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]ddeclue
(16,733 posts)5. I would answer but my Delorean time machine is all out of plutonium so I can't go find out..

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