Cultural differences aside you surely cannot be arguing that if the majority of women choose not to vote, then it is hunky-dory to prohibit ANY of them from voting???
But if people took a vote on voting and the majority said that women could not vote, then isn’t that what should happen? That is how democracy is supposed to work, isn’t it?
Please tell me how a constitutional republic works. It sounds like you are saying that people vote, but it doesn’t matter what the majority says, if you think they want something bad.
That should be “she” not "“he”. The author (like most leaders of the anti-suffrage movement) was a woman. You are not reading it right. You seem to have missed this sentence “That is, in round numbers, less than four per cent wished to vote; about ninety-six per cent were opposed to woman suffrage or indifferent to it.” Click on the link and read on. You will see that there was nothing manipulative or distorting in her use of these figures.
A claim was made that women’s lack of the vote proves how oppressed they were and, of course, the Church must have contributed to the oppression. That is quite enough to create even greater digressions. Who knows, we may yet reach them.
So, for example, when all Catholics were denied the right to vote in Protestant England this was also due to some Vatican conspiracy? :whacky:A claim was made that women’s lack of the vote proves how oppressed they were and, of course, the Church must have contributed to the oppression. That is quite enough to create even greater digressions. Who knows, we may yet reach them.
Today, that wouldn’t fly. As to women who were asked if they wished the suffrage…of course they said no, at their husbands urging…because they “obeyed” their husband in all matters because he was the head of the house. Southern states even less…of course…as they were more oppressed and less enlightened than the women in the north.
Since we have people like you around who can tell us what women really want even when it it is the opposite of what women say they want, I’m not sure that there is any point to women voting. It seems it would be more efficient just to have you tell us what women want. Think of all the expense and inconvenience it would save.
Or were not let out of the house by their husbands to vote. The connection from not voting to indifference is far from certain.
makes no difference to me…you seem to enjoy living in the past…it is so much easier not to have to think for yourself.Since we have people like you around who can tell us what women really want even when it it is the opposite of what women say they want, I’m not sure that there is any point to women voting.I guess women really did want to be able to vote…because they won that right. It seems it would be more efficient just to have you tell us what women want. Think of all the expense and inconvenience it would save.
I wasn’t around in the 1800’s…and I do know that women wanted the vote…because if they didn’t…there wouldn’t be a suffrage movement.
Seriously though, you have just recreated one of the anti-suffrage arguments. They objected to women voting because women would just vote as their husbands told them to. It would, in effect, be giving two votes to married men and was therefore unfair. I’m surprised to see you say such a thing. Wrong, men did not believe it was a woman’s place to be involved in politics…the two vote household is meaningless. I had gotten the impression you were in favour of women voting.
As well as not knowing if I am married and you also don’t know if I am a man or a woman. I haven’t said which I am.
Well, you’re not female, unless you’re a hypocrite - a woman, expressing her opinion in public, that women shouldn’t express their opinions in public? Hello … :whacky:Since we have people like you around who can tell us what women really want even when it it is the opposite of what women say they want, I’m not sure that there is any point to women voting. It seems it would be more efficient just to have you tell us what women want. Think of all the expense and inconvenience it would save.
Seriously though, you have just recreated one of the anti-suffrage arguments. They objected to women voting because women would just vote as their husbands told them to. It would, in effect, be giving two votes to married men and was therefore unfair. I’m surprised to see you say such a thing. I had gotten the impression you were in favour of women voting.
As well as not knowing if I am married and you also don’t know if I am a man or a woman. I haven’t said which I am.
Where did it say that?
Sad. If women think that men are so evil, why not just move to a place where there’s nothing but women? Then, perhaps, with women in charge and no men around, we can all find out how much better it will be.
Except for chickens
The article didn’t say that - if it had, that would pretty much destroy the “lying with statistics” argument that it is trying to make. You have to go to other sources to get the “rest of the story” as Paul Harvey used to say. For example, see here.
If you had looked at the links I gave, you would have learned that many women were in the anti-suffrage movement, According to your logic, that shows that women didn’t want the vote. In fact, some women wanted it and some did not. What we know is that when it was put to a vote, only 4% said they wanted it. While some people want to speculate that the nasty oppressive men stopped women from voting for suffrage, we have no evidence of this. There are plenty of writings from women of the time expressing opposition to voting. I suppose these same speculators will tell me that those women were forced to write this by horrible men.
totally out of context Ed. Never said men were evil. Back in the day, when the suffrage was beginning, women didn’t have any rights…could not own land, have their own money or vote. It was much easier for the man not to have worry about his “little woman” saying anything contrary to him. It was not her place to discuss politics or anything that was going on in the world. My grandmother was one of those women…in the south.
It’s more likely that they were afraid of change - afraid of what having more responsibility would mean, for them.