Female Privilege and Suffrage
Here's a politician named JB Sanford arguing against women's suffrage in 1911:
"Suffrage is not a right. It is a privilege that may or may not be granted. Politics is no place for a women consequently the privilege should not be granted to her.
...The men are able to run the government and take care of the women. Do women have to vote in order to receive the protection of man? Why, men have gone to war, endured every privation and death itself in defense of woman. To man, woman is the dearest creature on earth, and there is no extreme to which he would not go for his mother or sister. By keeping woman in her exalted position man can be induced to do more for her than he could by having her mix up in affairs that will cause him to lose respect and regard for her. Woman does not have to vote to secure her rights. Man will go to any extreme to protect and elevate her now. As long as woman is woman and keeps her place she will get more protection and more consideration than man gets. When she abdicates her throne she throws down the scepter of her power and loses her influence.
....Woman is woman. She can not unsex herself or change her sphere. Let her be content with her lot and perform those high duties intended for her by the Great Creator, and she will accomplish far more in governmental affairs that she can ever accomplish by mixing up in the dirty pool of politics. Keep the home pure and all will be well with the Republic. Let not the sanctity of the home be invaded by every little politician that may be running up and down the highway for office. Let the manly men and the womanly women defeat this amendment and keep woman where she belongs in order that she may retain the respect of
"Suffrage is not a right. It is a privilege that may or may not be granted. Politics is no place for a women consequently the privilege should not be granted to her.
...The men are able to run the government and take care of the women. Do women have to vote in order to receive the protection of man? Why, men have gone to war, endured every privation and death itself in defense of woman. To man, woman is the dearest creature on earth, and there is no extreme to which he would not go for his mother or sister. By keeping woman in her exalted position man can be induced to do more for her than he could by having her mix up in affairs that will cause him to lose respect and regard for her. Woman does not have to vote to secure her rights. Man will go to any extreme to protect and elevate her now. As long as woman is woman and keeps her place she will get more protection and more consideration than man gets. When she abdicates her throne she throws down the scepter of her power and loses her influence.
....Woman is woman. She can not unsex herself or change her sphere. Let her be content with her lot and perform those high duties intended for her by the Great Creator, and she will accomplish far more in governmental affairs that she can ever accomplish by mixing up in the dirty pool of politics. Keep the home pure and all will be well with the Republic. Let not the sanctity of the home be invaded by every little politician that may be running up and down the highway for office. Let the manly men and the womanly women defeat this amendment and keep woman where she belongs in order that she may retain the respect of
all mankind."
Obviously some very outdated views on gender. But, note the bolded text. This is from 1911, mind you, in a piece arguing against suffrage. It seems that the dominant thinking at the time was that suffrage would actually hurt women, as it would lead to a loss of chivalric benefits given to women. The main motivation for opposing suffrage, for both male and female anti suffragettes, was a believe in strictly defined gender roles and spheres, not misogyny or oppression.
Here's another list of reasons anti suffragettes opposed suffrage from around the same time:
"1. because suffrage is not a privilege to be enjoyed, but if imposed upon women it becomes a duty to be performed."
2.vbecause we believe the men of the state capable of conducting the government for the benefit of both men and women; their interests, generally speaking, being the same
3. because women are not suffering from any injustice which giving them the ballot would rectify.
4. because political equality will eventually deprive women of many special privileges hitherto accorded to her by man-made law.
5. because the ballot in the hands of men has not proved a cure-all for existing evils, and there is no reason to believe it would be more effectual in the hands of women. It has not been in the states where it exists. In Colorado after a test of twenty-two years the results show no gain in public and political morals over male suffrage states.
6. because quality in character does not imply similarity in function, and the duties and life of men and women should be different in the State, as in the home. Man's service to the State through government is counterbalanced by women's service in the home.
7. because women now stand outside politics , and therefore are free to appeal to any party in matters of education, charity and reform. We believe it would be to the disadvantage of the State and of women to put this non-partisam half of society into politics.
8. because the woman suffrage movement is a backward step in the progress of civilization, in that it seeks to efface natural differentiation of function, and to produce identity instead of division of labor."
Again. Look at the bolded. It was recognized in pre suffrage America that women, in fact, had many privileges afforded to them under the law made by men. The anti suffragettes of both genders were in fact so committed to female legal privileges, that they were concerned that suffrage would erode chivalry and would thus chip away at these privileges.
On top of this, we also see a string of "separate but also important" argument that women dominate the domestic front while men dominate everywhere else. This was supported by the view that this was the order of nature. Yes, these views are vastly outdated. While we do know biology plays a role in gender behavioral differences, we also know that the difference is not so profound as to justify such a strict division of labor.
But, I want to stress that these arguments were not motivated by misogyny or oppression. In fact, they were motivated by traditionalism. A traditionalism that saw women as innocent beings, who would only be hurt by being brought into a corrupt political sphere. These views, of course, have their basis in chivalry. A chivalric code that demanded men put the interest of women above their owns. This included the institution of government.
I'm obviously glad women have the vote now. But, the argument that disenfranchisement of women was motivated by hatred of women is absurd. It was, in fact, driven in large part by a love of women, and a sense that men had a duty to do the dirty political work for women.
Also, for more on female legal privileges in pre suffrage America, I recommend Ernest Belfort Bax's "Legal Subjection of Men". Apparently, an unnamed Irish barrister was actually the chief author, but Bax was a contributor and would later write more about the topic.
Obviously some very outdated views on gender. But, note the bolded text. This is from 1911, mind you, in a piece arguing against suffrage. It seems that the dominant thinking at the time was that suffrage would actually hurt women, as it would lead to a loss of chivalric benefits given to women. The main motivation for opposing suffrage, for both male and female anti suffragettes, was a believe in strictly defined gender roles and spheres, not misogyny or oppression.
Here's another list of reasons anti suffragettes opposed suffrage from around the same time:
"1. because suffrage is not a privilege to be enjoyed, but if imposed upon women it becomes a duty to be performed."
2.vbecause we believe the men of the state capable of conducting the government for the benefit of both men and women; their interests, generally speaking, being the same
3. because women are not suffering from any injustice which giving them the ballot would rectify.
4. because political equality will eventually deprive women of many special privileges hitherto accorded to her by man-made law.
5. because the ballot in the hands of men has not proved a cure-all for existing evils, and there is no reason to believe it would be more effectual in the hands of women. It has not been in the states where it exists. In Colorado after a test of twenty-two years the results show no gain in public and political morals over male suffrage states.
6. because quality in character does not imply similarity in function, and the duties and life of men and women should be different in the State, as in the home. Man's service to the State through government is counterbalanced by women's service in the home.
7. because women now stand outside politics , and therefore are free to appeal to any party in matters of education, charity and reform. We believe it would be to the disadvantage of the State and of women to put this non-partisam half of society into politics.
8. because the woman suffrage movement is a backward step in the progress of civilization, in that it seeks to efface natural differentiation of function, and to produce identity instead of division of labor."
Again. Look at the bolded. It was recognized in pre suffrage America that women, in fact, had many privileges afforded to them under the law made by men. The anti suffragettes of both genders were in fact so committed to female legal privileges, that they were concerned that suffrage would erode chivalry and would thus chip away at these privileges.
On top of this, we also see a string of "separate but also important" argument that women dominate the domestic front while men dominate everywhere else. This was supported by the view that this was the order of nature. Yes, these views are vastly outdated. While we do know biology plays a role in gender behavioral differences, we also know that the difference is not so profound as to justify such a strict division of labor.
But, I want to stress that these arguments were not motivated by misogyny or oppression. In fact, they were motivated by traditionalism. A traditionalism that saw women as innocent beings, who would only be hurt by being brought into a corrupt political sphere. These views, of course, have their basis in chivalry. A chivalric code that demanded men put the interest of women above their owns. This included the institution of government.
I'm obviously glad women have the vote now. But, the argument that disenfranchisement of women was motivated by hatred of women is absurd. It was, in fact, driven in large part by a love of women, and a sense that men had a duty to do the dirty political work for women.
Also, for more on female legal privileges in pre suffrage America, I recommend Ernest Belfort Bax's "Legal Subjection of Men". Apparently, an unnamed Irish barrister was actually the chief author, but Bax was a contributor and would later write more about the topic.
Comments
Post a Comment