Where We’d Be if Suffragists Had Been Modern Feminists
March 30, 2009
by Anna Belle Pfau
|
Universal female suffrage is still a goal for many American women, generations of whom have worked for elective franchise for women beginning with the Seneca Falls Women’s Rights Convention in 1848. The women’s movement was once a strong force to be reckoned with in the United States, but along the way something went terribly wrong. The history of their pursuit is worthy of analysis because it can reveal how American women can streamline their strategies and avoid the mistakes of the past. Today, women still can’t vote in states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. To understand how we got here, let’s take a look at what happened next during this era of history.
The problem began when the women’s movement experienced a schism in 1868. In the wake of passage of the 14th Amendment, which granted black males the right to vote, the women’s rights movement was fractured between those who were furious that they would now require a Constitutional amendment to vote themselves, and those who supported civil rights for African-Americans, and who also saw the inclusion of African-American males into the enfranchised class as a step toward women gaining the right to vote. This was a fundamental disagreement that led to further disagreements over strategy. Eventually the factions organized different groups and began to pursue their different approaches; the former pursuing a Constitutional amendment, and the latter pursuing a state-by-state strategy, beginning out west. These two groups also allied themselves politically–both supported the newly formed Progressive Party.
During World War I, two young women, Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, gained some traction in pursuit of a Constitutional amendment. Using techniques they had learned in the British Women’s Suffrage Movement, the women were having an impact with their parades and White House protests, leading a group of women called the Silent Sentinels in picketing there every single day except Sunday for two years. President Wilson even voiced his support for the Susan B. Anthony Amendment at one point, which would have granted all women aged 21 or older the right to vote. Despite this, Paul and Burns refused to support any political party, which they saw as integral to achieving broader political support.
But people hated these newly empowered women. They were vilified, jailed, and eventually beaten. Popular opinion won out: bitter ladies were ineffective for political change, and impotent without the vote to boot. Meanwhile, single-state suffragist leaders continued to attempt to gain national exposure by petitioning every elected Progressive Party member in the land. This strategy was a bit short-sighted, however, as the Progressive Party fell apart in the election of 1916, and they were left with just random elected officials, largely from western states.
Most suffragists refused to petition Republicans and Democrats, who were the major parties, because they disagreed with many of their policies. Liberal suffragists thought the Republican Party was the party of financial corruption, and conservative suffragists thought the Democratic Party was the party of electoral corruption. These were probably accurate reflections of where the parties were at the time, though in no way indicated the sum total of their work.
Paul and Burns continued to petition every elected official in the land, and to stage “stunts” designed to bring attention to the cause. They were probably the two most hated women in America: They suffered sexist mistreatment in the streets, and were equally vilified by other suffragist leaders. These suffragist leaders had very serious and complicated moral standards, and they did not see the use in working with people they disagreed with, even toward ends where they may have agreed, such as universal suffrage. Eventually tortured by their universal outcast status, Paul and Burns gave up in 1929, the year the stock market crashed. Burns died shortly thereafter, and Paul ended her life as a destitute. She died in 1954; the cause of death was malnutrition.
Finally Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected, and women rejoiced. Surely this man, with his wonderfully progressive wife, would finally deign to enfranchise women. When Carrie Chapman Catt petitioned him, however, he said what he said to every constituency that petitioned him: You’ve convinced me; now MAKE me. Unlike other constituencies, however, Catt could offer FDR no voting block, since women could not vote nationally. Suffragists were in what we would call today a “catch-22 situation.” They would have to continue with their state-by-state strategy, which is still the strategy in place today.
As of 2009, only 36 states have granted women the right to vote, six of which allow women to vote in local elections only. As a result, few women have been elected to national Congress, none in the Senate, and women have made few inroads at the state level. While there has been the occasional western suffragist star, such as State Senator Jeannette Rankin from Montana, to date there have only been four female members of congress, all Representatives. There has never been a female senator. No woman has ever run for the highest offices in the land, the Presidential and Vice Presidential offices, and no women have been appointed to the Supreme Court. There is currently only one women serving in congress, Representative Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York). Rodham Clinton was previously the First Lady, and is married to former President Bill Clinton.
***
Where We’d Be If Suffragists Had Been Modern Feminists is an alternative historical narrative that is intended to demonstrate the folly of some modern feminist strategies. While many of the events above are untrue, they may very well have been true if suffragists had allowed themselves to remain divided. The losses documented here are directly analogous to what we’re losing every single day that we continue to bicker and fight, or choose political sides.
An alternative history essay! Cool.
“The losses documented here are directly analogous to what we’re losing every single day that we continue to bicker and fight, or choose political sides.”
Very well demonstrated! Thanks Anna Belle!
Wow, what a piece.
Such an important take-away that women need to stick together as a voting block in order to have any power.
This was a frightening read! I read somewhere that Switzerland only granted women the right to vote sometime in the 70′s. Aren’t the Swiss totally hip? I don’t understand. Perhaps it was something oddly political like you describe.
Are there any countries today that deny women the right to vote, or restrict their voting in ways men are not restricted?
I can only think of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon (voting required for men but not for women; women must present proof of elementary education to vote, but men need not), the United Arab Emirates, and Vatican City (elections for pope.)
Can you think of any more Anna Belle?
That is true, Ali, Switzerland did only extend the right to vote to women in 1971, the year I was born. That ought to show people the hazards of so-called neutrality. It can neutralize positive change too!
Glad you liked the piece Amy, Madamab, and Karen!
I don’t, Anna, but if someone where to do the research and write it up, it would make an excellent post!
Here’s a list of countries and when women got the right to vote: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm
Disregard the first entry, which claims women were able to be elected in America at our founding, which is utter crap. Sure, no legal language prevented it, but it was hardly allowed, as evidenced by more than 100 years passing before any woman was elected for anything in the US.
The section speaking to the political practicality of FDR is where I find meaning in this. My conclusion, regarding the current Powers That Be (DNC & Obama administration), is that: (1) they believe they have the majority of the “women’s vote” sewed up, and (2) that there is no substantive gender inequality or gender discrimination in the U.S. anyway.
Meanwhile, the Loyal Opposition (the RNC) believes that it can rely on Republican and/or conservative women being as loyal as a good pet dog (though in some cases the pet dog seems to be afforded greater stature).
I wonder if something such as the following might serve to alter the current attitudes. TNA isolates one national race (e.g. the upcoming Senate race in Delaware). TNA engineers a contest between a moderate Republican woman and a heavily favored Democratic man. TNA turns this assumed DNC victory into a Battle Royal with women for all around the U.S. supporting this Republican woman.
Anna Belle,
I read and re-read your first paragraph. What do you mean women still can’t vote in states like Alabama, Mississippi, Texas?
Carolyn, It’s fake. The piece is partial-fiction. It’s posted to prove a point. The disclaimer is at the end. Hope that helps.
Carolyn:
This is a fake history post, saying how things might have been. But fortunately history went differently and now women can vote in all 50 states.
The weird thing about the FDR part is that there really would be a question about whether he would have been elected at all if women had not had the vote.
Sorry! I couldn’t get past the first paragraph! I will continue to read.
Anna Belle,
Now that I have read it all, well done! I if we commit to electing women we will be empowered to stand on our own values. A lot of women that are in elected positions now draw scorn from other women who claim they do not have a feminist agenda. I believe many of these women have infiltrated the patriarchy in the only way they know how. Once we have equal representation, we won’t have to be “asking for our rights” As the quote below so aptly states, we can just “take them” and not be talking about it.
Carolyn, my thoughts were the same as yours when I began reading it. At first, I was upset ’cause I am a happy voter from Texas. But as I prepared my comment, I began rereading her post. Then, I was all “Oh! It’s alternative history! Don’t I feel silly…” lol
Karen, thanks for sharing my “DUH” moment — LOL
I stick with women’s causes and individual women candidates but not mindlessly with “feminist leaders” since for a long time the likes of NOW have been a bunch of elitists who have real women’s issues at the bottom of their long list of causes. I also do not pledge to any political party as it leads them to take women for granted as is demonstrated by the blatant misogyny practiced by the Democrat party against Hillary and Palin in the last election. I am afraid the Dems will need to acknowledge their misogyny and have a major purge before I vote their way again.
I also had to read this 3 times to understand it was fiction (because I don’t know that much about women’s history) but it made more of an impression once I figured it out.
Ditto on “Duh”. At least I’m in good company
Sorry folks, I shoulda put the disclaimer at the top. My bad.
Anna Belle,
No harm done. The article was very effective. Thanks again.
It was a great article Anna Belle. I shouldn’t be up in the middle of the night trying to read. I’m using lack of sleep as my excuse for not catching on sooner.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...