Business & Finance1 min ago
Women Against Women's Suffrage
It is pretty obvious why I'm posting this: I'm attempting, perhaps mistakenly, to draw at least some analogy between the debate then, when women were fighting for decades to gain access to what we now see as one of the most basic rights, the right to vote, and the recent resurgence of Civil Rights and BLM protests.
Whether or not that's justified, the history of anti-Suffrage is interesting on its own sake. Perhaps in a sense it's obvious that this was going to happen, but there is something shocking and disheartening all the same about the reaction to women's suffrage protests, and particularly so when it came from other women. The example below, The Ladies' Battle,
written by Molly Seawell, an American author, is but one of countless others. It's so jarring to read some of the passages today. And yet, are they that out of place in modern discourse?
Here's a passage on the effect of the WSPU (the suffragettes who relied on Civil Disobedience), for example:
"... it would be unjust to confound the section of law-abiding and dignified, if mistaken, suffragists with the shrieking and savage mobs that make one shudder at the thought of entrusting them with a vote... The present Government has shown a singular vacillation concerning the frenzied women who rioted for suffrage." (pp63-65)
Here Seawell relies on the deadliest political insult:
"The tendency of women suffrage is inevitably towards Socialism, the State doing everything possible for the individual." (p 71)
Or insults the intelligence or lack of understanding of those who wanted suffrage:
"Opposition to suffrage does not mean that women should not study public affairs, and take an intelligent interest in them... it would broaden their minds, and there would be fewer suffragists." (ibid, p106).
"It is my earnest hope and belief that the sound good sense of American women will defend them from suffrage, and protect... their personal dignity. I belief women suffrage to be an unmixed evil." (p119).
It would be a shame for such a weighty tome to have missed out another key Civil Rights issue, but Seawell does not disappoint:
"it is within the memory of living men that the Government of the United States... violated every principle of constitutional government, of common sense as well as common justice, by placing the ballot [and the same civil rights] in the hands of recently emancipated slaves... only a few generations removed from cannibalism, as to the highest type of the Caucasian race, with a thousand years of civilisation behind it." (pp17-18)
It would be comforting to thinking that Seawell was a lone voice in the debate, but sadly she was not. The book itself provides many examples that purport to demonstrate, if anything, the reverse, and that suffragism was a minority pursuit. And, besides, history up until then was on her side. In the UK we are still not yet 100 years away from the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which finally granted women and men equal rights at the Ballot Box. In the US they will celebrate their 100-year anniversary of equal suffrage in a shade over two months.
It is, I think, timely to recall just how difficult it can be to win battles that hindsight would lead us to wonder why they were even fought at all.
https:/
Whether or not that's justified, the history of anti-Suffrage is interesting on its own sake. Perhaps in a sense it's obvious that this was going to happen, but there is something shocking and disheartening all the same about the reaction to women's suffrage protests, and particularly so when it came from other women. The example below, The Ladies' Battle,
written by Molly Seawell, an American author, is but one of countless others. It's so jarring to read some of the passages today. And yet, are they that out of place in modern discourse?
Here's a passage on the effect of the WSPU (the suffragettes who relied on Civil Disobedience), for example:
"... it would be unjust to confound the section of law-abiding and dignified, if mistaken, suffragists with the shrieking and savage mobs that make one shudder at the thought of entrusting them with a vote... The present Government has shown a singular vacillation concerning the frenzied women who rioted for suffrage." (pp63-65)
Here Seawell relies on the deadliest political insult:
"The tendency of women suffrage is inevitably towards Socialism, the State doing everything possible for the individual." (p 71)
Or insults the intelligence or lack of understanding of those who wanted suffrage:
"Opposition to suffrage does not mean that women should not study public affairs, and take an intelligent interest in them... it would broaden their minds, and there would be fewer suffragists." (ibid, p106).
"It is my earnest hope and belief that the sound good sense of American women will defend them from suffrage, and protect... their personal dignity. I belief women suffrage to be an unmixed evil." (p119).
It would be a shame for such a weighty tome to have missed out another key Civil Rights issue, but Seawell does not disappoint:
"it is within the memory of living men that the Government of the United States... violated every principle of constitutional government, of common sense as well as common justice, by placing the ballot [and the same civil rights] in the hands of recently emancipated slaves... only a few generations removed from cannibalism, as to the highest type of the Caucasian race, with a thousand years of civilisation behind it." (pp17-18)
It would be comforting to thinking that Seawell was a lone voice in the debate, but sadly she was not. The book itself provides many examples that purport to demonstrate, if anything, the reverse, and that suffragism was a minority pursuit. And, besides, history up until then was on her side. In the UK we are still not yet 100 years away from the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which finally granted women and men equal rights at the Ballot Box. In the US they will celebrate their 100-year anniversary of equal suffrage in a shade over two months.
It is, I think, timely to recall just how difficult it can be to win battles that hindsight would lead us to wonder why they were even fought at all.
https:/
Answers
They have equal rights by law Naomi, but they are not protected from human prejudice. As soon as someone from BAME origins goes public with instanees of racism, the response from a large part of the white population is to disbelieve them. In fact, a lot of those folk doing the disbelief are quite constant in their lack of belief. BAME complain of racism: Lies....
22:27 Tue 23rd Jun 2020
I don't want to pretend it's a perfect analogy. I don't think it's tenuous either. Then, as now, there was an attempt to use the methods of protest to undermine the cause. Then, as now, there was an attempt to call on the glory of the past civilisation to defend the status quo. Then, as now, there was an attempt to destroy the legitimacy of the cause by implying that it was really all about Socialism. Then, as now, the appeal to the slippery slope was used in order to deny that any changes should be made at all (see Seawell's comments on extending the vote to children, prisoners, illegal aliens etc). All of these are certainly significant.
It cannot be an exact parallel, but what I have in mind primarily is the counter-reaction, the mentality of that. An excessive pride in History tends to be coupled with at least some political inertia, because obviously it does: why must we be so eager to "fix" something that wasn't really broken?
Still, even if I am completely wrong in my interpretation, then I hope that people will read the book and think about what it says about people's thoughts then -- and may well say about today's hottest topics.
It cannot be an exact parallel, but what I have in mind primarily is the counter-reaction, the mentality of that. An excessive pride in History tends to be coupled with at least some political inertia, because obviously it does: why must we be so eager to "fix" something that wasn't really broken?
Still, even if I am completely wrong in my interpretation, then I hope that people will read the book and think about what it says about people's thoughts then -- and may well say about today's hottest topics.
// That's a bit high-handed, Jim. //
Perhaps a little, but it is not unreasonable to say "hi, here's a 120-page book I've read and thought deeply about which may talk about a different topic but can still have some relevance to something going on today", and then hope that it would take a little longer than five minutes to be dismissed. Even when work I've done in the past has been shot down quickly, it was at least by somebody who showed their working.
Perhaps a little, but it is not unreasonable to say "hi, here's a 120-page book I've read and thought deeply about which may talk about a different topic but can still have some relevance to something going on today", and then hope that it would take a little longer than five minutes to be dismissed. Even when work I've done in the past has been shot down quickly, it was at least by somebody who showed their working.
Unfortunately she anticipated even that attempt to dismiss her, Naomi, as you would discover if you'd read it. It's tempting and perhaps understandably comforting to dismiss the attitudes of women of the time as subjugated, or perhaps brainwashed, but it is evidently not so. Here is someone who is clear in her thinking, has provided reasons throughout for her argument.
As to the second point -- are you sure? Is it not worth listening to the many who don't agree, even in the modern world? It is comforting, again, to assume that this is all in the past, that "it is done", but it is at the very least dangerous assumption.
As to the second point -- are you sure? Is it not worth listening to the many who don't agree, even in the modern world? It is comforting, again, to assume that this is all in the past, that "it is done", but it is at the very least dangerous assumption.
I had hoped that it would be interesting for its own sake, at least. The very existence of such views is revealing, and provides a deeper inside into the historical context of a battle that should never have been fought and yet is still in progress today. The fact that some, indeed many, women at the time struggled so hard to resist this is a part of history that I am sure you would agree cannot be airbrushed out of the picture.
jim: "Come back to me when you've read the book. You'll see that Seawell was making virtually the exact same argument, that suffragists were seeking special treatment, demanding something to which they were not entitled, and so on and so forth." - there may have been that view by some at the time but the women concerned were clear on what they wanted, they wanted the vote. BLM are more esoteric about their demands, in fact has anyone actually seen what they demand? It's all framed in chip on shoulder terms that they feel in some way aggrieved but society more than ever is fair to them.
jim: "Then, as now, there was an attempt to use the methods of protest to undermine the cause. Then, as now, there was an attempt to call on the glory of the past civilisation to defend the status quo. " - how is this virtual "apartheid" maintained? Show me one legal sentence in the entire statute that is applies differently to non white people, it's mostly imagined.
Jim. If you’d have asked the names of the local harrumphers who’d have been firmly against your proposition, I’d have been very lucky in my guesses.
Whenever there is a revolutionary movement, the forces of reaction close ranks to oppose it, whether in the form of badly argued leaflets, or spitting rants on web sites.
Keep at it Jim.
Whenever there is a revolutionary movement, the forces of reaction close ranks to oppose it, whether in the form of badly argued leaflets, or spitting rants on web sites.
Keep at it Jim.
I can see what TTT and NJ's points are in terms of legal status -- although it is worth pointing out that, in the US, a separate minority, LGBT+ people, only earned protection from just being summarily dismissed from their jobs last week. But the legal battle isn't the only one that exists and is still to be fought.
Thanks, allen.
Thanks, allen.
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
Shopping & Style11 mins ago
Road rules19 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.