The Church and Women

[Julianna]

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.

I bet you would love to turn back the clock wouldn’t you?

 

[floresco]

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:

But I also doubt that you’re married, or have ever had a serious conversation, peer to peer, with an adult woman.

Remarkable! You have deduced that I am opposed to women expressing their opinions in public without me saying anything remotely resembling that. But everybody knows that anyone critical of feminism is a socially retarded misogynistic man whose goal in life is to oppress women if only he could get close enough to one to do it. So it was easy for you to guess the rest.

Well I can see that this is going to save me a lot of time. I do not need to give any background information or even express any opinions in my posts. I can relax while people just make it all up.

At the risk of having to write my own posts, I have to inform you that there are plenty of women who are critical of feminism. There is no reason a woman could not have written my posts in this thread.

 

[Biedrik]

I bet you would love to turn back the clock wouldn’t you?

sigh

Ad hominem arguments are not valid. You can’t just throw a criticism or insult at someone and act as if it refutes or disproves their argument somehow. You need to actually provide proof, which you haven’t done. I myself have no idea if floresco is right or not, but I will say that you need to do more than claim that he/she (I wonder when that will be revealed) is a backwards person who wishes to oppress women.

 

[mark_a]

Orthodox Catholic women are truly the bright spots in today’s Church:

Mother Angelica
Mother Assumpta
The women of Catholic media (too numerous to list)
And of course, that one from Calcutta.

And to those I omitted: We love you!!

 

[jmcrae]

Remarkable! You have deduced that I am opposed to women expressing their opinions in public without me saying anything remotely resembling that.

Uh - that’s what “having the vote” means. Voting is the first expression of opinion in public - without it, everything else is meaningless.

But everybody knows that anyone critical of feminism is a socially retarded misogynistic man whose goal in life is to oppress women if only he could get close enough to one to do it. So it was easy for you to guess the rest.

It is possible to be critical of feminism without at the same time denying human rights to women (unless you equate “feminism” with “human rights for women” of course … )

At the risk of having to write my own posts, I have to inform you that there are plenty of women who are critical of feminism.

I know. I am one.

But denying that women should have the rights of an adult human being is not the same thing as criticizing feminism.

 

[floresco]

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.

Your article you link to seems to support what my article said: In the East there are
strong anti-woman- suffrage leagues as well as suffrage leagues.
In none of the Western States have the women themselves
ever voted upon the clear-cut issue as to whether they desired
or did not desire the suffrage. That there are a great many
women of the suffrage states who now vote, but who would vote
against woman suffrage if it were referred to them, there can
be no question. Whatever such a result might reveal in the
Western suffrage states, the fact remains that the vast majority
of the women of the Eastern States do not desire suffrage. In
1895 the women of Massachusetts were afforded an oppor-
tunity to express an opinion by ballot; practically all who
voted were favorable, but the affirmative vote constituted
less than four per cent of the adult women of Massachusetts.
The remaining ninety-six per cent stayed away from the polls
and thus demonstrated their indifference.

I do not see why you think it is significant that mainly those who wanted suffrage participated in the referendum. The fact remains this is a small proportion.
So about 4% of the women wanted the vote. And let’s say for the sake of argument that 1% felt so strongly that women should not vote that they came out to the referendum. That leaves 95% who did not participate in the referendum. I see no way to reasonably interpret this result as support for women’s suffrage. This is the result we would expect from people who were content with the status quo.

In the same article you cited, it goes on to discuss other referenda. I noticed an interesting comment: Although
the suffrage associations did not take any official action, most
of the leaders of these associations declared themselves emphat-
ically opposed to any such referendum.

So these leaders who were spokespeople for women’s right to vote, did not want women to vote on the issue of suffrage. Kind of ironic, isn’t it?

 

[floresco]

Rwoehmke, you’re right: In the world of farm animals, the females actually call the shots, they will not let a bull or buck breed them until they are ready (when they come in standing heat)…except for chickens. I don’t know about your chickens, but mine get raped by the roosters all the time, poor thangs.

Are you saying that chickens are capable of consensual sex? Are there romantic candle-lit dinners going on in the barn? eek: That would be a fire hazard!)

 

[edwest2]

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.

I am glad I have the right to vote and live in the greatest country in the world.

“little woman” So, what percentage of men treated their little woman in the way you describe? 51%? 98%? Surely, you must know.

My mother could mix concrete, do carpentry and paint the house. She asked me one day about what was going on with those Women’s Libbers. I explained what the fuss was about and she thought it was stupid.

A few women should just band together, pool their resources and keep away from men.

God bless,
Ed

 

[floresco]

It’s more likely that they were afraid of change - afraid of what having more responsibility would mean, for them.

The anti-suffrage women gave the reasons they were opposed to suffrage. But I suppose modern people have a much better understanding of people who lived a hundred years ago than the people themselves.

 

[Julianna]

“little woman” So, what percentage of men treated their little woman in the way you describe? 51%? 98%? Surely, you must know.

My mother could mix concrete, do carpentry and paint the house. She asked me one day about what was going on with those Women’s Libbers. I explained what the fuss was about and she thought it was stupid.

A few women should just band together, pool their resources and keep away from men.

God bless,
Ed

I think it is great, that I don’t have get coffee for my boss. If there is a meeting, I’m not the designated note taker. If there is a social event at work, I’m not the necessarily the hostess. If a promotion comes up, and I and a male have the same qualifications…I’m not on the outs, because he has a wife and kids (that was the excuse for not selecting a woman for a promotion). My mother too, put down a cinderblock foundation, built a fence, can use any power tool you hand her and she is now 81 and was doing all of these things from age 60…on. She doesn’t knit, rock in rocker and never ask my father “permission” for anything. She asked for his opinion…never permission.

It was suffregettes who made this possible, starting with the “right” to vote. My mother recalls in the 40’s when the husband went off to war and he was killed, she found herself in the street with the kids because she had no way to pay the rent. She has seen men snap their fingers in their wives faces if they had a thought and spoke it.

My mother has stories too, Ed. She was born and raised in the south, where a woman was not encouraged to “think”.

 

[floresco]

Uh - that’s what “having the vote” means. Voting is the first expression of opinion in public - without it, everything else is meaningless.

But denying that women should have the rights of an adult human being is not the same thing as criticizing feminism.

Apparently you have gotten the impression that I am opposed to women voting. That is not my position. I am saying that there was a brief (in historical terms) period when women lacked (and most didn’t want) suffrage but most men did have it. I am saying that the existence of this period is not evidence of oppression of women.

I am no more opposed to women voting than to men voting. I think that voting is pretty futile and have no strong feelings about who does it.

 

[Just_Lurking]

While some people want to speculate that the nasty oppressive men stopped women from voting for suffrage, we have no evidence of this.

There is likewise no evidence that the reason that most women did not vote was due to their indifference.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Your article you link to seems to support what my article said:

It also supports my previous claim, which was my point. I quoted the dissertation because of the additional fact that it presents, not because of the conclusions the author draws.

Lets say that on an issue X, 95% of potential voters don’t vote, 4% of voters vote in favor, and 1% of voters vote against. Thus, of the voters who voted, 80% were in favor of X, while 20% were opposed. It hardly seems logical to conclude that the majority of the entire population of voters is against X. It certainly isn’t statistically valid.

But what I do find reasonable to conclude is that an article which conceals the important fact of how few women actually voted against suffrage is seeking to present only one side of the issue in a partisan manner, instead of seeking to discover and present the truth.

 

[floresco]

There is likewise no evidence that the reason that most women did not vote was due to their indifference.

That is the reason given in both the accounts we have seen quoted in the thread. While the first account might have wanted to attribute the result to indifference because it supports her thesis, the second account seems favorable to women voting.

 

[Just_Lurking]

That is the reason given in both the accounts we have seen quoted in the thread. While the first account might have wanted to attribute the result to indifference because it supports her thesis, the second account seems favorable to women voting.

Yet as I said, and as I still say, neither source provides any evidence for such a conclusion.

 

[floresco]

It also supports my previous claim, which was my point. I quoted the dissertation because of the additional fact that it presents, not because of the conclusions the author draws.

Lets say that on an issue X, 95% of voters don’t vote, 4% of voters vote in favor, and 1% of voters vote against. Thus, of the voters who voted, 80% were in favor of X, while 20% were opposed. It hardly seems logical to conclude that the majority of the entire population of voters is against X. It certainly isn’t statistically valid.

But what I do find reasonable to conclude is that an article which conceals the important fact of how many women actually voted against suffrage is seeking to present only one side of the issue in a partisan manner, instead of seeking to discover and present the truth.

Given those numbers ,it is reasonable to conclude that only 4% of the voters felt strongly enough in favour of X to vote for it. Unless there were some evidence that voters were being prevented from casting their votes that is the conclusion I would draw. I do not think the fact you find so important is important. It seems likely to me that author left it out due to its lack of significance rather than an intent to conceal.

A vote is not a statistically valid sampling method. It is a self-selected sample rather than a random one and its results cannot be extrapolated.

 

[Just_Lurking]

A vote is not a statistically valid sampling method. It is a self-selected sample rather than a random one and its results cannot be extrapolated.

This is my point exactly. Thus, the article that attempts to extrapolate the results of the suffrage vote to conclude that the entire population of women were 96% opposed to suffrage is making an erroneous conclusion. The full data does not support such a conclusion, much less the one sided data presented in the first article.

 

[JMJ_coder]

A vote is not a statistically valid sampling method. It is a self-selected sample rather than a random one and its results cannot be extrapolated.

Yeah, let’s forget about elections and just let a Gallop poll decide who’s going to be President, Senators, etc.

 

[floresco]

Ad hominem arguments are not valid. You can’t just throw a criticism or insult at someone and act as if it refutes or disproves their argument somehow. You need to actually provide proof, which you haven’t done. I myself have no idea if floresco is right or not, but I will say that you need to do more than claim that he/she (I wonder when that will be revealed) is a backwards person who wishes to oppress women.

Thank you for the explanation concerning ad hominum arguments. I had noticed how prevalent they were in online discussion and that is actually the reason I came up with my “mystery persona”. I had originally intended to reveal no personal information at all. I had a theory that this would force people to stick to discussing ideas. You can see how that turned out.

Over time, I have let bits of information out, but I have managed to keep the male/female bit concealed. I am still fascinated by my sexless persona and the reactions it gets, so I don’t foresee any revelations soon. At least not deliberate ones.

 

[floresco]

This is my point exactly. Thus, the article that attempts to extrapolate the results of the suffrage vote to conclude that the entire population of women were 96% opposed to suffrage is making an erroneous conclusion. The full data does not support such a conclusion, much less the one sided data presented in the first article.

Extrapolating would be saying "80% of the people who voted were in favour of suffrage therefore 80% of total women are in favour. What the author did was not extrapolating. Nor did she claim that 96% of women were opposed. She said they were either opposed or indifferent. She was saying that 4% were “for” and 96% were not “for”. The data does support this.