Books

Suffrage

From our modern vantage point, it's easy to scorn some decisions that suffrage movement leaders made. Suffrage adds context.

|

Were early American feminists classical liberals or radical leftists? Did they support or work against black enfranchisement and the abolition of slavery? Did they get too tied up in the temperance movement, or did aligning with Prohibition help their cause? The answer to all of the above is yes, a new book suggests.

In Suffrage: Women's Long Battle for the Vote, UCLA historian Ellen Carol DuBois takes us from the first stirrings of American women's organized fight for legal rights, in the 1840s, through the ratification of the 19th Amendment—giving U.S. women the right to vote—in 1920. There's no shortage of space devoted to famous suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. But Suffrage makes room for many lesser-known activists and organizers, including black suffragists often left out of history books. It also delves into nitty-gritty detail about the electoral and cultural politics undergirding women's suffrage.

The book is insightful about shifting conceptions of proper female attributes and behavior, revealing the shifting constituencies and causes of American party politics. Republicans were long more embraced by women's rights crusaders and abolitionists, while Democrats fought like hell to avoid politically empowering both groups—a stance only shaken once wage-earning black men and women began to constitute a large portion of Democrats' organized-labor-heavy base.

From our modern vantage point, it's easy to scorn some decisions that suffrage movement leaders made: breaking early ties with the abolition movement over black men getting the vote before women did, crusading to ban alcohol, cozying up to party machinery, playing up anti-immigrant sentiments, and more. Suffrage grounds such compromises and alliances in context, inviting readers to consider the extreme political constraints these activists worked under as they fought their battle.

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: So Close

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ENB’s still crying into her bowl of wheaties:

    In dismissing the women’s claim that they are paid less for the same work, Klausner pointed to differences in the structure of the men’s and women’s contracts — contracts to which they agreed in collective bargaining.

    “The WNT [Women’s National Team] rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT [Men’s National Team] and … the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players,” Klausner wrote. “Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT’s pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure.”

    The judge said the women’s contract guarantees players will be paid regardless of whether they play. The men are paid if they are called into camp to play and then participate in a match. On this point, Klausner said, the plaintiff’s statements “were insufficient to establish a genuine dispute.”

    Equal pay for equal work is a sham. As long as everyone is voluntarily employed, you know what unequal pay for equal work is called? A bargain. And women love bargain hunting.

    1. Are you daft? Reporting on someone elses political opinion and court cases surrounding that issue does NOT mean one is in full agreement with that opinion. There is now crying in that article from ENB. Stop projecting.

      Now shut up and eat your Wheaties.

      1. ENB couldn’t be weeping because a legitimate movement to advance women equally in a democracy society has been reduced to a patent socialist money-grab so obvious and smelly a federal judge couldn’t tolerate it?

        Projecting what? That *I’m* the one weeping into my wheaties because the women’s soccer team lost in court? Go ahead, keep telling me that I’m the one projecting.

      2. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder…uik. Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open…
        Find out how HERE……SeeMore here

  2. Were early American feminists classical liberals or radical leftists? Did they support or work against black enfranchisement and the abolition of slavery? Did they get too tied up in the temperance movement, or did aligning with Prohibition help their cause? The answer to all of the above is yes, a new book suggests.

    This makes no sense. We all know the Women – like the Blacks, the Hispanics, the Gays, the Jews, the Muslims, the Poors – all think and act just alike as a monolithic group. There’s no diversity of thought, as if they were individuals. Well, Authentic Women, at least. If some of them might seem like they’ve gone off the reservation, well, those aren’t Real Women.

    1. And, or course, only women answer an either-or question “yes”.

      1. Yes, this was my first thought on that paragraph. Answering a question in the form of “A or B?” with a yes reduces it to a trivial truism. Of course it’s true, but it’s truth doesn’t mean anything.

  3. Aw don’t lean on me man, ’cause you can’t afford the ticket
    I’m back on Suffragette City
    Dont lean on me man
    ‘Cause you ain’t got time to check it
    You know my Suffragette City
    Is outta sight, she’s all right

  4. “Were early American feminists classical liberals or radical leftists?—-” ( all involving OR in the question.)

    “The answer to all of the above is yes”

    That’s like asking if 1 is greater than 0 or less than 0 ?
    The answer is YES —– LOL

  5. When this was a hot topic in the seventies, my dad always said he fully supported the ERA because it was our last chance to get women back to just equal.

  6. “From our modern vantage point, it’s easy to scorn some decisions that suffrage movement leaders made: breaking early ties with the abolition movement over black men getting the vote before women did, crusading to ban alcohol, cozying up to party machinery, playing up anti-immigrant sentiments, and more.”

    #Karen don’t like it when people apply the standards she applies to White Men throughout history to Karens of Yore.

    I do enjoy the shrieks of fear and outrage when the those who fed others to the Woke crocodile are consumed in their turn. Sounds like Justice.

    1. “Context is for me, not for thy.” – Lol

  7. “Context is for me, not for thy.” – Lol

  8. I would care about this more If you weren’t the same person that said that “MGTOWs and MRAs are sexists and there is no such thing as an abusive women and they are misogenistics and shelters for abused men are not a real issue…” some years ago. Also, you don’t mention how women gained the right to vote without conscription.

    1. https://reason.com/2015/09/25/mgtows-mras-and-libertarians/ <- You are in no right ground to say anything about others strawmaning.

      1. Honestly, the simple fact that you wrote “Some of these policies, like men not beating up their wifes without breaking the law, are perfect fine” just proves that we need a men’s rights movement. Because abuse is something that only men do to women, right?

Please to post comments