Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A very serious question for the men here at DU: [View all]DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)2. because they considered women more like property than like equals
I cannot cite all of the historical events of the time, but I believe the answer is rooted in men wanting to control "their women". Does that more or less square with what you know?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
230 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A serious yet more relevant question is why they decided to grant them that franchise in 1920.
lumberjack_jeff
Jan 2012
#1
I suspect it was getting pretty hard to justify after slaves had been freed and
MGKrebs
Jan 2012
#11
That is not an answer to the question that I asked in my OP. I'm not beating anyone over the head.
Zorra
Jan 2012
#19
By 1920 the arguments against were obviously considered archaic by most.
lumberjack_jeff
Jan 2012
#72
Poor analogy. Martin Luther King Jr and his adult supporters were voters. nt
lumberjack_jeff
Jan 2012
#145
I loved that series. Thanks for mentioning it. The temperance movement did play a role.
slackmaster
Jan 2012
#13
I would answer but my Delorean time machine is all out of plutonium so I can't go find out..
ddeclue
Jan 2012
#5
That is not an answer to the question that I asked. If you start your own OP with your question,
Zorra
Jan 2012
#27
My request was for men to offer opinions on a subject. I am not attacking anyone.
Zorra
Jan 2012
#48
It's hard for me to believe that political leaders didn't consult with their significant others
Major Nikon
Jan 2012
#159
Oh, those angry feminists! Did those in power granting freedom to slaves do away with
redqueen
Jan 2012
#44
If you look at this timeline for women's suffrage by country, you will find that the US was not
Arkansas Granny
Jan 2012
#9
Yup. What DU needs is more pejoratives for people who disagree with you. n/t
lumberjack_jeff
Jan 2012
#148
As does the Torah. Patriarchy is deeply entrenched in the big 3 religions nt
riderinthestorm
Jan 2012
#176
Not just in the US, you know, and the reason at the core was what it is in places they
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2012
#22
And the States right next to them did not. Was their territory so different?
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2012
#123
You know many Native American tribes were matrilineal. Women owned the property
riderinthestorm
Jan 2012
#178
LOL! Trust me on this bro, the shit we're in would be soooo much deeper right now if
Zorra
Jan 2012
#64
The United States, like all other countries in the 19th century, was patriarchal
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2012
#39
Not having lived in that period or the time previous to it, I am at a loss to answer your question
Sherman A1
Jan 2012
#41
Then logic would suggest that those who hold sexist opinions today could come up with
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2012
#97
Meh - that doesn't show women were ever more influential than men in Christianity
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2012
#95
Men were dominant in Christianity right from the start until 1920
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2012
#103
who were not the dominant form of Christianity, and were still male-dominated
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2012
#142
Gnosticism clearly did not have dominant women as one of its dominant features
DisgustipatedinCA
Jan 2012
#152
In 1790, New Jersey granted the vote to "all free inhabitants," including women.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#62
men were considered the "head of the family", hence in the position to grant rights (or deny them)
DrDan
Jan 2012
#76
Patriarchy is an ancient system and we still haven't really gotten rid of it.
white_wolf
Jan 2012
#83
I think it's because society evolves right along with the brain and intelligence.
Lint Head
Jan 2012
#105
Why did Wyoming grant suffrage before the US did and refuse admittance unless it was recognized?
REP
Jan 2012
#115
I think the roots were there long before anyone could vote, I have no idea how women became
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#127
I think it it started as Roles, then became tradition and then became a way to retain power
stevenleser
Jan 2012
#129
“The bicycle has done more for the emancipation of women than anything else in the world.”
Fumesucker
Jan 2012
#132
Interesting question. I guess because history is, in the long perspective, a story of progress.
downwardly_mobile
Jan 2012
#144
I think that was just the way it had always been, and nobody thought to change it.
Nye Bevan
Jan 2012
#149
Duh. Women against equality. It seems that most anti-suffragist women were, naturally, RWers.
Zorra
Jan 2012
#193
That's the way their fathers, grandfathers, . . . . . had always done things. n/t
jody
Jan 2012
#156
Actually, women in the US could vote in New Jersey for awhile until the early 1800's IRCC. nt
mistertrickster
Jan 2012
#186
Lack of enlightenment, which thankfully gradually increased and still seems to.
flvegan
Jan 2012
#177
I'm not sure but maybe the same reason that France did not give women the vote until 1944 or
Synicus Maximus
Jan 2012
#180
Uh-oh, black magic! No prob, bro! Close your eyes, click your heels together 3 times, and...
Zorra
Jan 2012
#220
This woman thinks it was because corporate America feared that women would be harder to control
McCamy Taylor
Jan 2012
#202
I did not live in that time. I did not grow up in that time. I am not a historian.
HuckleB
Jan 2012
#226