I've noticed lately that I'm starting to get trackbacks sent to me by people who are quoting me out of context, insulting me, and distorting things I've said.
Usually it's about gay marriage, or about my questioning gender-feminist assumptions. My jaw has actually dropped at some of the distortions. In a few cases, the comments struck me as incredibly unfair, and impossible to answer because, if someone is going to so blatantly distort what I've said, I have to assume they'll distort my responses, too. So should I provide links (i.e. trackbacks) to people who are attacking me and distorting my words? I think, "no," and delete them.
But then sometimes that seems petty, and I leave them so people make up their own mind about what my critics are saying.
I'm not sure which is the best approach.
I've managed to go about a year and a half without ever getting into a seriously personal bog-to-blog screaming match. So I suppose I was about due for one, because if you're moderately high-profile and like to discuss difficult issues, it's going to happen sooner or later. I'm just surprised at the de-linkings I've been getting, and the name-calling, from people I've supported on other issues, publicly and privately, and who I thought of as friends.
I've got pretty thick skin, but I don't mind saying this hurts.
Especially the feminists. Because you know what a reasonable response would have been, in my view? "Gee Dean you make a good point. Yes, obviously, a supermajority of men did support women's right to vote, even though there were so many women telling them that shouldn't do it. That's a good point. BUT...."
But I didn't get that. I got rage, and insults, and then when I apologized, I was told I was being condescending. I got messages from still others, bloggers I'd never heard of, distorting things I said.
At the same time, in email, and instant messages, and in a few comments and trackbacks, I got some really sweet messages from people (gay people and women, mostly) who were incredibly supportive. I would like to publicly thank all of them.
I suppose there's an element of "poor me" in these ruminations, and I don't like that. I know it'll be a while before I read Meryl or Judith's blogs again, because I've found their comments so personal and so hurtful. I won't delink them of course--they're good bloggers, people I agree with on many issues, and I'm sure many of you still enjoy reading them. I used to, and I suppose that when this all blows over I'll enjoy reading them again.
I still can't figure out what the proper protocol for trackbacks is, though.
* Update * Here's a few links you may want to follow, that may give you an alternative perspective on some of the issues we've discussed here the last few days. Aside from providing these links, I'm done (for now) with these discussions, as the psychic energy drain is overwhelming. In fact, I'm telling everyone now: I am no longer reading any comments left in any of the gay marriage or feminist threads. I'll leave the comments open, and you guys can slog at each other, or at me, all you want. But I won't be responding to them, and will probably wait several weeks before I even read them, if ever. But go ahead and have fun, I provide this blog in part as a forum for people who want to discuss and debate (that's the whole "liberal tradition" thang, ya know?).Neat Site: iFeminists
Surprising site: In Susan B. Anthony's Footsteps
New perspective on marriage: The Marriage Movement
More on marriage: The Marriage Debate
Tolerance and inclusion: Interesting guy
Dean,
I'm sorry that you found people's comments hurtful. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I know that a lot of the time, things that may seem mean or insulting are meant to be simply sarcastic or mocking. Text can be a tough medium sometimes, and I think you need to give people the benefit of the doubt.
That said, I hope that any deliberately mean comments that were made won't stop you from tackling tough issues and saying what you think in the future. I know I always really like arguing with you and others who can disagree and make real arguments without sinking to the level of mindless insults.
As for trackbacks, I'd leave them up. Where possible, I'd comment on the blogs that are innacurate or insulting to let their readers know the truth. If it's really eggregious, you could even put an update in the post that those meanies are linking to so that anyone who follows the link will understand. But I think that your readers are saavy enough to recognize distortion when they see it, and they should be given the chance to see for themselves how low some bloggers will sink. At the very least, I know I'd like to know if a blogger I've respected or linked to in the past is doing such things so that I can reevaluate my position, and I think you're doing us a service by giving us that information.
If your opinions aren't strong enough to withstand a little disagreement, and if you can't look at your critics and be proud of your little disagreements with them, then you shouldn't be putting them up there in the first place.
Disagreement makes you stronger; don't shy away from it-highlight it.
Meryl and Judith's disagreements didn't look so harsh to me. Of course, they weren't directed at me.
My friends give me a harder time than that. Y'all feel free to peruse my blog and pick out the dumbest things I've said, and let me hear about it.
I'm on board with Moe. We're intelligent enough readers to be suspicious of Dowdification, and if you're not being Dowdified and are still unhappy with others' retelling of your quotes, you may need to choose your words more precisely.
In any event, thin skin is not an option. Speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may.
Dean-
Take a deep breath.
Let go of what you can't control.
This is a byproduct of your success. It means that someone, somewhere in the world will be thinking ill of you at every single moment of the day.
But that's nothing next to those of us who admire and respect you.
Now walk it off. Then get back in the ring.
D
Dean, I disagree with most of what you have to say. But I appreciate that you say it and articulately.
Where I did agree with you was on the feminism thing. Thanks for your posts on that and don't let them get you down.
=)
The interesting point is in who disagrees with you, and why. If they want to make themselves look foolish, its not your job to protect them by removing their trackback.
As far as being bothered that others might not love you all the time: remember, "If the French hate you, you must be doing something right".
This is one of the things that starts to drive me crazy about our society. So many people complain about how politicians don't take a stand on issues. Yet whenever anyone takes a stand on something, this type of thing happens. It comes from both sides, and it is rather disgusting.
You can disagree with someone without attacking them. Yet so many people feel the need to resort to personal attacks anyway. Taking a strong stand on anything today, means you have tgo step out and let people vehementy and ruthlessly attack you.
What happened to respecting someone for taking a stand, even if you disagree with them? I will debate and argue with just about anyone who takes a stand on a position that I disagree with, but I keep my arguments focused on the issues. And though I may disagree with someone, I respect them for at least standing up for what they believe in and arguing their case.
In this instance, I agree with you Dean. I have been a reader on your site for several months. I agree with you on a lto of things and disagree with you on some, but in every case I have respected and admired the stand you have taken and the arguments you have made. As recent events have shown, it's not always easy. I wish that were not the case, but I hope you get to see enough of us that respect you and admire what you are doing to keep making it worthwile.
Dean, I think your site is one of the best out there. I routinely disagree with you (especially on things pertaining to religion) but I have enormous respect for your willingness to put your neck out there so that controversial issues can be discussed in a mature way. I hope you realize that for every detractor, there are several commenters and, no doubt, a whole ton of lurkers who really like what you've done here.
The way I see it, Dean, you ought to feel free to express your opinions. this, after all, is your blog!!! If people misinterpret or misunderstand what your posts have to say, just let it go. It is not your responsibility to make others "feel good". So, if someone cant rationally deal with your posts, let them be. If the discussion is a rational and civil one, you ought to continue it, however, if people beging to act irrationally, just let them go.
Dean,
People have a way of seeing what they expect to see. It isn't necessarily intentional (although I think our university system essentially trains people in how to misinterpret in order to feign offense).
But when you intentionally yank someone's chain you should understand that this is a likley consequence.
If it were my blog, I'd leave them up. Maybe a week or two later, fisk a couple of the most egregious ones, or just let them go. But it's your blog, so no one can fault you if you choose to delete them.
I'll de-lurk long enough to say that I read your blog nearly every day and I believe you are a "thinker." FWIW, I appreciate reading heartfelt viewpoints. Whether I agree with them or not is immaterial. I am richer for the experience.
Dear Mr. Esmay: I've come to like your blog more and more as I read it, and I read it all the time now. I've had some sharp disagreements with some of the things you've said, but you've always had interesting ideas and _very_ interesting discussions. I'm sorry about those hostile comments, and I apologize for any disrespect (as distinguished from disagreement) I've shown you on my own blog in the past, which I have removed. Comments always seem to be a problem. Bill Whittle removed his comment facility for a while, and Rachel Lucas and Arthur Silber have removed theirs. I hope snippy commenters will not force you to do the same, as I love reading these comments, but if you do, I will understand. Thank you.
Dean,
First of all I think you are looking at this the wrong way. The sniping and the distortions are symptomatic of your success not of some sinister cabal out to slander you (or is it libel?). You have built a very successful weblog, personally I'm often filled with a subtle mix of glowing adoration and catty envy but hey I'm weak.
The point is that the more popular you get the more the fringe thinkers see you as a target. I personally welcome the day when the Rant [shameless plug] is the target of despicable distortions and outright attacks. Currently no one seems to care. Until then we wallow in anonymity. But self-promotion aside you should welcome the attacks, display them as a badge of honor, think of them as medals on your chest because that is what they are, you have gotten to them to the point where they have to make s**t up.
You have done well and your reward is dishonest, intellectually simple, and unprovoked attacks. Welcome to wonderful world of politics! You have arrived!
The nice thing about TrackBack is that, for the most part, you have to link in your article to get one. So, all those posts that slam you silly have links to what you really said, so people can make up their own mind.
What's more, people who follow TrackBack links from your site get the first scoop from you; the other site ends up having to work from the foundation you laid.
So don't worry about it. Either way, you're still controlling the debate. You only give back when you make the link in one of your own stories, and you certainly have the power to control who gets that privilege.
Dean, the answer to your problems is to grow a thicker skin. What in hell do you care about what people think of you, after misunderstanding snippets of your opinions? You are responsible to no one for your opinions. Not even to Rosemary, your wife. Otherwise, what's the value of individualism?
A long time ago, I made the basic decision to say exactly what is on my mind, pulling no punches, leaving behind no trail of anguish or second thoughts. The world -- individually or collectively -- accepts me for what I am, or they reject me. And I don't give a damn either way. I laugh at all of that, just as I will laugh at the coming of my own death, in the spirit of the old vikings. I will know I did my best in all endeavors, even if nobody else ever knows, and that is what counts.
In any case, you alone control Dean's World. You can shut down the connection to anyone who offends you to much, if that is what you need to keep you happy.
But why should it? Armor yourself with toughness, and let them snipe away.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Dean,
Thank you for your service to the free exchange of ideas and opinions. I appreciate the effort that you expend in presenting your views cogently and passionately.
You are now a man in the arena and as such you will have scars to show. You're the only one that can determine whether or not it is worth it but please know that many people value your efforts.
Your marriage thread has opened my eyes a little to the chasm between elements of the proponents of gay "marriage" and what I would consider to be "normal" societal goals. Most of the snide personal arrows shot at you are indicative of the emptiness of the bowsmen's argumentative quivers.
Keep up the great work and best wishes.
Dean:
What Rick DeMent said.
The more popular you become, the more such attacks you're going to suffer. And I daresay Dean's World is becoming more and more popular-- eh? I can remember back in the days when a lively thread around here was one that drew half a dozen comments! Your popularity is deserved, the attacks on you are undeserved; but cain't have the one without the other: such is the way of the world.
Every morning after breakfast, I retire to my study with a cup of coffee, fire up my computer, and the first site I visit (after checking the stats for my own website) is Dean's World. Hell, here I am right now, away on vacation, and I'm spending my vacation time checking out your blog! In my eyes, that says something about the caliber of your endeavor.
And, my friend, your growing popularity is indeed well-deserved. Keep fighting the good fight!
I know that whenever I post here, its usually because I'm disagreeing with something you've said, Dean. But on the other hand, it's clear that while I don't always agree with your conclusions, I always know that your opinion is at least well-reasoned and well-thought.
Often times when I agree with you, I reward you by saying nothing in your comments and just staying the hell out of the way of the clue-train. I think the voting rights bit is a prime example of this. Other commenters rightly noted that rights only exist because someone physically fought for them or someone gave them to someone else, and I think that the subject of your suffrage post is a first-rate example.
So, without being too ass-kissy about it, I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank you for being upfront, forthright and yourself.
Just reading the few posts above sure tells me just a bit of how people enjoy you, and care for you. I noticed over the last few days a whole lot of things coming at you, and I was getting mad.
When cubear4 said Dean was attempting to disguise his desires to enforce his morality using vague terms like respecting the instituition of marriage & commitment to society? And people conform to his notion? Boy I don't want to waste my time with that idiot. I just wonder what in the world he was reading or better yet smoking, snorting or drinking. Afterall, he was the one that lived in the alcholic home with the abusive father, where for the sake of the children, the mother chose to stay having the children endure this.
Back to what I feel very strongly about Mr. Dean. I have probably been reading you and your articles going back as far as, March-April 94. Hey, do you even remember the article where you were being interviewed for? You were highly regarded and the people of Apple came to you! The
Magazine was Celebrating the Apple II Quality Computers, and featured in this issue, was an
interview with Dean Esmay. In this article it states that "If Dean Esmay's namE isn't already a houseold word, it will be soon. He's made a career out of improving the lives of Apple II users....He's an enthusiast in the literal sense of the word, and his enthusiasm is contagious."
You know Dean, people gave you some pretty good advice and I agree. You are doing something right and you are so well read. From time to time I have looked at your, "what to buy Dean list" over the years, and I admire your vast interst in so many subjects in life. I wonder where you get the time to go to work, give loving time to Rosemary, and of course lil' Jacob. I think it is just tremendous how you and Rosemary take Sunday as family Day for the three of you. You go to college, study, and put a sincere, well read and studied opinion on any particular subject you are writing about. Remember too, you study and put facts behind your words where it is essential, & that is what sets you apart from other bloggers I read.
I thought about you quite a bit the last few nights, and all the wonderful people that took the time to read what you had to say. I believe the gay marriage is exactly as you are telling us it is, and you are right about how it is going to play out on society. So many people don't understand society is tied into gov't.
It is going to take time to accept this. I understand now that two women can fall in love with one another and would like to get married, but it takes time to work out laws.
Give society, give the United States a chance to do what she has always done for us, just slow down, take a breath. I am sure with dignity and honesty in a new law it will work itself out,
Do you remember the 30's, 40's 50's, 60's & even into the early 7o's. If you gave a child up for adoption, the papers were drawn up and you were never to see that little child again, no matter what your circumstances were. That was the law!
Well today, thousands of birthmothers have been reunited with the children they were told by the laws that were sealed, they could never see those children again. Adoptees just wanting to know even the simpliest things such as health records, were denied to them.
Things work out in time, just don't push it so hard that you have people turn against you. I can't remember Dean, did you share your story of being roasted or jumping out of a plane? Pretty good humor you keep inside.
It has absolutely been proven that laughter is the best medicine in the world. Oh yes, you must take your wife and son to see Seabiscut. It is a true story of a horse that did not come from a great blood line, had a big head, legs were all wrong for a race horse, then come home and share the movie with us. I think a lot of readers care so much for you dean, and I really believe Jacob will love this story of a horse that wasn't great as the other stallions that were sure winners.
Lightn up, you are so good and we need you, Mr. Dean.
Take a walk with Jacob and ask him if there is anything he wants to talk about. If he says yes, just Listen, and if he asks you a question. Turn to him first, be very sincere and say: "Well,what do you think?" It is always so cute what they say, and we would have blundered.
I look forward to hearing from Dean's world. you are simply a great writer.
Dear Mr. Esmay/Dean: Thank you for the links. Patrick Guerriero is very good. The Marriage Movement and Maggie Gallagher's Marriage Debate are also very good, as are the iFeminists. Maggie Gallagher is a worthy opponent, an honest conservative thinker, and is clearly _not_ motivated by an animus against homosexuals as so many are (the Robert Knights, the Lou Sheldons, the Paul Camerons, etc.).
Hey, Dean, you want some cheese with that whine?
(But Meryl said it much better.)
That last comment illustrates precisely why some bloggers have stopped allowing comments. Dean is the host, the owner of this blog, it is his property. He graciously invites guests in, and we should therefore show some respect while we're here even if we disagree with some of the things he says. You can insult him on your own blog.
Yeah, that Meryl's a classy broad. Hard to believe she's still single, huh?
Danny,
Actually, Meryl is a classy broad and the pot-shot at her marital status is un-merited. She's very passionate about her views and is open to debate. I got to this particular post via her site, though I read Dean frequently.
Dean and I have disagreed on a few things -- the SCOTUS ruling on sodomy statutes is an example. He seems to favor a form of democracy that I disagree with -- majority interference with the individual's rights in some instances -- but it never degenerated the way this misogyny debate has. I hope this is an abberation and we can get back to disagreeing politely and recognizing passionate views for what they are, rather than personal attacks.
The "she's still single" remark is an example of the latter.
Face it Dean - you're washed-up, you're through, you'll never work on this internet again!! If you had half-a-brain, you'd donate your RAM to homeless children who so desperately need more memory. Screw you and your whole sorry-ass-track-back-blog-a-thong thong thong!!! Get a life! Get a job!
Tim the Soldier
Truthfully though, your blog is the best I've ever read. It is my reason (along with fantasy football and live Russian radio) for maintaining my expensive cable connection to the internet. While you are my peer, you are also one of my heros. Never, never, never, never quit.
Now shut the hell up and get back to writing!!!
I very, very strongly disagreed with Mr. Esmay on the Lawrence decision, and I very, very strongly agreed with John Kusch's comments on that issue. I have the right to privacy in my own home regardless of what any majority thinks. By precisely the same token, Dean has the right to his own blog and I have no right to insult him on it. If you want to insult somebody, get your own blog. Rachel Lucas and Arthur Silber stopped allowing comments on their blogs because of trolls who had no respect for private property, and Bill Whittle did so for a while also.
Steven,
Who are you talking to?
> Hey, Dean, you want some cheese with
> that whine?
I like a nice, sharp cheddar. Or better yet, pinconning super sharp.
Dean,
Did it occur to you that the snark in some of the comments was a reply to the snarkiness of your post?
I've come here only recently and I've only replied to one, but that one was rather rude IMHO.
You did not simply point out that "a supermajority of men did support women's right to vote, even though there were so many women telling them that shouldn't do it" you made the main point of your post the idea that I should thank you for something that you had no part in.
Obviously you meant this as a sarcastic jest (that's how I took it, anyway) rather than an actual demand, but is it really all that inconceivable to you that others would respond in kind? Especially considering the absence of any other real information or opinions to discuss. 'cause its not as if you weren't telling me anything I didn't already know.
(Now that the kettle has pointed out that the pot is black)
Regarding the actual substance of said post:
You imply that 60% of American men supported suffrage. They may have, but since the only evidence you cite is that the amendment needed a supermajority to pass both houses (which is 67 not 60 percent btw), your proof is sadly lacking, as popular support and congressional votes rarely coincide.
Furthermore, since only 75% of the states were needed to ratify the amendment (and by all accounts it was barely able to make the 3/4ths) and I know that at least some of these states require only simple majority to ratify constitutional amendments, it is quite likely that, nationwide, less than 60% of state legislators supported the amendment.
I'll forgo doing the math, since it really has no bearing on what you seemed to be trying to say anyway.
Excuse me, but calling me names, distorting what I've said, refusing to acknowledge my clarifications, and refusing to accept my apologies go way, way, way beyond "snarky," Jenny.
It's like tweaking someone's nose and getting a thermonuclear warhead lobbed at you in response.
I already made it clear--if you'd read my posts--that it took 67% of Congress and a 3/5ths majority of the states to ratify the 19th. So yes, if only 40% been in opposition, it would not have been ratified. There's not a thing wrong with that statement.
Men could never have been forced to give women the vote. They chose to do so. This despite widespread opposition from women.
I think that says something noble and decent about the men of history. You don't? You want to concentrate on why they should have done it sooner? Okay. Forgive me for having a different perspective, though.
I suggest you go read what I wrote here and note that my history on this is not in dispute.
In fact, what seems to be in dispute is my view of the men of history--and the women of history---and what their real roles in all this were.
What I consistently noticed in these discussions--which I'm otherwise done with--is an absolute refusal to actually engage me in ideas. Instead it's insults directed at me, my wife, and other women who've agreed with my point of view, and otherwise treating me like a pariah.
It's no longer hurting my feelings. But it is a form of betrayal, especially coming from people who I have been very supportive of in other areas.
Dean,
Whether it was noble and decent to give women the vote is impossible to divine, it could have been a crass grab for the votes of the fair sex for some political organizations to push suffrage and little to do with right or wrong.
Women afforded a huge voting block and politics looks to secure votes. Fairly it all looks rather pragmatic if you ask me. but the view I have just expressed is not the whole story either, what is likely is that there were an amalgamation of reasons that all served to give women suffrage.
Well, no one's motives are ever entirely pure. On just about anything.
My question remains: how long to attack people for a decision that was contentious on all sides and yet, amazingly, took perhaps a half-century to arrive at--the blink of an eye in human history?
All things considered, it's really rather remarkable, isn't it? Had 40% -- even 35% -- been adamantly opposed, the amendment probably never would have passed.
So much for the oppressive neanderthals treating their women like slaves. Which is my main point, and one I wish I could get some sliver of acknowledgement on.
Robert Prather: I'm sorry you did not like my comments. I shall strive to do better in the future.
Dean,
I think that we've both been misunderstanding each other.
I believe I called your post tacky and silly (not you) and that you and I were both being a bit silly by being snarky and then complaining about the other being snarky. If that came accross as something else, I'm sorry. I certainly didn't mean to distort what you've said either.
I never said that I wasn't grateful for the many men who have worked towards women's right in this country. I just said that it was silly to expect thanks for something you didn't do. (Do I have to clarify that this is no way means that I am not grateful for things that you have done?) I also said that it was tacky to expect thanks for something that should be done. Granted, its also tacky not to give it. (And on that note, thanks for caring about these issues and discussing them.)
"it is profoundly misogynist to suggest that women were brutally denied their basic rights by oppressive men prior to the passage of the 19th amendment"
No, its not. Its inaccurate to say that this is the whole truth and its misogynist to deliberately do so and then harp on it. (Is that what you meant?) More accurately: Women were denied basic rights in the last century. Sometimes bruttally and some more than others. They were denied them by oppressive men. And women. The right to vote was gained through the work of some women, and some men.
"Men could never have been forced to give women the vote. They chose to do so. This despite widespread opposition from women"
Ignoring the first part of the sentence because have no more proof than anyone else does regarding "what ifs"...
To say that men chose to give women the right to vote despite widespread opposition from women is as inaccurate as saying that women were denied their basic rights by oppressive men. Its not strictly untrue, but its not the whole truth either.
It would be more accurate to say that some men chose to give women the right to vote in response to a variety of factors, which includes, among other things, the example set by many of our allies, lobbying by women such as the suffragettes and lobbying by men on behalf of women. These men did this despite opposition from a great number of both men and women.
Regarding the 60/67%:
Sorry to nitpick...the physics major in me tends to latch on to numbers and run with them, even if all someone said was 55 rather than 56 and around 55 would have been sufficient proof. (MUST STOP!)
The whole supermajority thing was uncalled for and I apoligise.
To clarify what I meant by possibly less than 60% of state legislators supporting the amendment:
If 75% of states were needed to pass the amendment and all of the states that ratified the 19th needed only a simple majority (I know some did, I don't know how many) then the amendment would have needed less than 40% support among state legislators nationwide in order to pass.
Since I'm actually very curious about this, and the records should be available somewhere, I'll try to track them down and share them. So I'll stop the conjecture. (If you've already done so and I missed it, sorry - and could you be so kind and as to point it out, I AM curious.)
More importantly, what the state and national legislators supported is not the same as popular opinion. By using voting statistics from the ratification of the 19th amendment (rather than, say polling numbers) to say that I, and all other women, should feel gratitude towards American men, not American legislators, is the type of leap of logic that drives me nuts. 60% of American men may very well have supported women's right to vote in 1920, but the ratification of the 19th amendment is not proof of that any more than it is proof of the opposite.
Regarding the post you linked to and your "view[s] of the men of history--and the women of history---and what their real roles in all this were"
Its interesting stuff and thanks for the links. I knew most of it general terms already, but not much of the details, which are always good.
But again, you (mainly) give specific examples from specific people. Its useful in understanding the variety of opinions people had at the time, but not how many people held those opinions (other than general terms like significant, some, widespread, which are all open to interpretation). That many people, of both genders, had many different opinions is not being disputed (not by me anyway). What I'm curious about is how many people supported the 19th amendment at the time (which I am also going to start searching for).
What is in dispute is this statement: "had only 40% of [American men] opposed [the 19th amendment], it would never have become law." Not so much because I'm certain that you are wrong, but because I haven't seen any evidence that its true. I'd be just as skeptical if someone tried to use my 40% hypothetical to further conjecture that only 40% of Ameerican men supported women's suffrage.
More accurately: Women were denied basic rights in the last century. Sometimes bruttally and some more than others. They were denied them by oppressive men. And women.
All right, but I continue to take exception to the term "brutal."
Look here, Mrs. du Toit and I already went into some of this, but the fact is that from day one in this country, women enjoyed all the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, thus giving them quite a few more rights than the majority of women on this planet enjoy even to this day. They had everything from free speech to free press to right to trial by jury to the right to bear arms. Women have also always enjoyed the right to property in this country--while of course if they married the property went to their husbands, the reverse was also true. It was widely understood--including by women, who as primary caregivers and teachers inculcated these values into their children--that a married couple was a single unit, with the man representing the family and its interests to the outside world. (This being a primary reason why women lectured young women about selecting their men very carefully before marrying them--a set of lessons I think we've made a mistake in forgetting with our obsessions over love over the last few generations.)
Furthermore, while women have been denied certain rights in the past in this country, they've also been given special privileges from day one. The first woman wasn't executed for a capital crime in this country until 1865, and even to this day society is more reluctant to punish women this way. Or read some time of the story of Lizzie Borden: when the police came to her house after the murders, they refused to go through her closets or drawers because that would be humiliating to do to a woman, and they actually allowed her to tidy up the place before they conducted a full search--again, in deference to her feminine sensibilities.
Now if you like you can put a misandrist spin on things like that, and make it all about how big bad oppressive men with their sexist notions sometimes allowed women things like this. Or, you can say that we had widespread social institutions that men and women both played a part in creating and maintaining--and I, frankly, prefer the latter, because it credits the women of history for having more power and gumption and intelligence than some feminists seem to want to grant to their grandmothers.
Furthermore, the fact is that most men could not vote in this country either, for a very long time. Universal male suffrage did not happen until quite some time after the country was founded. So were these men "brutally oppressed?" Or was there something a little less sinister and a little more progressive going on here? A gradual awakening to better and better notions of democratic representation, perhaps?
Yes, in some jurisdictions, women voted, then later lost that. There were reasons for this, primarily that in statewide elections, there were complaints that some jurisdictions were overruling others simply because of that disparity. So some states chose to give women suffrage statewide, while others chose to have the man of the household do the voting statewide--with women, having always enjoyed free speech and free press, taking part in both sides of that debate in each state. Then the debate went national, with men and women taking both sides in the debate, and finally we had universal female suffrage.
It still remains: truly determined, widespread male opposition could have killed the 19th amendment. It did not, and I assert that this is because the men of America are basically decent, honorable creatures who have always, as a rule, respected women. So most of them came to the same conclusion: this is proper, and we should go ahead and do it.
The addiction to the brutalizer/brutalized, oppressor/oppressed dialectic that many feminists labor under tends to obscure this, and I object to that.
If 75% of states were needed to pass the amendment and all of the states that ratified the 19th needed only a simple majority (I know some did, I don't know how many) then the amendment would have needed less than 40% support among state legislators nationwide in order to pass.
Correct. However, before going to the states, it had to get past 67% of the all-male House and 67% of the all-male Senate. Both Houses of Congress voted into power by the men of their states, and having every reason to expect punishment if they displeased those voters.
I cannot prove to you that "most" men supported the 19th amendment with polling data, because the science of polling was in its infancy in the early 20th century. Political polling didn't become a widespread or very scientific phenomenon until groups like Gallup and Mason-Dixon came to prominence in the middle of the 20th century, long after the Women's Suffrage movement was over. I would be shocked if you could find anything resembling a real national poll on the issue from back then. All we have to go by is how the elected representatives voted.
So I can only repeat: 67% of the all-male House and Senate had to vote to pass the 19th (actually it was something over 70% in both houses, if I'm not mistaken). Those men could have been severely punished by the (all-male) voters at home, but they did it anyway. Other than that, my observation is that politicians don't, as a rule, do things that they expect to be severely punished for.
Also, as is normal with most Constitutional amendments, some states never got around to ratifying the 19th, because enough states had passed it first that it became irrelevant. If you live in Oregon, and a proposed Constitutional amendment has already been ratified even though Oregon hasn't gotten around to it yet, should you expect your state legislature to put time and effort into debating it anyway?
I recall that a few years ago, one state (Mississippi?) actually ratified the amendment abolishing slavery. It had never gotten around to it but wanted to make a symbolic gesture.
What really sets men and women apart? Pockets!
"Even so, Boylan says there was little about being a man that she misses. The one thing that came to mind was pockets. Neither her blue calf-length skirt nor her white V-neck shirt had any, and she prefers to stuff her change and other items into pockets rather than lug them in a purse."
From: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/08/18/wkd.jamestojenny.ap/index.html
(I thought a little levity might be in order?)