In the early 20th century, an amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, which gave females the universal right to vote. It was the 19th amendment to that Constitution, and still stands as law today.
Of course, American men didn't have to pass this amendment. Indeed, had only 40% of them opposed it, it would never have become law. Furthermore, the historical reality is that millions of American women opposed this amendment. Many of them were college-educated, highly thoughtful, and deeply influential women, from all over the country, who thought that giving women the vote was a horrible idea.
Practically every American male, of any social class, had a wife, a sister, or a daughter who thought that giving women the vote was a horrible notion that would lead to ruin for the country.
Despite this, not only did a 2/3rds majority of the all-male House and all-male Senate vote to ratify the 19th amendment, but a majority of the males in a majority (3/5ths) of states in the Union also voted the same way. Even though most of them were close relatives and/or friends of women who thought this was a bad, or at least frightening, idea.
So, for Judith Weiss, Meryl Yourish, and all the other resentful feminists I know, I have a special message for you. It's from all the males of America. It's a message not just from us, but from your fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers:
YOU'RE WELCOME.
I hope you're wearing your hardhat.
Indeed. But well said nontheless.
I know it hasn't been said, but thank you. ;)
That's the way of legal and social reform in these United States. The majority is stricken by its conscience and decides to enfranchise a disenfranchised minority -- something that minority could not do for itself.
It happened with women's suffrage.
It happened with racial equality before the law.
It happened with homosexuals' rights.
It is the way of a good and decent people.
It's one of the biggest reasons I love this country, and have no patience for anyone who denigrates it.
And we should have absolutely no hesitation about flinging it into the face of any screaming black racist, any radical feminist, any homosexual activist, or anyone else at all who claims Americans are oppressors.
Even when there's more work to do, one is permitted to be proud of what one has already achieved.
Be proud.
But what have you done for women lately.
Of course SB Anthony was arrested for voting in 1872 and the 19th passed 48 years later in 1920. The women's suffrage movement started long before 1872, so the men ignored the women that did want to vote for a good century. And wasn't prohibition the first thing women voting influenced?
Well, Trigger, no one said that women were necessarily smarter voters, just that we should have the right. And men have come up with plenty of boneheaded ideas, legislation, etc. as well. Actually, until the first female Senators/Representatives/SCOTUS Justices, most of the questionable laws and regulations were brought about by men. Right?
Dean, great minds must think alike.
I'm writing about arguments against women's suffrage (and how some of them resemble certain recent arguments against gay marriage). One of the forgotten stories of women's suffrage is that some of the most persuasive anti-suffragists were women.
I found a great site with an archive of political cartoons. Here's a couple that illustrate the struggle of suffragettes vs. anti-suffragettes (and the men stuck in the middle).
Three's a Crowd, 1910
What Can A Mere Man Do?, 1910
HATE CRIME!!!
Ahem.
tallan,
we don't need to do anything for women. Their energy is sufficient to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (garters?). All we did is get the structural impediment out of their way. Now all we have to do is to stand aside and not get stampeded.
How did American men win the right to vote? By taking up arms against the British and winning a brutal war, at the cost of great loss of life, liberty, and property.
How did American women win the right to vote? By nagging their husbands, mainly.
It should come as no surprise, then, that we tend to use the franchise to accomplish different ends.
"It happened with women's suffrage.
It happened with racial equality before the law.
It happened with homosexuals' rights."
Now it is time for the most oppressed minority in the world today, white males in their 50s!
Oh, Richard. I've missed you. Where were you when I was declaring the blogosphere sexist again?
Go ahead, read my archives and jump in, dear. We haven't had a good knock-down drag-out in some time. You've let Dean take your place.
For shame.
Oops. The prohibition remark wasn't meant as a slam against women, especially since it was the elected men that ended up voting for it. I just wanted to point out that women's "power" of the vote had an immediate effect on policy (good or bad) as I don't think as many men would have gone along with prohibition if they didn't fear women voting them out of office. Yes Jen, men were the ones in power that purpetuated all kinds of stupid things...slavery, segregation, oppression of women, etc.
We unenlightened rednecks in Utah and Wyoming gave women the vote before any of the eastcoast nancyboys did.
And after you're done thanking me, fetch a beer, will 'ya?
[ducking]
So, all those men whose wimmen relatives didn't want them to give women the vote, ignored their wimmen relatives and gave women the vote?
Makes you think.
Actually it wasn't 3/5 (60%) of the state's legislatures that passed it, it was 3/4 (75%). Back then, that meant 36 of the 48 states, and it was STILL passed in only 14 months.
I find it interesting that the Amendment that was ratified the fastest and one that was ratified the slowest were the last two passed. (# 26 - allowing 18-year-olds to vote - was ratified in only 98 days, and # 27 - involving pay raises for Congress - took just under 203 years.)
I'm weird that way...
So, all those men whose wimmen relatives didn't want them to give women the vote, ignored their wimmen relatives and gave women the vote?
Yep, that's pretty much what happened.
> We unenlightened rednecks in Utah and Wyoming gave women the vote before any of the eastcoast nancyboys did.
Umm, there were three women in those two states at that time.
The notion that men "ignored" women is sexist nonsense.
Most men didn't have the right to vote when this country began, and didn't win that right until several decades after the American revolution.
Once most men did have the right to vote, they were then faced with a raging debate between women as to whether female suffrage was a good idea.
Yes, dedicated anti-abortion and pro-suffrage activists like Susan B. Anthony were at times arrested for their pro-suffrage actions. To the hearty applause of countless women, I might add.
To portray the women of history as meek and oppressed victims of patriarchal oppressors is, however, deeply misogynist. It's also deeply misandrist. I think that most women recognize this instinctively, which is why the overwhelming majority of them refuse to consider themselves feminists.
Hey. Illinois granted women the right to vote in 1918. They could vote for any office mentioned in the Illinois constitution, which led to the odd position that they could not vote for Pres, Senator, or US Rep, but they could vote for state execs, state legislature and judges, many county exec officers, but not for mayors, dogcatchers, some county board members, no school boards, etc. Bet the ballots got pretty amusing.
And California thinks having a couple of hundred candidates for governor is a big deal of a ballot.
But wimmen tend to vote more liberal, right? And liberal (in the non-classical sense) is bad, right? And so...
[sees Meryl charging]
[ducks, runs]
One little detail the feminists don't like to remember is how feverishly Susan B. Anthony and E. Cady Stanton fought against the Fifteenth Amendment, giving the vote to former slaves. The girls were really outraged that common negroes should be allowed to vote, and were sure it would be the end of the Republic.
The nineteenth was passed so quick on account of the men feeling guilty about ignoring the women's wishes on that one.
BTW, you know that Margaret Sanger who was the pioneer on birth control and all that stuff? She was a eugenicist who wanted to sterilize the negroes.
Nice folks, those feminists, always ready to lend a helping hand to the poor.
Actually, Richard, I believe the charge that Sanger wanted to sterilize black people for eugenics purposes has been debunked. Although she did have some eugenecist views, which were very common in her day, she did not seek to wipe out black people through sterilization.
On the other hand, modern-day feminist extremists don't like it when you point out that Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and countless other suffragettes were dedicated opponents of "a woman's right to choose."
Sanger was in fact a leader of a major eugenics organization, dedicated to sterilizing idiots, criminals, and negroes, and I'm not making that up.
"To portray the women of history as meek and oppressed victims of patriarchal oppressors is, however, deeply misogynist. It's also deeply misandrist. I think that most women recognize this instinctively, which is why the overwhelming majority of them refuse to consider themselves feminists."
Dean, where on earth do you get the idea that feminists portray women as "meek and oppressed victims of patriarchal oppressors"? I only found out about the details of the history of women's suffrage from feminists. Contemporary feminists saw themselves as political descendents of Mary Wollstonecraft, Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, etc. Feminist wrote the books about it. Feminists unearthed buried histories of brave, competent women as role models - that's what Women's Studies is about, you ignorant twit.
I don't usually call people names, but this goes beyond just being prvocative - it's false to fact, and there's no excuse for it. It is very easy to learn what contemporary feminism has been about - go and learn, instead of making stuff up.
You are an intelligent guy, but your blog has gotten really loony lately. What is your problem?
I do have to take issue with the final "you're welcome" bit. Men born after 1920 played no role in the women's suffrage movement, and therefore should not take credit for the 19th Amendment, any more than they should take the blame for the fact that it was an amendment and not part of the original Constitution. This is the flip side of the "don't blame me for slavery, I've never owned any slaves" argument, and it is every bit as valid.
The "right to vote" was not seen as a universal right in the Constitution. Some people here are confusing right that the founder believe inherent in all people with governing rights that are granted by the government.
The Constitution did not give voting rights to anyone but the states. It left the voting rights of individuals up to the states, and only outlined the number of electors that the states were allowed in their vote for president. How the states determined their electors was not defined in the constitution and was left to be a right of the states.
The first mention of the voting ability of the general population was mentioned in the 15th amendment which declared that the right to vote should not be denied by "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". It was again mentioned in the 19th ammendment declaring that the right to vote could not be denied with regard to sex. There is nothing which states that the must even be a popular vote.
Voting is not either a natural or God given right. It is a right granted by the governing body. The Constitution grants that right only to the states, and outlines the power of each state to be base partially on it's population, thus providing more power to states with greater populations. It does not give the power to vote to the people. The states have granted that right. The 15th and 19th amendments, have limited the states, however to say they cannot give that right as selectively as they had(excluding races and sexes).
So yes the right to vote is a right that was GIVEN. It was given because we believe that we as a whole benefit for all voices being heard and that the best rule comes from when all are allowed to participate in it. It was not recognition of an existing right such as freedom of speech, it was the grating of a rgiht to create a better government.
Xrlq:
Isn't that the point? Lefties seem to believe today's whites need to be contrite to make up for our ancestors' transgressions. (On another blog, a lefty recently explained that I support slavery. See, he considers me a conservative, and that's who fought to retain slavery. By his analysis, if you're against racial preferences you support slavery.) If we can't claim earlier generations' successes, why are we culpable for their misdeeds?
This is sort of a backwards way to make the point, but you can see all the lefties who came out of the woodwork to deny the principle. It's funny how they have no problem understanding the concept of individualism when denying a success, but seem to have a hard time accepting that we aren't guilty of racism, supporting slavery, or denying suffrage.
MJ, you're right. If the only point of the post was to throw lefty-logic at the lefties and watch their heads explode, then Dean hit this one on the head. Turnabout is fair play.
Yehudit, reread Betty Friedan (a fake), the basis of the "new feminism", and tell me that "the Feminine Mistique" is not all about bashing the women of the '50's, and before, who chose to raise families, or adhered to traditional mores/roles.
Judith:
I only found out about the details of the history of women's suffrage from feminists.
Well then, you have apparently only gotten a small part of the story. Which is common these days, I'm afraid.
This appears to be part of the problem, Judith: you've been fed some misinformation. I don't blame you--I used to accept some of the same misinformation.
Contemporary feminists saw themselves as political descendents of Mary Wollstonecraft, Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, etc. Feminist wrote the books about it.
Yes, but, they weren't the first to do so, nor were they the only ones to do so. And unfortunately, they often gave only part of the story, and gave a distorted picture of women's political power and their role in shaping society as a result.
Are you aware, for example, that many of those icons were dedicated opponents of "a woman's right to choose?" And that they held many, many other views which would be anathema to the people running groups like NOW today? Or that, indeed, they saw themselves as having political power long before they had the vote--because they did?
Feminists unearthed buried histories of brave, competent women as role models - that's what Women's Studies is about, you ignorant twit.
Uh, no my dear. Feminists did not "unearth" this history. It was there all along in countless books. Also, unfortunately, much "Women's Study" material presents a badly unbalanced and distorted picture of what happened and how and what the real power and influence of women in those days was.
The Anti-Suffragettes were as powerful and interesting, as the Suffragettes. Most people don't know that, can't even name any of them, or what their arguments were. Why is that, do you suppose?
By the way, please don't call me names.
It is very easy to learn what contemporary feminism has been about - go and learn, instead of making stuff up.
I know a very great deal about it, Judith--more than you about some parts of it, obviously. Perhaps if you took the time to learn rather than just getting angry at me for questioning your preconceptions, we could actually have a constructive dialogue here.
You are an intelligent guy, but your blog has gotten really loony lately. What is your problem?
I have an interest in history and in dispelling misogynist and misandrist myths about women in history. And I seem to be under attack for challenging those myths. I note that an awful lot of women, on the other hand, are very positive and fascinated about the things I've said. So who's being loony--me, for trying to clear the historical record and accord the women (and men) of history greater respect? Or those who are angry at me for doing it?
I'm late to the party, but have you ever read John Lott's analysis of the effect of women's suffrage on the size and scope of government?
Dean Esmay:
I second what Amy has already said at the 50 minute hour.
Is there any particular reason why you couldn't have simply pointed out the contributions that men made to feminism and the ways in which many women have disagreed with feminism through the years and left it at that? Because that? would have been informative and could easily have included plenty of thought provoking commentary and opinions.
But with regard to this:
"Of course, American men didn't have to pass this amendment"
and this:
"I have a special message for you. It's from all the males of America. It's a message not just from us, but from your fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers: YOU'RE WELCOME"
Well, duh, but does that mean that I should thank YOU because THEY did what they ought?
Its tacky enough to ask for thanks for doing what you should, its just silly to assume that anyone should thank you because someone else did what they should.
(Talk about feeling resentful.)
I'd like to add that Susan, of course, more than deserves to feel resentful, having dedicated much of her life to women's suffrage, but was never able to vote in a national election.
I'll end by saying that while Fracis may be right when he says this:
"Even when there's more work to do, one is permitted to be proud of what one has already achieved."
Since you are too young to have worked towards the 19th Amendment, stop patting yourself on the back and let's get to work.
Richard Bennet:
First,
Dean himself pointed out that universal white male suufrage did not exist directly following the end of the Revolution (although decades, not years, would have been more accurate).
Secondly,
You have a weird sense of time...the 15th amendment was passed in 1870 and the 19th amendment was passed in 1920. Personally, I think the timing had more with the fact that New Zealand, Australia, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Canada Austria, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, Belarus, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the Ukraine had all approved (mostly) universal female suffrage sometime between 1902 and 1919.