I don't see this topic come up much as it tends to be considered history despite only being a little over a century ago. As the title suggests, are there any good summaries of what the arguments for and against were at the time? I'd imagine it would make for great reading comparing what was forecast with what happened.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
No access to my bookmarks right now so I can't provide too many links, but the basic summation of arguments for and against female suffrage actually changed over time.
It was always an elite driven project. In the 19th century suffrage wasn't universal for men either, so the women arguing for the right to vote were all wealthy and propertied, usually widows who had inherited their money from dead husbands or other men.
Even so, most women before WWI didn't actually want the vote, because they didn't want the responsibilities that were required of men in exchange for the franchise. It was only after the war, when the franchise was expanded to include working class men, that the female suffrage movement started to gain widespread support. This was mainly political: in Europe and the Commonwealth, it was mostly Liberals and Conservatives who supported suffrage for propertied women due to their concern that working class men who had gained the franchise would largely vote for upstart left-wing parties like Labour.
Ironically, this meant that the loudest voices in opposition to female suffrage during this period were often leftists. One of the best distillation of these arguments that I've seen comes from Ernest Belfort Bax, who was a full-on anarcho-socialist. You can read it here.
From the link above.
No. You will never hear them claim shares of jobs as Garbagemen or day laborers. You will not hear them shout that laws must be enforced evenly. Instead, they will affirm the pussy pass and beg light treatment on behalf of women, for women's sake. Rights, with no corresponding responsibilities; to still have their cake even after devouring it, whole.
To whit the above link's conclusion:
Enter Family Courts and no fault divorce, as a point (3) where men may be drafted by the state into the maintenance of women and children treated as theirs whom they did not sire. If you extend this to the welfare state, the taxation mechanisms themselves compel analogous supports.
TheImp may be monomaniacal in his pursuit of and fixation on this issue, but the rise of the Feminist sisterhood and its consequences have been a disaster for Western political culture.
Feminism was a weapon of marxism, meant to deliberately destroy western society.