Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Women Couldn't Vote.That Was "Oppression"?

It annoys me to hear the feminists say that women were "oppressed" because they didn't have the voting franchise in olden days. Excuse me. . . oppressed? I would take exception to the semantics in this case, for is not a bit clear to me that what was happening ought to be called by such a heinous name.

I am aware that some people might think it was a bad thing that women couldn't vote. And I am aware that other people might think it was a good thing.

Well as you might expect, I am a third way thinker upon this subject. I would submit that women's historical lack of voting rights was neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Rather, it was a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by men and women alike in the past.

Our ancestors lived in a very, very different world than we do, and their cultural norms were very, very different from ours, yet undoubtedly befitting to their world -- a world mysterious and unknown to us nowadays. Who are we to judge?

So was it really, inherently, such a horrible thing after all, that women could not vote? And WHY was it inherently horrible? Why should it even matter? Did the average woman in those days honestly feel that voting was "all that"? Seriously. . . who are we new-fangled ones to judge the men and women of past times for their very different way of life, with its very different demands and pressures that we can no longer entirely fathom?

And needless to say, we all know that most men could not vote during most of those same years in which women could not vote, and that there was only a trivial time lag between full manhood suffrage and full womanhood suffrage.

Something else that nobody to my knowledge has pointed out, is that electoral politics as we nowadays know it is a VERY recent historical innovation. It virtually did not exist before the French Revolution, and came into focus gradually beginning in the early 1800s. So it is utterly vacuous to say that women were deprived of the vote for "centuries", in case anybody wanted to say such a thing. In fact, the time window in which women couldn't vote was historically very brief, and for most of that same stretch most men were similarly deprived. Yes, the more you whittle this down, the more trivial it looks.

As above, was it really such an unspeakable crime that the female population couldn't always go to the polls during that comparatively trifling span of years?

Or is that entire concept nothing but feminist historiography, meant to wring pathos out of history for present-day political purposes by the device of retrojection? That would certainly conform to standard feminist tricknology, wouldn't it?

Once again, I believe that women's historical lack of voting rights was neither a good thing nor a bad thing, but a morally indifferent thing which ought to concern us very little at the present day. And I even think I am being generous, for to be intellectually honest I believe a case might be constructed that it was a positive good in the context of those times. However, I am willing to settle for "morally indifferent", and call it quits.

Look, it's simple. Once upon a time, women didn't have the voting franchise because societal norms found nothing amiss about such a lack. Then times changed, norms changed, and women were admitted to the franchise. That's all. And women were never, at any point along that general story-line, "oppressed." Only within the feminist narrative were they "oppressed" -- but there are other narratives.

Furthermore, women were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, women's "right" to vote simply did not exist in the first place -- or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that "rights" are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself -- they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom within the frame of a social contract. Through the entirety of human history, people have been inventing new "rights", in train with new appetites, where none existed previously. And I expect they will continue to do so.

Of course, the idea of repealing women's voting right NOWADAYS, is silly and not to be recommended. It would be a counterproductive measure, to say the very least.

But in conclusion, I wish that second and third-wave feminists would shut the hell up with their dishonest, self-laudatory agitprop on the theme of "women couldn't vote". Women can vote now. Okay? So the feminists need to get over it, and move on, and quit tooting on that rusty old horn. It is getting really, really old.

It really is.


19 Comments:

Blogger mnl said...

Nice post and an interesting topic. It's true. The concept of restricting the vote to men, men with citizenship, or even to land-owning men with citizenship, seems almost primitive to many today. By today's culture/religion of "equalism" it's become axiomatic that women should be able to vote--and should've always had that "right". They were only excluded due to the manipulative and oppressive agenda of patriarchy.

But if one goes back 100 years or so and reads the arguments both pro and con, the anti-suffragette rationale is extremely cogent. Some of this material is accessible through Laura Grace Robin's fine blog at http://fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.com/. There's another fine summary in the (now) 100-year old treatise "Feminism" by Correa Moylan Walsh. It's available on Google Books.

As an example: just one element of anti-suffragette reasoning I find most compelling: the vote was rightly restricted to males since they were most affected by its consequences! That is, males were most likely to pay the resulting taxes; males were the ones called to fight and die in the resulting legislated wars.

Second, we need to recall that marriage rates were fairly high back at the time of the suffrage movement. A married man's right to vote didn't necessarily exclude his wife from the process. Not at all. Rather, it encouraged voting as a family unit--led by the father/husband. Rightly handled, it fostered cohesion and family unity.

11:13 AM  
Blogger Manifold said...

Excellent article which pretty much reflects my own opinion.

I spread this on twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/sonsofperseus/status/126359950011277312

11:13 AM  
Blogger mnl said...

I'd say it's also near given among many that the legislative consequences of female suffrage have been entirely positive, that hindsight over the last ~90 years (speaking of the U.S.) has proven the suffrage movement correct.

Maybe. Maybe not.

In an interesting paper published about 10 years ago in the Journal of Political Economy, two researchers explored the impact of suffrage on (U.S.) state spending. The fact that the different U.S. states enacted woman's suffrage in state-level elections at different times lends itself to a cross-sectional time series analysis (i.e., a regression model over time). In sum, the authors show how...

"Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government
expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns
for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing
over time as more women took advantage of the franchise."

The paper demonstrates how today's Big Government first began in earnest with the rise of the female vote. And it's easy to see why: those not (at least initially) responsible for paying for social programs were, with the stroke of the suffragette-enabled legislative pen, suddenly able to determine the extent and nature of those expenditures. Indeed, who wouldn't? It's the definition of a free lunch.

Link to the academic article here: http://tinyurl.com/Lott-and-Kenny

There's definitely an interesting history to women's suffrage--and its consequences now 90 years later.

1:07 PM  
Blogger mnl said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:11 PM  
Blogger Bad said...

"to be intellectually honest I believe a case might be constructed that it was a positive good in the context of those times"

And to be even more honest women's suffrage appears to be a NEGATIVE thing in the context of THESE times. Since women got the right to vote, we've gotten a welfare state and a host of anti-male laws, because women vote for themselves: they vote for the government to support them through men's taxes, and they vote for laws that grant them special privileges and entitlements at the expense of men.

3:03 PM  
Blogger blindman said...

By that logic serfs were not oppressed, or slaves for that matter. Both were morally indifferent states of affairs shared by men and women alike. At various times, both serfs and slaves bought into their own cultural norms.
Tautologically, no, neither serfs nor slaves nor women nor men were oppressed, as it was not considered oppression at the time. But in terms of individuals being allowed to fulfill their maximum potential and enjoy their lives to the fullest extent possible, all were oppressed by not being allowed to participate in their own governance.
Your argument is interesting, but not very well considered, and seems to be based on a rather flimsy tautological foundation.

5:28 PM  
OpenID eneya said...

This post is a mess.
1. If we assume that things just are, why do you think that your complaints matter at all, since "it's just the way it is"?

It seems like you suggest that nobody cared that women couldn't vote, because it just was, than suddenly, out of the blue, they started to care and granted women the right to vote without any delay or fuss... and then the eevil feminists came along and said their was opression. It completely erases EIGHTY YEARS of movement and political activism and the fact that women's rights were something FOR which feminists were fighting for and because of their actions women were granted rights.

It sounds horribly dishonest to devalue the work of all these people, the social changes that have happened and somehow present the past as something that has happened in an alternative reality to which we have only tangential access and knowledge of.
There are literaty hundreds of thousands of books on the topic, written by both feminists and people who opposed the idea of women getting the right to vote. There have been riots, protests... it sure as hell didn't happen overnight. So we dfinitely can read them up, think about them, check some history books as well and think for ourselves. The past can be know and understood. Also, different times - yes, different people... not so much. Though society changes rapidly, some things haven't changed that much and the main point is - people want to control their lives and when they can't, they don't like it.

Next... even we assume that you are right and whatever is the status quo is morally ambiguous and everyone is fine with iot and it's just how it is... why do you xomplain in that case from specific issues concerning men? The argument being: if society says it's right, then... you compaint doesn't matter because the reality is what it is and that's it.

Last, but not least... yes, right are a fictional notion we have come up with. We are complicated beings, having compliated societies, having complicated relationships. We create such notions, so we can function and the fact that something is a construct, does not mean it has no influence for the people. Even if I don't believe in good and evil, our soeciety does and if I kill someone for the kicks of it, I will be in jail, because what I did is perceived as wrong by our society.

Maybe you argue that construct notions cant be positive or negative but as a person with German background... I assure you, you are gravely mistaken.

4:09 AM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

"Women weren't allowed to vote" is incorrect in the first place.

The first women to vote was Lydia Taft in 1756.

The head of the household was allowed to vote - and that is all. When Lydia's husband died - she assumed the role and was the voter for the household.

In addition to that, all that the 29th (or is it 19th) amendment did was allowed women to vote on the single condition of age.

Before that, various states actually allowed women to vote if they had enough money, owned land - or were a certain age.

Example: Women were given the right to vote in Utah, hoping that they would get rid of the state's pro-polygamy laws. When the "woman vote" failed to get rid of those laws, the right for women in Utah to vote was then taken away from them.

Like most snakes, Politicians know (or at least think they know) that women can be played like flutes.

Even today, the woman vote is referred to as the "swing vote".

ANyway - the phrase "women were not allowed to vote" is incorrect to begin with - otherwise, Lydia Taft would not have been voting in 1756.

The statement is incorrect - and even if it were correct - your arguments above state that it is not "oppression".

9:44 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@eneya:

"This post is a mess."

Your reply to it is a mess. The product of a disordered understanding.

No, I assure you the post is not a mess. It knows what it is saying, and what its 'game' is.

And you don't.

Anyhoo... put away that rusty old horn.

11:29 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

@ F: Hear, hear, excellent! Prior to the French Revolution, revolving around the perceived rights and freedoms of the individual, women voting was a moot point - it wasn't even raised in their consciousness, anymore than it was raised in the male conscious. Yay for patriarchy! ;)

6:32 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Trent:

I won't yay for the patriarchy, since the feminists would skin me alive for that! ;) I will leave the yay-ing to y'all womenfolk, since you can do that and really get under the feminist's skin.

Attention all feminists:

Trent13 here is a woman, and she is, like. . . totally cool with the patriarchy. That is what she has always told me, anyways.

So, you guys might want to get in here and beat the tar out of her, 'cuz she's like, y'know. . . . a traitor!

As for me. . .

I have no problem with the "patriarchy" coming back, if it decides to do so.

And if it does NOT come back, well. . I'm okay with that too. However, I will adjust my social expectations of women accordingly.

I am a believer in "equality", you betcha! ;)

8:17 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@blindman:

So you are throwing women's non-voting status in the same bag with slavery and serfdom, on the scale of "oppression"...?

Whatever. Apples and baseballs.

Tell ya what. Stop collecting propaganda dividends off of retrojectively defined "oppression", and we'll call it even.

10:26 PM  
Blogger blindman said...

So if you were denied the right to vote for your government, you would NOT consider that a form of oppression?
You'd be OK with that?
And its deliciously funny the way you claim to be a believer in equality, not four sentences after stating you'd have no problem with a return to patriarchal norms. Does that mean you would be equally at ease living in a matriarchal society?
Tell ya what. Stop claiming a mantle of egalitarianism when you are clearly misogynistic and we'll call it even. The one thing I respect less then either feminism or chauvinism is hypocrisy.

3:57 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Blindman:

I don't normally fisk much, but here goes:

"So if you were denied the right to vote for your government, you would NOT consider that a form of oppression?"

You are not paying attention to the argument -- the nuance escapes you. Fail.

"And its deliciously funny the way you claim to be a believer in equality, not four sentences after stating you'd have no problem with a return to patriarchal norms."

I said nothing at all about "equality" or "patriarchal norms." And did I tell you those words were part of my discourse? Once again...fail.

"Does that mean you would be equally at ease living in a matriarchal society?"

"Equally" at ease? Equally. . to what? Explain...or fail.

"Tell ya what. Stop claiming a mantle of egalitarianism. . "

When did I "claim" a so-called "mantle of egalitarianism"? Explain. . or fail.

"..when you are clearly misogynistic and we'll call it even."

"Misogynistic" is a word that feminists like to throw around a lot. It means "hates women". If it is "clear" to you that I hate women, that doesn't make it clear to the rest of the world. So, clarify. . or fail.

"The one thing I respect less then either feminism or chauvinism is hypocrisy."

Are you saying that you DON'T respect feminism? That's cool.. but you sorta sound like a feminist to me. I mean, if you toss around feminist lingo like "patriarchal norms" and "misogynistic", most people would assume you were a feminist.

And I don't like hypocrisy either, so put 'er there, pal! ;-)

Something else I don't like is intellectual dishonesty.

7:01 PM  
Blogger blindman said...

"You are not paying attention to the argument -- the nuance escapes you. Fail."
You did not answer my simple question. Honesty escapes you. Fail.

"I said nothing at all about "equality" or "patriarchal norms." And did I tell you those words were part of my discourse? Once again...fail."
Quotes from your prior post: "I have no problem with the "patriarchy" coming back" and shortly after: "I am a believer in 'equality', you betcha!"
Self-awareness escapes you. Fail.

""Equally" at ease? Equally. . to what? Explain...or fail."
Since your request demands a patronizing response, "Equally", as in having no more problem with it than you profess to have with patriarchy coming back." (See, once again, your quote above).
Semantic comprehension escapes you. Fail.

"When did I "claim" a so-called "mantle of egalitarianism"? Explain. . or fail."
Same quote, from above: "I am a believer in equality', you betcha!"
Reading retention escapes you. Fail.

"If it is "clear" to you that I hate women, that doesn't make it clear to the rest of the world. So, clarify. . or fail."
Misogyny also includes oppression of women, and if you still feel that denying a class of human beings the right to participate in their own governance is not a form of oppression, than I once again invite you to summon the courage to answer my first question from above.

You jump to the assumption that I am a feminist because I do not hold the same extreme ideological views as yourself. In that, you are part-and-parcel with the feminists who have immediately assumed that I am a misogynist when I argue for equal treatment and equal opportunities for all individuals, including men.
I am an Equalist, which is why I consider your claim to believe in 'equality' hypocritical in light of other statements you have made. Your ideology appears to be no more reasonable, and no more grounded in fact, and no more fair-minded than that of the many feminists with whom I have argued.

I'd still be thrilled for you to demonstrate otherwise.

9:01 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"You are not paying attention to the argument -- the nuance escapes you. Fail."
You did not answer my simple question. Honesty escapes you. Fail.


Your "simple" question is not simple at all if you ignore the entire context of the argument. And your phrasing sweeps aside that context like it was never even written. Ergo, "honesty escapes you". If you had paid attention to what was written, you would already have your answer. So, either engage my thoughtfully crafted argument on its own terms,or call the whole thing off.

"I said nothing at all about "equality" or "patriarchal norms." And did I tell you those words were part of my discourse? Once again...fail."
Quotes from your prior post: "I have no problem with the "patriarchy" coming back" and shortly after: "I am a believer in 'equality', you betcha!"
Self-awareness escapes you. Fail.


Looking through the present article, I see none of what you have quoted.

""Equally" at ease? Equally. . to what? Explain...or fail."
Since your request demands a patronizing response, "Equally", as in having no more problem with it than you profess to have with patriarchy coming back." (See, once again, your quote above).
Semantic comprehension escapes you. Fail.


Again, I do not find this in the present article.

When did I "claim" a so-called "mantle of egalitarianism"? Explain. . or fail."
Same quote, from above: "I am a believer in equality', you betcha!"
Reading retention escapes you. Fail.


Again, I do not find this in the present article.

"If it is "clear" to you that I hate women, that doesn't make it clear to the rest of the world. So, clarify. . or fail."
Misogyny also includes oppression of women,


Don't tell me what misogyny "includes". It means animosity toward women as a class. That is ALL it means. Don't use rubber semantics with me; that is what the feminists do.

. . and if you still feel that denying a class of human beings the right to participate in their own governance is not a form of oppression, than I once again invite you to summon the courage to answer my first question from above.

I invite you to summon the intellectual honesty to engage my argument on its own terms, as I said earlier. If you think you can waltz in here and hijack the whole discourse, you are mistaken. Show me where I expressly said what you say I said, and keep it relevant to the context.

You jump to the assumption that I am a feminist because I do not hold the same extreme ideological views as yourself.

Actually no, you have completely paved over my real reason for "jumping to" that conclusion. Subtlety is not your strong suit, apparently. Anyhow, if a person goes to mass every day, and goes to confession every day, and carries rosary beads around, he can tell me he is not a Catholic, but I will be skeptical.

In that, you are part-and-parcel with the feminists who have immediately assumed that I am a misogynist when I argue for equal treatment and equal opportunities for all individuals, including men.

Heh, that's funny because so far I see YOU as part and parcel with the feminists, mainly due to your embrace of feminist narrative, discourse and terminology -- but also your penchant for a certain style of intellectual trickery.

[Continued Below...]

10:29 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

I am an Equalist, which is why I consider your claim to believe in 'equality' hypocritical in light of other statements you have made. Your ideology appears to be no more reasonable, and no more grounded in fact, and no more fair-minded than that of the many feminists with whom I have argued.

I have purged my speech and writing of feminist jargon, and I employ a rather different semantics. The term "equality" works well in the realm of mathematics, but outside that realm, not so much.

Equality? Sure, women can have all the "equality" they can handle. Let's discuss what "equality" means.

I'd still be thrilled for you to demonstrate otherwise.

Please define the "otherwise" that you would be thrilled for me demonstrate.

It's called getting on the same page.

Dig?

10:33 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Blindman:

Here's a clue 4 ya:

I am tired of feminists trotting out the the old warhorse that "feminism got women the vote", as a way of rhetorically bloating feminism's credit during an argument (usually about something totally unrelated).

6:21 AM  
Blogger trent13 said...

"But in terms of individuals being allowed to fulfill their maximum potential and enjoy their lives to the fullest extent possible, all were oppressed by not being allowed to participate in their own governance."

From the viewpoint that he is coming from I can understand his point, but that would be the difference between myself as a CAtholic patriarchalist and him as a one who places individual rights over the common good. Women's voting was a moot point at the time, but it's not a moot point anymore. Voting gives political action to private opinion, whether that private opinion be objectively bad or good. But in blindman's case there can be true distinguishing, only general agreement.

So women are naturally going to use voting to gain power for what they want - which is bad for men because politicians will sell themselves out for the vote. He takes the view of the "enlightened modern" who basically believes that people were too stupid to know what was good for them back then.

Wrong - the majority of society was Catholic, they weren't focused on themselves like modern man is and the greater good of society, and a culture directed towards heaven and not earth took precedence. That's the difference.

But, like I say, from the materialistic view which must place ego and self-gratification of the individual first, he would be right. His logic follows from the first principle, but if the first principle is wrong, the rest is equally wrong.

3:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home