women could have WON the RIGHT themselves would have been by revolution and changing the laws in some extra-Constitutional manner.

[frazzled]

121. Time to resurrect the term

"sexist pig" here.

No, my sensibilities are not offended: I'm laughing at your antediluvian notions, and at your idea that the only way to achieve change aside from having the status-quo power cede it is through revolution.

Just like white folk "granted" black people the right to a fair vote with the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 65, right? MLK and all the others did nothing to earn it? In fact, ol' whitey would have gotten around to it sometime if they'd just been patient for another 100 years.

[lumberjack_jeff]

145. Poor analogy. Martin Luther King Jr and his adult supporters were voters. nt

[TalkingDog]

150. Agreed. frazzled has made a poor argument via a poor analogy

n/t

[frazzled]

161. Poor analogy: The Civil Rights Acts were not voted on by the electorate

They were laws enacted by the government. And they wouldn't have happened without decades of really smart advocacy and lobbying.

That the constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote had to go through an approval process by the states (that is how constitutional amendments are approved) was also not in most cases put to public referendum. It was state legislatures that decided. And they wouldn't have voted to amend the Constitution without 75 years of women advocating their asses off for it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

168. You're missing the point.

It has nothing to do with working your ass off or direct democracy. If you're not a voter, you're not represented (in the same way) by elected officials.

An elected official who does something good for a voter does so out of self interest. An elected official who does something good for someone who can't vote is doing it for other reasons because he's not afraid that you'll vote his ass out.

Women obtained the right to vote in 1920 because most men were convinced that it was the right thing to do and was in the best interest of the country.

[frazzled]

171. You "men" would never have done it on their own

The powerful never cede power unless they have no other choice. And they had no choice because for 75 years women fought and struggled to convince a nation. They chained themselves to fences. And they probably pulled quite a few Lysistrata moves as well.

And "most men" didn't vote for this: legislators did.

[Mimosa]

174. "The powerful never cede power unless they have no other choice"

All of human history proves that statement.

[yardwork]

206. As a woman and a strong feminist, I disagree with you.

Neither the OP nor the poster to which you are replying are defending oppression of women. I don't read their posts as downplaying the role that women's activism played in achieving suffrage. Obviously women's activism was essential.

[LanternWaste]

209. Compel and coerce rather than 'convince'

"They had to convince the men"

Compel and coerce rather than 'convince', hence denying the use of "granted" as it implies freedom of both thought and action.


(The Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement by Aileen Kraditor)

[obamanut2012]

58. Because Harry Burn loved and respected his mother

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_T._Burn

And because of the VERY bad publicity resulting from middle and upper-middle class Suffragettes' imprisonment and torture. This helped turn the tide of alot of public opinion, and forced Wilson's hands. Additionally, many Western states had already given women the vote.

But, technically, because of Harry Burn and his mother.

[lumberjack_jeff]

146. Fascinating link.

After much debating and argument, the result of the vote was 48-48. Burn's vote broke the tie in favor of ratifying the amendment. He asked to speak to the House the next day and told them he changed his vote because his mother asked him to and that she had always taught him that "a good boy always does what his mother asks him to do."

If either of my Senators explained a vote by saying that "a good girl always does what her father asks her to do", she'd no longer get my vote.

[obamanut2012]

147. The Tenn. Leg wasn't too pleased, either

Even though that was another time.

I think Burn just used that as an excuse for his vote.

[treestar]

183. I do agree with that point

Unlike perhaps men of other races, women did get the vote without having to get killed, etc. They must have gotten it via majority male legislators in 2/3 of the states. So I will credit the men of America with handing it over rather than fighting it to the death. Good thing there were no 21st century type Republicans back then.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. because they considered women more like property than like equals

I cannot cite all of the historical events of the time, but I believe the answer is rooted in men wanting to control "their women". Does that more or less square with what you know?

[trof]

165. Yes, look up the term "chattels".

Women were considered to be chattels.

[itsrobert]

3. This is not a serious question

n/t

[ZombieHorde]

219. Why do you think the question in the OP is not serious? nt

[no_hypocrisy]

4. I recently watched the PBS series on Prohibition.

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/

One of my take-aways is that a notable contingent of women who wanted to vote wanted to ban the sale of alcohol and that was one of several reasons why women weren't given "the Vote". Interestingly enough, one of the last votes for males only gave us the 18th Amendment.

[Charlemagne]

12. That was inaccurate

I dont mean to be a jerk, but Burns documentary stating "women who wanted to vote wanted to ban the sale of alcohol and that was one of several reasons why women weren't given "the Vote"' is adding waaaaaaaaay to much weight to the prohibition issue and suffrage.

Lots of men wanted prohibition too. Lots of women (like catholics white ethnics) were ok with booze.

I can see what Burns is trying to say, but the issue of alcohol was never a serious consideration when granting women the right to vote.

[Zorra]

23. Thank you. nt

[zipplewrath]

25. It was the political confederacy

The prohibitionists were the original "single issue constitutency" and they saw a partner in the suffrage movement. They were fairly sure that suffrage would get them the political support they needed to push prohibition over the top. (The WCTU was a major political force).

We can argue if they were right, but THEY thought it was a good deal.

FWIW, it was folks who were anti-income tax that joined in to reverse prohibition. Within a decade they were disappointed because they though alcohol taxes would wipe out income taxes.

[Charlemagne]

37. Well stated

thanks.

[slackmaster]

13. I loved that series. Thanks for mentioning it. The temperance movement did play a role.

[ddeclue]

5. I would answer but my Delorean time machine is all out of plutonium so I can't go find out..

[Charlemagne]

14. I know a guy in Libya

[MGKrebs]

6. I think it's mostly just a historical legacy.

Maybe religious based (but not just Christianity). We were taught that men were superior in things that were practical and important. Maybe even goes back to cave man days when men were probably bigger and stronger and conflicts were always solved with violence. There are still remnants today of course. There is no reason that women should make less money for the same job as men, but they often do.

[Zorra]

38. Distinct possibilities, I believe. Thanks!

[Major Nikon]

157. That's what I would say

Organized religion has been used to justify morally unjustifyable discrimination since there has been organized religion and it still goes on today.

[drm604]

7. Why did so many people, both men and women, accept the practice of slavery?

Can you answer that question? Probably not, because you are not one of those people.

By the same token, the men on DU are not the men who denied suffrage, so why ask us?

[Zorra]

27. That is not an answer to the question that I asked. If you start your own OP with your question,

I may respond.

[drm604]

36. It is an answer.

It's an answer in the form of a rhetorical question

My point, if it wasn't clear, was that there's no good reason to single out men with your question.

[Zorra]

48. My request was for men to offer opinions on a subject. I am not attacking anyone.

I am singling men out because, prior to 1920, men had the right to vote, and women, for some reason, did not.

My request for opinions, once again:

Why, in your opinion, do you believe that men in the United States legally and forcibly denied women the ability to legally vote until the year 1920?

[DocMac]

110. Perhaps men just didn't view women

as having political views. It was the men who gathered at the pubs and other meeting places and discussed such matters. The newspapers were owned by men and the political articles written by men.

It could be as simple as men believing that women just didn't have a clue about politics. That they were way to busy in running the household to fully understand the politics of the day.

Are you sure that women even wanted to vote prior to 1920?

[Major Nikon]

159. It's hard for me to believe that political leaders didn't consult with their significant others

And there's plenty of evidence of many women actively participating in the political issues of the day throughout the history of the US.

[DocMac]

228. I doubt that men confided in their wives that way.

And we should consider that both husband and wife could not leave the home to vote.

Perhaps the motor vehicle changed all that.



duane

[tnvoter]

172. is there a reason why you asked specifically for men's answers

but not women's answers?

I'm curious as to why a modern man's answer to this question would reveal more than if you asked everyone, regardless of gender.

That said - I'm a woman -- I think men withheld the vote from women because of deeply in-grained attitudes about the role of women outside the home, in commerce, in battle and in power.
I think most men went along with it because that's the way it always was.

Not long ago (my lifetime and I'm early 40s) deeply in-grained attitudes kept women out of combat roles. If you ask a guy my age why that was, I think they'd tell you the same thing I just said.

Would my answer be more meaningful to you if it came from a man?

[salvorhardin]

8. lumberjack_jeff is on the right track

What changed in the preceding century that might have led to women's suffrage becoming an acceptable idea? If you can answer what changed, then you can answer your original question. It's complicated, but start with the 2nd Great Awakening and move on from there.

[redqueen]

44. Oh, those angry feminists! Did those in power granting freedom to slaves do away with

the institutionalized racism we still see today?

Obviously not.

Try harder. There are deeper issues at play here. Issues of privilege and power. Until people recognize their privilege they can't alter their behavior and stop othering their fellow humans.

Yes, when forced kicking and screaming, dominant groups will grudgingly give up the least amount of power they can get away with. They will then institute insidious forms of disenfranchisement.

This is not my opinion. This is history.

[demmiblue]

55. Wow.

[redqueen]

59. Right? "the gift giving group"

Can you believe that shi?

[demmiblue]

66. Sounds like something straight from FR.

I hope the admins are paying attention. I will be checking the TOS box from now on when I alert on posts like this one.

[Matariki]

201. That's a nauseating post. But he knows that.

Clearly he's trying his damnest to piss off women here. Can't imagine what his motives are but they are definitely messed up.

[redqueen]

208. I'm far more cynical than you on this one.

I think he really believes it.

And I think he's not the only person (male or female) who thinks that way.

[obamanut2012]

61. "The Doldrums" were the nadir of women's rights

The 30 years prior to passage of the 19th Amendment, so not really.

[Arkansas Granny]

9. If you look at this timeline for women's suffrage by country, you will find that the US was not

the only country to deny women the right to vote at that time. It was customary for all decisions to be made by men.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0931343.html

Edit to add link.

[slackmaster]

10. Because that was always the way things were done previously

Suffrage happened in the UK and in Germany (and many other European countries) about the same time as it did here. Most of our families brought the traditional gender roles with them when they came to this country.

[qb]

15. I would assume fear of losing the privileges they'd become accustomed to.

[a simple pattern]

16. There seems to be a lot of testeria in response to your question

How do you like my new word, DU?

[MineralMan]

26. A very apt word, indeed.

Nice.

[Whisp]

40. testeria,

[redqueen]

49. LOL, nice one.

Somehow insulting dominant groups with such terms doesn't carry quite the same sting. (e.g. 'honky' vs. 'n*****')

Something to do with enfranchisement, power, privilege, etc.

Still though, nice one.

[Luminous Animal]

63. I love it!

[City Lights]

139. I approve!

[lumberjack_jeff]

148. Yup. What DU needs is more pejoratives for people who disagree with you. n/t

[bemildred]

175. Great coinage, fills a real need.

Testurbed?

[Zorra]

190. ^Duzy?^

Mass testeria?

Now don't be getting all testerical on us.

good word!

[greyl]

227. (testeria isn't a new word, sorry) nt

[MineralMan]

18. It's a good question, indeed.

Women were considered to be chattel and were not considered to have the intelligence or reason necessary for voting. In reality, men knew that women might vote differently than they did, and that was frightening. It wasn't until the 20s that women found a good way to get that vote. Essentially, they shamed men into granting the franchise to women. They should have had it from the beginning of US history.

Less than 100 years. How shocking that seems to me today. Perhaps by 100 years from the time women insisted on their right to vote, we'll have a woman as President. It would make for a great celebration of women's suffrage. And "suffrage" is a terrific word, deriving from "suffer." Men "suffered" women to vote, in the same sense Jesus said to "suffer the little children to come..." In that meaning it means "to allow."

Women always actually HAD the right to vote. Men kept them from exercising that right. Brava! to the women who reclaimed it!

[Zorra]

60. Thanks, MM, for this insightful response.

This leads us to the questions:

Why were women considered to be chattel, and not considered to have the intelligence or reason necessary for voting.

Where and when did these ideas of inferiority and inequality originate?

It's difficult to answer these questions, but an important thing to ponder, I believe.

(I'm getting an idea of why you've been happily married for so many years

[MineralMan]

85. Those are tough questions, and I'll be speculating, but:

The chattel thing was fairly endemic in European culture for a very long time. Most European societies were quite patriarchal.. Children and women just didn't have any role in deciding things, couldn't own property on their own, etc. They all had their place, and that was that. That's a historical artifact, and one that has proven to be difficult to overcome.

The intelligence and reason issue derives from and enables that patriarchal society. Unless you could believe that women were somehow intellectually inferior to men, it would be very difficult to maintain that type of society. Similarly, slaves were seen to be somewhat less than human, as a rationalization for their subjugation. Only by maintaining that inferiority could you justify the structure of the society. By denying women (and slaves) education, withholding their rights of inheritance and property ownership, the society perpetuated the myth. An uneducated person, for example, couldn't win in a battle of wits, usually, so was "obviously" inferior.

The two things work together to continue a society that is patently unfair. If women (or slaves) were your equals, then you couldn't justify insisting that they have an unequal role in society.

The women's suffrage movement happened in the US, because women did get educated and insisted on their equality with men. To be fair, there were some men who appreciated this and supported the movement. However, it took an effort not dissimilar to the legend of the Spartan women, who withheld sex from the men to stop a war. Women in the late teens and early twenties essentially rose up and demanded their rights in an unmistakable way. There was nothing for it but for the men to cave, at least on some level. Following that, women have extended their power, and are getting ever closer to having complete equality. There are still areas left to be conquered, but it will happen, inevitably. Today, more women graduate from college than men, and there are other things happening that assure that, I think.

And, as has been the case all along, there are many men who believe that there is no difference between men and women when it comes to equality. That doesn't hurt, but women are leading the way for themselves, and good for them!

Frankly, though, we're still not done with that patriarchal nonsense, even at the beginnings of the 21st century. Old nonsense dies hard.

[Zorra]

96. Another interesting response, thanks! nt

[DryHump]

131. Women/Bible

I believe many of our social ills stem from fundamentalist, ignorant, patriarchal notions found in the Bible. There are great spiritual truths in the Bible, of course, but its misinterpretation is also is the source of sustained ignorance, particularly the disenfranchisement of women.

[arcane1]

164. Disagree. It's strict literal interpretation that's the problem n/t

[MineralMan]

170. Perhaps. But the Quran has similar issues.

I can't speak for other religions. Religion is a powerful force in society, so you may well be correct.

[riderinthestorm]

176. As does the Torah. Patriarchy is deeply entrenched in the big 3 religions nt

[Charlemagne]

20. The library

probably has books by academic scholars that cover this question. Maybe try there.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. OK, you have several responses now. What's the upshot?

[Zorra]

198. That's going to take awhile to process, because

there are a lot of things to consider; each component of the thread is unique but interrelates with all the others.

Kind of cool, there was a mini collective think tank at work, and some really interesting ideas and information got tossed around.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Not just in the US, you know, and the reason at the core was what it is in places they

lack franchise today, same thing that keeps other groups from other rights. Religious dogma.
First was NZ in 1893. UK was not until 1928. It was a world wide time of change. Most recent extension of the franchise to women, 2008, Bhutan.
You will like the history of Wyoming, where women had the right and the right to hold office starting in 1869. They refused to join the Union without national sufferage. "Not without our women" is the message the State sent to DC.

[RZM]

46. If you look at this of countries and when they granted women the right to vote

The US was a pretty early comer. Most of the places that beat us only did so by a couple years. The number ahead of is also slightly inflated by the Russian Provisional government's decision to grant women the vote in 1917. Some countries that are now independent are listed separately here but were all subject to that decision at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage

France and Italy didn't grant women the right to vote until the 1940s.

[MineralMan]

111. Yes, Wyoming led the way. Probably because it was frontier territory,

and thinly populated. Women took on a much more equal role with men there. They had to.

[Bluenorthwest]

123. And the States right next to them did not. Was their territory so different?

That was part of what informed the Wyoming culture, yet 'they had to' sure does not explain why other territories much like it did not do so. The entire country was frontier at one point, and yet only Wyoming made that choice, only they reacted to the frontier realities in that way. They saw the same realities, and acted differently than other territories with similar conditions. A feather in their cap and theirs alone.

[MineralMan]

169. You know, I don't know.

I wasn't alive then, nor have I ever lived in that part of the country. You're asking the wrong person your question. I offered a theory, or speculation, on the subject. I'm sorry it did not meet with your approval.

[riderinthestorm]

178. You know many Native American tribes were matrilineal. Women owned the property

and power and status within the tribe emanated from them. They participated fully in governance etc. I wonder if Wyoming was heavily influenced by the Native Americans that resided amongst them. It would be an interesting question for an academic (or maybe it's already been done).

Just a thought.

[mdmc]

24. Because we could

Men and some women didn't think it was lady like to get involved in politics.

Men had the power to keep women from voting and did so because they could.

[The Straight Story]

28. So that we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now

[EOTE]

51. Bad TSS! Bad!

But yeah, I LOLed.

[Zorra]

64. LOL! Trust me on this bro, the shit we're in would be soooo much deeper right now if

we didn't get the right to vote.

[RainDog]

29. Patriarchal Religion that has passed from generation to generation n/t

[RainDog]

30. oh wait, I'm not a man - can I still participate? n/t

[Zorra]

67. Yeah, but it's men's night. Women have to pay a cover. nt

[RevStPatrick]

31. Because people can be jerks?

And just because American women won the right to vote, people didn't stop being jerks in 1920?
People are still jerks today, in this country and elsewhere?

I don't think it comes down to anything more complicated than that...

[veganlush]

32. this is

..a trap! watch out guys!

[Zorra]

69. LOL! No, unless people consider a question posed in order to provoke thought

and promote constructive discussion is a trap.

I would hope that a question of this nature would only be seriously considered a trap at FR or CU.

[progressoid]

204. ...

[bemildred]

33. We are all captives of the culture we are born into.

Most of us never escape.

[redqueen]

53. It's hard to escape when most people insist on maintaining the status quo.

Eventually, however, as more people become aware of inequalities and unfairness, minds are changed, and old ways of thinking start to fade away.

It does take a very long time. It took women generations to win the right to vote. It will take at least that long to change other disenfranchising behaviors which still exist today.

[bemildred]

179. I think we have only begun to explore the possibilities.

Most people are scared to death to step outside their cultural box, and rightly so, you can get in all kinds of trouble. Not for tourists. And yet necessary, if we are to move on.

[tjwmason]

203. Exactly - cultural intertia

When women gained the vote here in Britain there were two steps - first women over 30 with some property restrictions in 1918, and then widened to all adult women in 1928. This mirrors the widening male franchise in the 19th century as property restrictions were removed finally allowing all adult men to vote.

I find it interesting that we had had five queens regnant (Elizabeth I, Mary I, Mary II, Anne, and Victoria), the first four of whom were genuine rulers of the country, before we allowed women to vote.

[rurallib]

34. control

harder to control a group when they are allowed some part of the levers.
Still going on today only the tools are a bit different.
Repubs trying to exert control through fear, union-busting, denying vote to some groups once again............

[arcane1]

35. It was considered rational at the time to only allow white men to vote

and that traditional belief lasted longer than it should have. Basically, it was because the prevailing belief the world over was that men were of higher intellect, and that things like voting and politics were their place. Home-making and child-rearing was the woman's place.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. The United States, like all other countries in the 19th century, was patriarchal

with assumptions that women were 'weak' and 'easily led', and thus wouldn't be suitable for making serious decisions. This meant they didn't get a proper education either (because it 'would be a waste'), and men used their lack of education as proof that they were unable to do important things like voting. And patriarchal societies trace back to power gained through warfare - which (especially before the invention of reliable firearms) really was something that men, with more physical strength, on average, were more successful at than women.

Gradually, the circular argument about education and decision-making ability was shown to be a crock of shit, and countries started educating women, and eventually contemplated expanding the vote. World War One gave an extra push in some, as women went to work in jobs to replace the drafted men, and proved there was nothing special about a Y chromosome.

Swiss women didn't get the vote until 1971. it may or may not be notable that it was one of the few countries not to fight in either world war, and so men got to hold onto their jobs without women being given a chance to prove themselves.

[deutsey]

52. That's along the lines of what I was thinking

Men may have also tried justifying it by saying women were too "pure of heart" to sully themselves with the ugliness of politics and were intended to tend to the virtues of hearth and home. The whole putting women up on a pedastol thing.

[Sherman A1]

41. Not having lived in that period or the time previous to it, I am at a loss to answer your question

I grew up in an era when women could and did (and do) vote hence I have no frame of reference.

"Where you stand, depends upon where you sit".

[veganlush]

42. but the answer is

religion. It's hold continues to slowly fade, but it was the main driver behind white, human, male, straight superiority.

[mojowork_n]

45. The US was even more of a Patriarchy then, than it is now.

All I can think of are fictional characters, in movies and books.....

When Father was always spelled with a capital "F."

Like the guy in "Cheaper by the Dozen." Or even in serious
theater, like "Our Town," or "The Skin of Our Teeth."

The women had rights, but the Y chromosomes were more equal.
They were the bread winners, heads of the household, those who
supported the whole family. (On one pay check!)

Go back and take a look at George Bernard Shaw's,
"Mrs. Warren's Profession."

Or better yet, go online and find some of the writings of
turn-of-the-century "suffragettes" to see what it was they
were up against, in their own words.

(It's hard to say because I wasn't around back then, but
I vaguely remember some of the follow-up public discourse,
from when I was a kid.)

[Ineeda]

47. Interesting

how much hostility your question generated. It's an odd response, IMO.

[dembotoz]

50. i think i might look to the church

in a rather large church (prot) women are still denied positions of leadership.
and to look at the catholic church and all the women priests......

Church can be a great place to have your bigotries reinforced at the alter.

so very sad
so very true

[Orangepeel]

54. People with power strive to keep it.

Originally only white, male landowners could vote. The people with power allowed only those like themselves to exercise the right to vote. Each additional barrier that fell did so because those that had power were convinced to give it up -- whether by bloodshed or appeals to self interest -- by those seeking suffrage and the allies who had been convinced by logic and moral argument.

[redqueen]

56. I would like to disagree with everyone blaming religion or the church.

As recent events have shown with distressing clarity, atheists can be just as misogynist as the most conservative religious fundy.

IMO the answer is because dominant groups have power and privilege, and many members of the dominant group will fight very hard to retain it.

[cthulu2016]

65. And you are incorrect in doing so

It is quite irrelevant whether atheists are capable of misogyny since atheism was not the central force in the maintainance of traditional social structure and attitudes for millenia.

[redqueen]

71. I disagree.

Religion was the product of misogynists, not their creator.

[jorno67]

74. link please

I'd like to see that.

[dawg]

87. Religion is a creation of mankind, is it not?

Regardlesss of whether or not God exists, the organizations, rituals, and traditions of the major religions are constructs of society. Because they are constructed traditions, they are not the *cause* of society's ills, just another way in which those ills are expressed. (And not just the ills of society, many of it's virtues have been expressed through religion as well.)

[redqueen]

112. That's a good point, about virtues being expressed as well. (nt)

[jorno67]

120. Yes - Religion is the creation of man

But to say "Religion was the product of misogynists, not their creator" excludes the possibility that Religion could've been created by non-misogynists and misogyny came later. I cannot accept that as fact without proof, sorry.
And what I dislike about this is that it feels as if some believe all men are, and have always been, misogynists.

[dawg]

124. Even if the misogyny came later, it is still the creation of man.

"God" didn't make them do it.

Some time around the 1980's lots of evangelical preachers started wearing godawful, brightly-colored, double-breasted suits. But that isn't the fault of the religion. Those guys chose to do that.

But of course all men aren't misogynistic. And we can't be blamed for things our grandfathers did. But neither should we feel the need to defend them.

[jorno67]

133. well there's where we differ...

To me God is God - and religion is the selling of God. I believe in God but do not care for religion. Bad suits may not be part of the written religion but very much part of the "religious" culture.
I am not trying to defend anyone's' acts - the post (by Redqueen) that I responded to states that the men who created religion were misogynistic, which may true, is not a provable fact...just a likely opinion.

[dawg]

138. I think we agree more than we disagree.

I think misogynsitic people create misogynistic religious traditions and non-misogynistic people create non-misogynistic traditions. Typically, there is an ongoing battle in most denominations over these very issues.

[jorno67]

143. I agree

The other sad cause to generational misogyny and other things like racism is fear of change. You see people who just stick with what they know and for whatever reason they are so afraid to expand their horizons - mentally, socially, geographically, emotional, etc...just because that's what Dad and/or Mom did.

[redqueen]

126. You're right. I didn't mean to imply that...

of course some religions weren't misogynistic, and those wouldn't have been created by misogynists.

Good point. I was thinking only of the majority of religions. There are of course exceptions to that rule.

[jorno67]

135. fair enough!

Plus the chicken and the egg question...which was came first...

[RainDog]

118. It's not just christianity

Judaism is a patriarchal religion.

Greek mythology is a patriarchal religion.

Roman mythology is a patriarchal religion.

The religions that were held by those who most informed western civilization were all patriarchal in concept and practice and these informed laws.

Yes, god was created in the image of men - all religions are the creations of humans. That has nothing to say about the power these beliefs have held over societies for thousands of years.

Some Native American tribes were patriarchal and some weren't.

The Native Americans that lived in the northeastern part of what became the U.S. were not - women had a role in tribal governance. The Great Law of Peace was an important influence on the founders. It was an oral constitution that bound together the six-nation Iroquois. This constitution was translated and written down in English. Franklin circulated copies of it.

Some historians think this document was extremely important for the founders but was not given credit because the Iroquois did not exclude women from governing bodies and property was held in common. This Iroquois constitution, historians believe, dates back to the time of the Magna Carta.

Historian Donald Grinde said that John Adams, on the eve of the Constitutional Convention, pointed out that the best example of separation of powers was the Iroquois confederacy, because they had three distinct branches. In many discussions I have read by political theorists about what makes American democracy unique, they say that it is the separation of powers — the three branches, separately autonomous and mutually counterbalancing."

Grinde also says: "Sally Roesch Wagner has done a great deal of research, and points out that Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Matilda Jocelyn Gage, Susan B. Anthony — many of the early theorists of the women's movement — had a great deal of contact with Iroquois women.

The power of the Iroquois women was based in economics, since they controlled the fields and the agricultural production. Their power flowed from that, and that is an important part of how the Iroquois defined democracy: in order to be equal, one had to have a stake in society.

...Elizabeth Cady Stanton describes how, as a young girl on an Iroquois reservation — she was twelve or thirteen — she saw a man come up, and the mother of her Indian playmate went outside and talked to this man for a half hour or more. Then he handed her some money, they went to the barn and took a horse out, and he rode off on the horse.

Stanton asked the mother what had happened, and the woman said, "Well, I sold the man one of my horses. We negotiated the price, and then he gave me the money, and then he left with the horse."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton said, "What will your husband say when he gets home?"

The woman said, "Well, it was my horse, and I can do with it as I please."

For a young Euro-American woman, it was quite a revelation that this was possible, that a woman could behave in this way, holding property and disposing of it without the approval of a husband or father."

[Zorra]

82. But did religions create the attitude in the dominant group? And by religions,

I also mean religions that predate Christ and Mohammed.

It's almost like the idea that women are inferior and not equal to men had been part of some cultures long before Christ and Mohammed.

I'm wondering if it is simply the continuation of the doctrine of brute force conquers all, enculturated into the collective consciousness of many societies throughout most of human history.

Could subjugation of women by brute force simply due to the general superior physical strength of males during early human history be the historical beginning of the long term perpetuation of widespread patriarchy through religion and culture?

[redqueen]

89. I doubt it.

It seems far more likely, given the prevalence of misogyny in almost all religions, that it was as you said in your last sentence.

Subjugation by brute force lead to a dominant group maintaining power, and that privilege was maintained and institutionalized whenever and however it could be done.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. Then logic would suggest that those who hold sexist opinions today could come up with

some non religious reason for their intolerance. Why not marriage equality? Well, Sacraments, Sanctity, God in the Mix. And what of the non religious arguments? Why are all the arguments against my rights religious ones?
Also, it takes some guts to look at all that material that says women should remain silent in gatherings, ask questions only to her spouse, only at home alone. They are commanded to remain subservient to men. That's the NT. In the OT, women are pure chattel, sold, etc.
So face it. When the President says 'I'm a Christian so I oppose marriage equality' he is citing as authority a text that says women are not equal to men. Millions of women hear that argument and nod along...yes, yes, Sanctity...although they'd not think of following what the religion tells them to do, they think it allows them to tell me what to do, Men and women alike do that. "You gay people, God says it is a sin, it is in the Scripture" says. And no one laughs. No one says 'gee, do you also think women should stay subservient to men, or do you only take the anti gay parts?'
Sorry. Religion is the reason. The texts are the excuse. Pretending it does not say what it says is just a joke. It says it. Again and again.
The First Lady is so out of St Paul's idea of women's roles that I am stunned that she cites him to excuse her anti equality dogmas. Sanctity. Sure. Also subservience. Can not slice one from the other.
So what IS the non religious reason to oppose my rights, and why does the President of Straights not use that reason instead of shouting God at us? As if his role was that of a priest or priestess. Which it is not. At all.

[redqueen]

98. You'd have to ask them for their reasons.

Most of them just deny they're doing it.

All I'm saying is it ain't religion that's causing it. Misogyny came before religion. So did homophobia I'd imagine.

The dominant groups tendency to other and disenfranchise out-groups came before religion. Religion was invented to rationalize it.

The fact that it's used as an excuse to rationalize it proves nothing.

[Bluenorthwest]

122. Religion was crafted at a certain point to codify these sexist 'laws'

Patriarchal religions were not the first religions. It is not used as an excuse, it is used as a tool machined for the purpose. Religion is just people engaged in worship of their own egos. We create all things. So the question is why was religion crafted into the sort of net of oppression that it is? And further, why is that ancient codification still in play, not updated?
Religion was created not just to rationalize actions,also to facilitate and empower those actions. Ask the President why he opposes my rights, he points at God and claims it is God's idea. Why? That's all the 'reason' he has. God says so. If he just said 'I say so' we'd laugh at him. He says God and oh, we can nay question matters of faith!
It is the means, the end and the entire lexicon of oppression.

[redqueen]

125. Patriarchal religions were not the first religions?

Sorry but I'm not sure about that. I know there are totems that depict women, but that to me is not conclusive evidence that women were worshipped or that women were not disenfranchised at the time. It might be the case, but it might not. Those totems might simply be in worship of fertility, and not women themselves. We see still today the fundies who worship fertility, while all but despising women themselves.

Religion was crafted to reinforce mores. It's still in play because many people still subscribe to whatever religion of their choice. As for why it's not updated, I'd say the examples of religions being updated are very few and far between. When you claim something is handed down by a deity, it becomes problematic to change the rules as you go.

Like I said, I think god is used as an excuse. That doesn't show that the problems came from religion, though. Not IMO. IMO the religions were created to justify the beliefs which already existed.

[WilliamPitt]

57. 2,000 years of wrong-headed history

with a dash of Jesus thrown in for good measure.

[Union Scribe]

80. No.

Go read up. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/women.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. Meh - that doesn't show women were ever more influential than men in Christianity

It just shows they had some presence.

[Union Scribe]

99. What? Who was trying to show they had MORE influence?

The point is that women were not always considered subordinates. That took hold as orthodoxy/dogma/conservatism did. Thus Pitt's "2000" year comment being wrong.

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. Men were dominant in Christianity right from the start until 1920

which was what was relevant to Pitt's point, and meant he wasn't 'wrong'.

[Union Scribe]

113. If you want to ignore actual scholarship

in favor of the insistence of some forum poster, I guess. It's not like some here ever needed facts to back up their disdain for broad groups of people, particularly religious sorts.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

136. familiarize yourself with the Gnostics

.

[muriel_volestrangler]

142. who were not the dominant form of Christianity, and were still male-dominated

How do you think the Gnostics show that women dominated early Christianity, or even had equal control with men?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

152. Gnosticism clearly did not have dominant women as one of its dominant features

And of course, you'll comb back through and find that I never said it, and never inferred it from anything else that was said or implied.

I'll still cast my lot with Elaine Pagels. Thank you.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

62. In 1790, New Jersey granted the vote to "all free inhabitants," including women.

Before then, in 1652, the Society of Friends (also known as "Quakers" by outsiders) was established. One of their major contributions was the promotion of the democratic participation of all adults, both men and women. Their descendants, after the United States was formed, continued to be at the forefront of the suffrage movements. They also participated in the anti-slavery movements, assisted run-away slaves while being involved with the underground railroad, and treated former slaves with respect whether they were male or female. Susan B. Anthony was a Friend or a Quaker.

Prior to 1920 in various Western states, both men and women were enfranchised to vote in Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and Colorado (although Congress reacted to Utah women voters exercising their suffrage rights in favor of polygamy by disenfranchising them in 1887, but not women voters in other states, by passing the Edmunds–Tucker Act).

You say that your question is a serious one. May I suggest that you are starting with a false premise. If you are going to begin with a premise that "men in the United States legally and forcibly denied women ...," you might want to modify your words and your thinking to include the phrase "some men." If you willing to consider that aspect, you might also want to consider that "some women," like the pre-1887 Utah women voters who favored polygamy, have been enablers.

[dawg]

68. They thought women were emotionally inferior. Hysterical.

If a woman was right-thinking, then she already agreed with her husband's views on political matters, so there was no reason for her to have a separate vote. If she disagreed with her husband, then she was probably hysterical and certainly shouldn't be allowed to have a voice in governmental affairs.

At least, that's what I think they believed.

[Mr Dixon]

70. IMO

Because the country was ran by a bunch of cavemen, much like the GOP is run today.

[Shankapotomus]

73. To maintain power. Simple as that.

Why were the Native Americans subjugated? Power.

Why were the human rights of Africans so violated? Power.

Why were women oppressed? Power.

Power. Power Power.

It's a psychological defect. Or at least a cultural one.

I think it is more predominate in "alpha males".

That's why I have never coveted power over others. I must have some psychological mutation that doesn't allow me to be thrilled by giving orders to other people. I wouldn't want to be an alpha male even if you handed it to me. Unless, of course, I could use my power to raise everybody up. And that's what I'd do.

[snooper2]

75. Laura Ingram's grandmother had a strong following?

[DrDan]

76. men were considered the "head of the family", hence in the position to grant rights (or deny them)

So the right-to-vote was based on the interests of the male.

There are actually those here today (DUers) who similarly believe "children" have no rights other than those granted by the parents.

So we have made progress, but more progress is yet to be made.

[justiceischeap]

77. I'm not a man, but I'm gonna venture an answer

I think since our politics comes from the ancient Greeks, and they didn't allow women the right to vote, we (and most others that adopted the Greek model) didn't change it too much. Only free men were allowed to vote in ancient Greece.

I also think that women were considered too frail to get involved as something as "testing" as politics. For a long time, men thought any kind of undue stress would harm women. We were very much treated like fragile beings. Some men still think we're too fragile for anything more than childbirth but (though I've never been through it), I think we all know how strong a woman has to be to bear that.

[sledwreck13]

78. We got tired of the constant nagging?

Kidding. That right was hard organized, hard fought for and hard earned.

[MilesColtrane]

79. Because it's a man's man's man's world

[Zorra]

86. That is, of course, just the opinion of a self described sex machine.

[mistertrickster]

182. But it wouldn't be NOTHIN' without a woman or a girl. nt

[onenote]

81. Short answer: history

The United States was settled by people from other countries -- Great Britain, Germany, etc etc where almost universally there was no women's suffrage until the early part of the 20th century. In short, men in the United States legall denied women the vote because that's the way things had been in the countries from which they and their forebears came.

By the way, is there much evidence of men "forcibly" denying women the vote?

[RainDog]

88. Women who marched for suffrage were physically attacked

here in America. During the Wilson inauguration.

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa010118a.htm

[midnight]

104. Hmmm... Why do you wonder, did the police do nothing?

"The parade organizers had obtained the necessary police permit for the march, but the police did nothing to protect them from their attackers. Army troops from Fort Myer were called in to stop the violence. Two hundred marchers were injured."

[redqueen]

92. Activists were arrested (unconstitutionally) and abused.

There was even a popular movie made about some of these activists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Jawed_Angels

[onenote]

101. Thanks for the info

[DearHeart]

195. Alice Paul~what an amazing woman!!

Very good movie and it made me more interested in women's history and the suffrage movement. A good book to read is American's Women: 400 years of Dolls, Drudges and Helpmates and Heroines by Gail Collins. Amazing histories that I had NEVER heard about in school.

http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/gail-collins/americas-women/#review

[white_wolf]

83. Patriarchy is an ancient system and we still haven't really gotten rid of it.

That is what it comes down to, though, power. For centuries people were taught that woman were inferior to men and were not capable of making decisions on their own. They had to have a man to make their decisions for them. Christianity, since you asking about the U.S., only made that sentiment more entrenched since the Bible is full of verses that describe women as second class people.

Also, I would say one of the biggest reasons men opposed it for so long was that they were afraid of losing their privileged place in the society and at home. A lot of the men of that time likely feared that once women got the right to vote and have a greater role in civic society, they would start wanting a greater role at home and would want something more than taking care of the home and the kids all day.

In my opinion, a lot of it came to power and entrenched system of patriarchy that we have weakened, but certainly not ended.

[Union Scribe]

84. Why ask just men?

Are we supposed to have some secret answer in the oppressive patriarchy dangling between our legs? Seriously, what is a man supposed to say that a woman couldn't about this? I don't feel any particular connection to what they were thinking back then just because I'm a male.

[Charlemagne]

90. apparently yes

[Zorra]

93. Because I've only ever had this conversation, in any depth, with women, and

I'd like really like to know what a variety of men believe regarding this issue.

This is primarily a progressive/liberal forum that has a membership containing a fairly large number of intelligent, insightful, and thoughtful men, many of whose opinions I have come to greatly respect over an 8 year period of posting here.

[Dreamer Tatum]

91. "Men" didn't do shit.

Stupid to blame an entire gender.

[frogmarch]

94. The OP makes me think of this video.

I think it addresses the question, although in a humorous way.

My stepmom was a college graduate, yet when my parents invited couples to our house for dinner, all women were expected to retire to the kitchen to washes dishes while the men discussed politics in the living room. My mom would have none of it, and neither would my dad. All women, and also children, were allowed to participate in after-dinner talk at our house. Our family, including my dad, washed dishes together after our guests had gone home.

This video ridicules the way things once were.

[Gregorian]

102. I loved that show

It was either the Fast Show, or Harry Enfield and Friends. Great stuff.

[Gregorian]

100. What is the history of women and the vote over two thousand years?

I know New Zealand was sometime in the late 1800's.

I would also say that regardless of the history of women's voting rights in the past, it's women who demanded their right to vote that won it for them.

I have forgotten another thing. There's a quote (French, I believe) that states that freedom isn't given, it's taken. I see this in the OWS movement.

It's probably very complex, why people aren't allowed to do certain things. Why isn't cannabis legal? It's harmless. Things that are highly addictive and poisonous and dangerous to the public are legal. One could ask the same question regarding this subject.

My answer for all of the above is that we haven't demanded it. Women made it clear they were going to vote. But it takes a big enough number of people in order for it to become a legitimate threat to warrant attention.

Even millions of people didn't stop Bush from invading Iraq. But we could have stopped it had enough people been engaged. Same with impeachment.

[Lint Head]

105. I think it's because society evolves right along with the brain and intelligence.

Most religion, which is a controlling concept as opposed to a spiritual concept, has subjugated women in it's texts and actions and still does. The light blub only came into existence as a prevalent mode of illumination during the beginning of the last century. Mankind has considered women as second class for thousands of years. There are a lot of things that need to be thrown on the waste bin of time and considering women as not equal to men is one of them.

[Zorra]

106. Thank you all so very much for all of these interesting responses!

I honestly have no anti-man agenda going here.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

I need to leave for awhile but will try to respond to posts when I get back.

[bigwillq]

107. Because of their small penis size

?

Maybe.

[killbotfactory]

108. Social and religious tradition

There is sort of an inertia to cultural traditions that can take many years to overcome through reason.

[PETRUS]

109. The first things that comes to mind.

A general reluctance on the part of the elites that dominate(d) the system to expand the franchise to anyone else at all.

[oldhippie]

114. Because men at the time didn't think women were very smart......

.... and didn't want their influence in trying to govern. Pretty simple, really. Couple thousand years of human history as precedent.

[REP]

115. Why did Wyoming grant suffrage before the US did and refuse admittance unless it was recognized?

[lumberjack_jeff]

151. +1

Three cheers for "the equality state".

[REP]

153. (see .sig)

Facts are annoying, aren't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wyoming

[dmallind]

117. Tradition mostly

I don't think it was a particularly discrete decision along the lines of a carte blanche design. It was instead predictable small c conservative resistance to change. There is a reason that a pre-amendment map of women's suffrage rights was much more blank in the established East coast and Ohio Valley and much more filled in in the younger former frontier states. The more comfortable you are with the way things have been for XX years, the less you seek or welcome change.

You also have to remember that women did not unanimously seek suffrage nor did men unanimously seek to deny it to them. A lot of the blue-blooded matriarchs didn't want to dilute the influence they exerted on husbands and sons by letting their maids vote too.

Certainly sexism played a part. The idea that women are there to be decorative rather then powerful is not dead now let alone nine decades ago.

About the only specific issue I recall from my distant and not all that expansive reading on the history of the period is that the Temperance and Suffrage movements had significant overlap, and some feared that women voting would lead to prohibition. There was a fairly significant Freethought component to it too, which probably antagonized some as well.

[hfojvt]

119. they just continued the way things were

The "men of the United States" were before that the "men of England". When the United States was created from 1776 - 1787 it did not invent this crazy little thing called the "right to vote". Men had been electing legislatures, which had limited powers, since the first settlement of America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Burgesses and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_government_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies

The men who wrote the Constitution simply continued what was a tradition of several hundreds of years. To have done differently would have, first of all, been largely unthinkable, and second of all, have greatly seemed to increase the risk in what was already a very risky undertaking.

[TheKentuckian]

127. I think the roots were there long before anyone could vote, I have no idea how women became

2nd class/property other than desending from not generally able to take/assume power from men physically.

Also, the nature of the human reaction to power, there is seemingly always an urge to concentrate it.

It is difficult to speak in a minute fashion, having no flavor of the moment of such a person. No greater flavor of the moment than a woman of similar age and insight can offer.

I guess we have to also ask why women didn't take such power earlier, why was there no suffrage movement from the outset of the democratic movement?

Maybe we should rephrase your question to why white property owning females weren't granted the vote and drill down on why women had such weak to nonexistent property rights or even further back to the preceding concentration of property to nobles.

[Bok_Tukalo]

128. Because they liked beer

... and they knew the old ballandchain would take it away from them.

They were right.

[greytdemocrat]

140. Damn right!

And get me a sammich!!!

<Runs>...

[stevenleser]

129. I think it it started as Roles, then became tradition and then became a way to retain power

I think since women bore and fed (via breast milk) the children, most primitive human cultures assigned them the role of staying at home and maintaining the home front and assigned the men the task of farming or hunting or gathering.

Eventually, that role became cemented into tradition and women became a defacto second class of human being. Men then began to enjoy the power that gave them and accumulated women as wives and concubines the way we now accumulated property. The women were sex slaves, free labor for the household, etc. With that kind of arrangement, men didnt want to give that up.

That's my first take anyway. Am interested in hearing other theories. I dont think the religious one works because I think the roles go back past biblical times.

[MisterP]

130. coverture--something structural and thus implicit rather than explicit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

[Fumesucker]

132. “The bicycle has done more for the emancipation of women than anything else in the world.”

-Susan B Anthony

Modern transportation as much as anything brought about the emancipation of women, beginning with the bicycle. The freedom to come and go on bicycles lead to more practical women's styles and was a major impetus for a social revolution that only went into overdrive when the automobile came along.

http://www.moah.org/exhibits/archives/bicycles/social.html

[Zorra]

196. +1

[Fire Walk With Me]

134. Fear and insecurity.

I wasn't there at the time, but that seems to be the motivation behind modern sexist repression.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

141. The simple truth.

[Fearless]

137. Power. n/t

[downwardly_mobile]

144. Interesting question. I guess because history is, in the long perspective, a story of progress.

Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2012, 08:42 PM - Edit history (1)

If it was a story of stasis, we coulldn't ask that question, because women wouldn't have recieved the vote in 1920.

If it was a story of reversal and decline, the question would be, why did men forcibly strip women of their ability to legally vote?

History is a story of progress though, despite its fits and starts.

As a rock is thrown in a pond, the rings of ripples start small, where the water was broken first, and then spread out slowly until they cover the surface of the pond and start bouncing off the shore.

In 1215, the Magna Carta did nothing but extend rights to the small minority of men who were noblemen. Over time, voting was extended to free men who owned property. Later it was extended to all free men, property-owners and paupers alike. Slavery ended, and despite that story's particularly tragic fits and starts, the franchise become extended to all men. In 1920, it was extended to women, and so now the franchise is held generally by all adults (except for felons, etc.)

History is a story of progress. I happen to think that, fundamentally, one can only really be a "progressive" in the best senses of the word if one believes that progress has occurred before this time: if it hasn't, why should we believe that progress can be achieved now or in the future?

Finally, I will say this about that: was western civilization "patriarchal"? Well absolutely and obviously it was. It was the most patriarchal civilization the world has ever seen - except for all the others.

[Nye Bevan]

149. I think that was just the way it had always been, and nobody thought to change it.

Back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, the men were the ones who made the decisions. At the time of the American Revolution I don't think women had the right to vote in any country in the world.

[lumberjack_jeff]

154. Many women were against it.

Author Caroline F. Corbin (for instance) wrote several books and articles about (and generally opposing) women's suffrage in the 1880's. Quotes from Mrs Corbin's book "Letters from a Chimney Corner" was quoted prominently in the congressional record.

It is revisionist history to claim that the dilatory enactment of the 19th amendment was solely due to universal opposition by men.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text12/antisuffrageassoc.pdf

ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO THE EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE TO WOMEN
WOMAN’S PROTEST AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE
TO MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE, APRIL, 1909:
We acknowledge no inferiority to men. We claim to have no less ability to perform the duties which God has imposed upon us than they have to perform those imposed upon them.
We believe that God has wisely and well adapted each sex to the proper performance of the duties of each.
We believe our trusts to be as important and sacred as any that exist on earth.
We believe woman suffrage would relatively lessen the influence of the intelligent and true, and increase the influence of the ignorant and vicious.
We feel that our present duties fill up the whole measure of our time and ability, and are such as none but ourselves can perform. Our appreciation of their importance requires us to protest against all efforts to infringe upon our rights by imposing upon us those obligations which cannot be separated from suffrage, but which, as we think cannot be performed by us without the sacrifice of the highest interests of our families and or society.
It is our fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons who represent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and our brothers love us; our husbands are our choice and one with us; our sons are what we make them. We are content that they represent us in the corn-field; on the battle-field, and at the ballot-box, and we them in the school room, at the fireside, and at the cradle, believing our representation even at the ballot-box to be thus more full and impartial than it would be were the views of the few who wish suffrage adopted, contrary to the judgment of the many.
We do herefore respectfully protest against any legislation to establish “woman suffrage” in the State of Illinois.

MRS. CAROLINE F. CORBIN,
President.
MRS. S. M. NICKERSON,
1st Vice-President
MRS. R. J. OGELSBY,
2nd Vice-President
MRS. J. C. FAIRFIELD,
Secretary
MRS. GEO. W. SMITH.
MRS. RALPH N. ISHAM.
MRS. A. T. GALT.
MRS. WM. ELIOT FURNESS.
MRS. FRANCIS LACKNER.
MRS. MARY POMEROY GREEN.

[Zorra]

193. Duh. Women against equality. It seems that most anti-suffragist women were, naturally, RWers.

After the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a coalition of anti-suffragists organized themselves into a political anti-feminist movement in order to "oppose expansion of social welfare programs, women's peace efforts, and to foster a political culture hostile to progressive female activists. They effectively blended anti-feminism and anti-radicalism by embracing and utilizing the hysteria of the post-World War I Red Scare." [5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism

[lumberjack_jeff]

205. "Duh"? So will a follow up thread ask women the same question?

Suffrage took a long time because many women and men opposed it.

Instead of asking a self-selecting groups of progressive men 100 years after the fact, as if we would have some special understanding, perhaps you'd get better insights by asking Phyllis Schlafly or Anita Bryant.

But it is apparent that answers and insights aren't the intended output of this thread.

[Zorra]

210. It appears that you are looking for a fight.

If so, you've come to the wrong bar.

Or did you misinterpret the "duh" as some kind of attack?

The "duh" was in reference to conservative women who did not feel they needed to have a voice in governing themselves.

If that is the case, I apologize for not being clear.

[jody]

156. That's the way their fathers, grandfathers, . . . . . had always done things. n/t

[quaker bill]

158. I do not know.

Quakers didn't. Lucretia Mott worked alongside of Susan B. Anthony toward the success of the sufferage movement. Friends have consistently viewed women as equals.

[mistertrickster]

160. Because women didn't demand it here until 1920.

Power is never ceded, it must be taken.

Men in general up until that time wrongly saw that they would benefit by maintaining traditional gender roles.

Women had to "shielded" from the competitive world of business, politics, etc. There is a kernel of truth to that world view--fighting in the arena of the marketplace may be exhilarating, but it's rarely ennobling.

That's my 2cents worth anyway.

[frazzled]

162. They'd been demanding it since 1848, at Seneca Falls

Please don't betray your lack of knowledge about the efforts of 50% of the actors in American history.

[mistertrickster]

181. Now, that's so unfair.

I'm not an expert, but I have some knowledge of the women's suffrage movement and hold those who built the movement in high esteem. I've read my Howard Zinn and James Lowen. Please don't come after me hammer-and-tongs like I'm a Freeper.

Granted, the movement started long before 1920, but that's (obviously) when it built enough popular support to come to fruition. That's what I meant by my post.

[frazzled]

185. I'm sorry, but what was I to think

You said: "Women didn't demand it here until 1920." (By here I assume you meant in the US). In my reading of English, that meant you were stating that women did not make the demand for the right to vote in the United States until the year 1920. Not that they hadn't accrued enough popular support until that time. The semantics of your statement did not leave room for any nuance or any other interpretation.

Next time, read over what you wrote to make sure you are making your point clear. In the meantime, I'm glad to hear you hold the women who fought for this right in high esteem.

[mistertrickster]

186. Actually, women in the US could vote in New Jersey for awhile until the early 1800's IRCC. nt

[Codeine]

163. You could just tell us what our answer is supposed to be

and save the rigamarole of another long-ass thread.

[ZombieHorde]

221. Why the hostility? nt

[Bruce Wayne]

166. You couldn't have the 19th Amendment till you passed the 18th.

Look, I don't have a problem with women voting--far from it; in fact the whole point of passing women's suffrage was because women tend to vote for reformers who will clean up the corruption at city hall. The only caveat is that before women could vote, you'd first have to pass Prohibition of alcohol. The last thing we need is a bunch of drunk ladies showing up at the polls, casting their votes off one way and casting their petticoats off the other--Land's'aMercy, the very notion of it gives me the shakes. Thus, all of this may well be ultimately related to Locke's original "Social Contract." The basic agreement that holds today's society together is: "Sure, we'll letcha vote, sister, but first you got to sober the hell up."

[quinnox]

167. Don't know for sure, but I'm feeling very guilty, thanks

[Sparkly]

173. I'm a woman, but I have an opinion about it.

I think it's because they were afraid of the ol' "slippery slope." You give women the right to vote, and down the road they could start demanding equal rights! And what if they won? Then the family unit would crumble, causing the whole fabric of society to fall apart, leading civilization to come crashing down, destroying all of America in the wake of its catastrophic chaos!!

That's why.

[flvegan]

177. Lack of enlightenment, which thankfully gradually increased and still seems to.

[Synicus Maximus]

180. I'm not sure but maybe the same reason that France did not give women the vote until 1944 or

Italy until 1946 or Switzerland until 1971 or Egypt until 1956. Actually the US was fairly early in giving women the right to vote. And actually 4 states had enfranchised women in state elections before 1900.

[suffragette]

187. Add Washington State as #5 - with an asterisk

http://theautry.org/explore/exhibits/suffrage/suffrage_wa.html

Timeline

1854- Washington Territorial Legislature defeats women's suffrage bill by one vote.

1871- Washington Woman Suffrage Association founded.

1883- Washington Territorial Legislature approves full suffrage for women, including African-American women.

1887- Harland v. Washington overturns legislation as unconstitutionally vague.

1888- Legislature approves "An Act to Enfranchise Women"; Territorial Supreme Court voids new suffrage measure.

1889- Washington statehood; Washington voters defeat suffrage referendum by 2-1 margin.

1898- Voters defeat second suffrage referendum campaign.

1910- Washington voters approve full women's suffrage.


More on suffrage here in 1883:

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/timeline/civilrights.htm
In 1883, Washington temporarily extended suffrage to women and as a result, black women in Washington became the first black women to vote in the United States.

[Cleita]

184. Among plain sexism, this is what I was told by my father who was old enough to

vote before women got the vote.(1)Women didn't need to vote because they would vote like their husbands or fathers anyway so the vote would be redundant and the results the same. (2) Many men felt women weren't educated or sophisticated enough to make informed decisions.

Incidentally, my father was not against suffrage or women being all they could be. He encouraged me to get a good education and learn a profession so I could support myself. Back in the fifties this was not a common view. Most of my friends were told to get a husband who could take care of them.

[boston bean]

188. Because men had brute force

it wasn't dependent on brains or intellect. They could, so they did. And by the time some enlightment came along, brute force just wasn't going to cut it and they could no longer prevent certain things.

However, still to this day, men and their brute force, physical strength, hold power of women in many ways.

And with that brute force came an inherent bias in society. From caveman time until now, it still exists. It's not necessarily nature, instead it is men being able to have their way since the beginning of time due to their brute, physical strength.. And they still reep the benefits.

[Fire Walk With Me]

189. I've made a mistake-- I answered from an incorrect perspective.

The answer revolves around emotions. A lack of compassion and love provide for an easy road to using people as things, and controlling them as resources. This is social biology, our animal component. Those who have gained compassion and love, often through personal suffering and being close to those who have suffered, often wish others to be happy, and will work for everyone to be equally free.

[Zorra]

217. "Those who have gained compassion and love,...

...often wish others to be happy, and will work for everyone to be equally free."

That's awesome, Fire. Thanks for that.

[Yupster]

191. In history there is something called the "Sin Of Presentism."

It's the sin of judging people of the past by the standards of the present.

So, why did women gain the right to vote in the US in 1920?

Because that's the time that women were getting the right to vote.

Here's the chart of when other countries granted the franchise to women.

•1893 New Zealand
•1902 Australia
•1906 Finland
•1913 Norway
•1915 Denmark
•1917 Canada
•1918 Austria, Germany, Poland, Russia
•1919 Netherlands
•1920 United States
•1921 Sweden
•1928 Britain, Ireland
•1931 Spain
•1944 France
•1945 Italy
•1947 Argentina, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan
•1949 China
•1950 India


So why did we grant the right to vote to women in 1920?

Because that's about when it became a big issue to the world. We are right in there with the countries you'd expect us to be in with. No big surprises.

[WiffenPoof]

192. Because...

...as a whole the male dominated society was behind the times when it came to progressive issues. I forgot the MLK quote that best answers your question (in a much broader context)...however, it basically states that while there are struggles, history tends to bend towards justice.

-P

[krispos42]

194. Because women are stupid and soft and emotional

Unable to make the hard decisions that life in hard times demanded. War and peace and money and infrastructure? Why, for them to be informed on the issue, they'd have to be able to READ and do MATH and BE INFORMED. And if they're off getting educated and keeping up with politics, who's going to raise the children and make the husband a sandwich on-demand?






I sure that was the prevailing opinion at the time, or something similar to it.

[lovemydog]

197. Because most men are jerks

and when they get together they become bigger jerks.

That's just my opinion as a man who tends to prefer horses and dogs over most men and women.

What's your thought on it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

207. My thought? This is the definition of self-loathing. nt

[Zorra]

214. My thoughts? Yeh, some people act like ignorant jerks sometimes.

It's totally not gender dependent. Women are not any better than men. We are not sugar and spice and everything nice.

We're only human, just like men.

I believe that men and women have differences that often make communication between genders difficult at times.

It's probable that these apparent differences are related to chromosomal/physical differences and/or growing up in very different societal/cultural environments and "roles".

In modern times, it seems that we are slowly learning how to bridge these apparent differences.

Yelling at each other will not further the progress of productive communication and subsequent understanding between genders whatsoever.

This thread is primarily intended as a catalyst for the consideration of why women historically, and presently as well, have not been viewed by men, and very often not viewed by women themselves, as being human beings with the equal standing, rights, and privileges as men.

I have learned a great deal of new information from the diverse and valuable input from the posters on this thread, and I believe that it is already helping me understand better how I might possibly communicate more effectively with men, and women as well.

(It can also be related to the current struggle for LGBT equality as well. One thing that history consistently shows us is that those who prevent/try to prevent others from manifesting their natural rights and equality are totally on the wrong side of history).

I don't have the answers; I don't dislike men because of this phenomenon, that would be pointless. It is what it is. I believe that the more we understand about how and why this phenomenon exists, the easier it will become for men and women to effectively and productively communicate with each other, and, as a result, live together equally and more harmoniously.

It is very difficult for us to get a real grasp on the present if we don't know the circumstances and events that got us here. Not knowing anything about the past is like a person waking up after being in a coma for 40 years. A person like this knows little about the past. Their concept of the present will have very little context. They will have no past experience from which to negotiate existence, make decisions, and communicate with others.

Maybe, if men and women both better understand where we came from, and how we got here, we will be able to communicate more productively and compassionately with each other now and in the future.

BTW, I also love horses and dogs.

But I love people, too.

peace

[lovemydog]

225. thanks for the thoughtful reply

I like a lot of people too.

[ErikJ]

199. America was 98% farmers til 1900.

The tribal herding agricultural societies value men more than women because the sons would inherit the accumulated wealth of the farm or herd so he would remain with his parents until they died. The son was their "social security" in old age. daughters would just disappear after sexual maturity. So they were only good for child bearing and so not as valued for survival to the parents in farming culture.

Men got all the power this way and the US was still 98 % farmers until 1900.

[Iggo]

200. Woo-hoo! Another Men vs Women thread!

DU fucking rules!!!

[Zorra]

215. It's not intended as such; please don't try to make it that way.

Thanks.

[Iggo]

218. I'm not making it that way. They get that way all by themselves. (n/t)

[Zorra]

220. Uh-oh, black magic! No prob, bro! Close your eyes, click your heels together 3 times, and...

[ZombieHorde]

222. The issue of bigotry has to be addressed in order to be alleviated.

Ignoring the issue isn't going to help.

[McCamy Taylor]

202. This woman thinks it was because corporate America feared that women would be harder to control

at the polls. And look at what has happened since women got the vote? Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights. More good was accomplished by the government in the 90 years that women had the vote than in the 120 years that they didn't.

Corporate America was right to worry.

[spin]

211. Religious views played a role...

At that time Christianity stressed that women should be subservient to men.

Christianity's Role in the Battle Against Women's Suffrage

***snip***

...The use of religious ammunition, however, was more predominant in the arguments of the anti-suffragists as opposed to their counterparts. Statements published by churches were used as the position of Christians as a whole, and using the anti-suffragist logic applied, their position of persuasion was generally thus; If you did not follow and believe the religious stance on suffrage as was put by their choice of sources, you were not a 'good Christian'. God declares that women do not have a place in politics due to their inferior position to men. They used these documents to persuade, if not scare, women with the possibility of defying (and being punished for such defiance by) god.
http://voices.yahoo.com/christianitys-role-battle-against-womens-suffrage-323945.html

[SomethingFishy]

212. How in gods name am I supposed to know what the fuck

men were thinking in 1920? It's like asking me to understand the Chinese mindset.

This man bashing on DU has gone to fucking far. Every day there is a new thread, that purports to be about womens rights but is nothing but an excuse to attack men.

I'm a man. I love women. They are wonderful and I would never purposefully do anything to hurt a woman. I imagine most DU men are the same. And that is the last I have to say on the subject, now excuse me while I go "trash" any man hating threads so I can try to have a pleasant day.

[Zorra]

216. Please, see post #214.

Thanks.

[ZombieHorde]

223. Holy shit. Discussing sexism in our society is no more man bashing

than discussing racism is white bashing.

These issues need to be discussed.

[superpatriotman]

213. Because power over another is hard to give up

It must be taken by force of law.

[ZombieHorde]

224. Wow, a simple question has inspired a lot of anger.

You have really hit a nerve.

[Zorra]

229. The new word describing this phenomenon is

"testeria".

see post #16

[HuckleB]

226. I did not live in that time. I did not grow up in that time. I am not a historian.

I am not a sociologist. I am not a social psychologist. I am not a human ecologist.

Thus, I have no quick, profound answer.

[snagglepuss]

230. .