General Discussion

CrispyQ

(40,898 posts)

155. What a bunch of bullshit.

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 07:27 PM

Jan 2012

"Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the joint resolution introduced by my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire , proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, conferring the right to vote upon the women of the United States, is one of paramount importance, as it involves great questions far reaching in their tendency, which seriously affect the very pillars of our social fabric, which involve the peace and harmony of society, the unity of the family, and much of the future success of our Government...."

The bolded part could just as easily be the same reason given today for denying gays the right to marriage.

I could almost feel sorry for men who are so fearful of anyone different than them, if they weren't such self-righteous pricks.

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:

A very serious question for the men here at DU: [View all] Zorra Jan 2012 OP

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

What a bunch of bullshit. CrispyQ Jan 2012 #155

Men "granted" women the franchise? Hardly! frazzled Jan 2012 #43

Uh, no. Women could not vote themselves the franchise ...... oldhippie Jan 2012 #116

Time to resurrect the term frazzled Jan 2012 #121

Poor analogy. Martin Luther King Jr and his adult supporters were voters. nt lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #145

Agreed. frazzled has made a poor argument via a poor analogy TalkingDog Jan 2012 #150

Poor analogy: The Civil Rights Acts were not voted on by the electorate frazzled Jan 2012 #161

You're missing the point. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #168

You "men" would never have done it on their own frazzled Jan 2012 #171

"The powerful never cede power unless they have no other choice" Mimosa Jan 2012 #174

As a woman and a strong feminist, I disagree with you. yardwork Jan 2012 #206

Compel and coerce rather than 'convince' LanternWaste Jan 2012 #209

Because Harry Burn loved and respected his mother obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #58

Fascinating link. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #146

The Tenn. Leg wasn't too pleased, either obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #147

I do agree with that point treestar Jan 2012 #183

because they considered women more like property than like equals DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #2

Yes, look up the term "chattels". trof Jan 2012 #165

This is not a serious question itsrobert Jan 2012 #3

Why do you think the question in the OP is not serious? nt ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #219

I recently watched the PBS series on Prohibition. no_hypocrisy Jan 2012 #4

That was inaccurate Charlemagne Jan 2012 #12

Thank you. nt Zorra Jan 2012 #23

It was the political confederacy zipplewrath Jan 2012 #25

Well stated Charlemagne Jan 2012 #37

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

I know a guy in Libya Charlemagne Jan 2012 #14

I think it's mostly just a historical legacy. MGKrebs Jan 2012 #6

Distinct possibilities, I believe. Thanks! Zorra Jan 2012 #38

That's what I would say Major Nikon Jan 2012 #157

Why did so many people, both men and women, accept the practice of slavery? drm604 Jan 2012 #7

That is not an answer to the question that I asked. If you start your own OP with your question, Zorra Jan 2012 #27

It is an answer. drm604 Jan 2012 #36

My request was for men to offer opinions on a subject. I am not attacking anyone. Zorra Jan 2012 #48

Perhaps men just didn't view women DocMac Jan 2012 #110

It's hard for me to believe that political leaders didn't consult with their significant others Major Nikon Jan 2012 #159

I doubt that men confided in their wives that way. DocMac Jan 2012 #228

is there a reason why you asked specifically for men's answers tnvoter Jan 2012 #172

lumberjack_jeff is on the right track salvorhardin Jan 2012 #8

Post removed Post removed Jan 2012 #17

Oh, those angry feminists! Did those in power granting freedom to slaves do away with redqueen Jan 2012 #44

Wow. demmiblue Jan 2012 #55

Right? "the gift giving group" redqueen Jan 2012 #59

Sounds like something straight from FR. demmiblue Jan 2012 #66

That's a nauseating post. But he knows that. Matariki Jan 2012 #201

I'm far more cynical than you on this one. redqueen Jan 2012 #208

"The Doldrums" were the nadir of women's rights obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #61

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

Because that was always the way things were done previously slackmaster Jan 2012 #10

I would assume fear of losing the privileges they'd become accustomed to. qb Jan 2012 #15

There seems to be a lot of testeria in response to your question a simple pattern Jan 2012 #16

A very apt word, indeed. MineralMan Jan 2012 #26

testeria, Whisp Jan 2012 #40

LOL, nice one. redqueen Jan 2012 #49

I love it! Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #63

I approve! City Lights Jan 2012 #139

Yup. What DU needs is more pejoratives for people who disagree with you. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #148

Great coinage, fills a real need. bemildred Jan 2012 #175

^Duzy?^ Zorra Jan 2012 #190

(testeria isn't a new word, sorry) nt greyl Jan 2012 #227

It's a good question, indeed. MineralMan Jan 2012 #18

Thanks, MM, for this insightful response. Zorra Jan 2012 #60

Those are tough questions, and I'll be speculating, but: MineralMan Jan 2012 #85

Another interesting response, thanks! nt Zorra Jan 2012 #96

Women/Bible DryHump Jan 2012 #131

Disagree. It's strict literal interpretation that's the problem n/t arcane1 Jan 2012 #164

Perhaps. But the Quran has similar issues. MineralMan Jan 2012 #170

As does the Torah. Patriarchy is deeply entrenched in the big 3 religions nt riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #176

The library Charlemagne Jan 2012 #20

OK, you have several responses now. What's the upshot? DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #21

That's going to take awhile to process, because Zorra Jan 2012 #198

Not just in the US, you know, and the reason at the core was what it is in places they Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #22

If you look at this of countries and when they granted women the right to vote RZM Jan 2012 #46

Yes, Wyoming led the way. Probably because it was frontier territory, MineralMan Jan 2012 #111

And the States right next to them did not. Was their territory so different? Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #123

You know, I don't know. MineralMan Jan 2012 #169

You know many Native American tribes were matrilineal. Women owned the property riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #178

Because we could mdmc Jan 2012 #24

So that we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now The Straight Story Jan 2012 #28

Bad TSS! Bad! EOTE Jan 2012 #51

LOL! Trust me on this bro, the shit we're in would be soooo much deeper right now if Zorra Jan 2012 #64

Patriarchal Religion that has passed from generation to generation n/t RainDog Jan 2012 #29

oh wait, I'm not a man - can I still participate? n/t RainDog Jan 2012 #30

Yeah, but it's men's night. Women have to pay a cover. nt Zorra Jan 2012 #67

Because people can be jerks? RevStPatrick Jan 2012 #31

this is veganlush Jan 2012 #32

LOL! No, unless people consider a question posed in order to provoke thought Zorra Jan 2012 #69

... progressoid Jan 2012 #204

We are all captives of the culture we are born into. bemildred Jan 2012 #33

It's hard to escape when most people insist on maintaining the status quo. redqueen Jan 2012 #53

I think we have only begun to explore the possibilities. bemildred Jan 2012 #179

Exactly - cultural intertia tjwmason Jan 2012 #203

control rurallib Jan 2012 #34

It was considered rational at the time to only allow white men to vote arcane1 Jan 2012 #35

The United States, like all other countries in the 19th century, was patriarchal muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #39

That's along the lines of what I was thinking deutsey Jan 2012 #52

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

but the answer is veganlush Jan 2012 #42

The US was even more of a Patriarchy then, than it is now. mojowork_n Jan 2012 #45

Interesting Ineeda Jan 2012 #47

i think i might look to the church dembotoz Jan 2012 #50

People with power strive to keep it. Orangepeel Jan 2012 #54

I would like to disagree with everyone blaming religion or the church. redqueen Jan 2012 #56

And you are incorrect in doing so cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #65

I disagree. redqueen Jan 2012 #71

link please jorno67 Jan 2012 #74

Religion is a creation of mankind, is it not? dawg Jan 2012 #87

That's a good point, about virtues being expressed as well. (nt) redqueen Jan 2012 #112

Yes - Religion is the creation of man jorno67 Jan 2012 #120

Even if the misogyny came later, it is still the creation of man. dawg Jan 2012 #124

well there's where we differ... jorno67 Jan 2012 #133

I think we agree more than we disagree. dawg Jan 2012 #138

I agree jorno67 Jan 2012 #143

You're right. I didn't mean to imply that... redqueen Jan 2012 #126

fair enough! jorno67 Jan 2012 #135

It's not just christianity RainDog Jan 2012 #118

But did religions create the attitude in the dominant group? And by religions, Zorra Jan 2012 #82

I doubt it. redqueen Jan 2012 #89

Then logic would suggest that those who hold sexist opinions today could come up with Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #97

You'd have to ask them for their reasons. redqueen Jan 2012 #98

Religion was crafted at a certain point to codify these sexist 'laws' Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #122

Patriarchal religions were not the first religions? redqueen Jan 2012 #125

2,000 years of wrong-headed history WilliamPitt Jan 2012 #57

No. Union Scribe Jan 2012 #80

Meh - that doesn't show women were ever more influential than men in Christianity muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #95

What? Who was trying to show they had MORE influence? Union Scribe Jan 2012 #99

Men were dominant in Christianity right from the start until 1920 muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #103

If you want to ignore actual scholarship Union Scribe Jan 2012 #113

familiarize yourself with the Gnostics DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #136

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

They thought women were emotionally inferior. Hysterical. dawg Jan 2012 #68

IMO Mr Dixon Jan 2012 #70

To maintain power. Simple as that. Shankapotomus Jan 2012 #73

Laura Ingram's grandmother had a strong following? snooper2 Jan 2012 #75

men were considered the "head of the family", hence in the position to grant rights (or deny them) DrDan Jan 2012 #76

I'm not a man, but I'm gonna venture an answer justiceischeap Jan 2012 #77

We got tired of the constant nagging? sledwreck13 Jan 2012 #78

Because it's a man's man's man's world MilesColtrane Jan 2012 #79

That is, of course, just the opinion of a self described sex machine. Zorra Jan 2012 #86

But it wouldn't be NOTHIN' without a woman or a girl. nt mistertrickster Jan 2012 #182

Short answer: history onenote Jan 2012 #81

Women who marched for suffrage were physically attacked RainDog Jan 2012 #88

Hmmm... Why do you wonder, did the police do nothing? midnight Jan 2012 #104

Activists were arrested (unconstitutionally) and abused. redqueen Jan 2012 #92

Thanks for the info onenote Jan 2012 #101

Alice Paul~what an amazing woman!! DearHeart Jan 2012 #195

Patriarchy is an ancient system and we still haven't really gotten rid of it. white_wolf Jan 2012 #83

Why ask just men? Union Scribe Jan 2012 #84

apparently yes Charlemagne Jan 2012 #90

Because I've only ever had this conversation, in any depth, with women, and Zorra Jan 2012 #93

"Men" didn't do shit. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #91

The OP makes me think of this video. frogmarch Jan 2012 #94

I loved that show Gregorian Jan 2012 #102

What is the history of women and the vote over two thousand years? Gregorian Jan 2012 #100

I think it's because society evolves right along with the brain and intelligence. Lint Head Jan 2012 #105

Thank you all so very much for all of these interesting responses! Zorra Jan 2012 #106

Because of their small penis size bigwillq Jan 2012 #107

Social and religious tradition killbotfactory Jan 2012 #108

The first things that comes to mind. PETRUS Jan 2012 #109

Because men at the time didn't think women were very smart...... oldhippie Jan 2012 #114

Why did Wyoming grant suffrage before the US did and refuse admittance unless it was recognized? REP Jan 2012 #115

+1 lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #151

(see .sig) REP Jan 2012 #153

Tradition mostly dmallind Jan 2012 #117

they just continued the way things were hfojvt Jan 2012 #119

I think the roots were there long before anyone could vote, I have no idea how women became TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #127

Because they liked beer Bok_Tukalo Jan 2012 #128

Damn right! greytdemocrat Jan 2012 #140

I think it it started as Roles, then became tradition and then became a way to retain power stevenleser Jan 2012 #129

coverture--something structural and thus implicit rather than explicit MisterP Jan 2012 #130

“The bicycle has done more for the emancipation of women than anything else in the world.” Fumesucker Jan 2012 #132

+1 Zorra Jan 2012 #196

Fear and insecurity. Fire Walk With Me Jan 2012 #134

The simple truth. A-Schwarzenegger Jan 2012 #141

Power. n/t Fearless Jan 2012 #137

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

Many women were against it. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #154

Duh. Women against equality. It seems that most anti-suffragist women were, naturally, RWers. Zorra Jan 2012 #193

"Duh"? So will a follow up thread ask women the same question? lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #205

It appears that you are looking for a fight. Zorra Jan 2012 #210

That's the way their fathers, grandfathers, . . . . . had always done things. n/t jody Jan 2012 #156

I do not know. quaker bill Jan 2012 #158

Because women didn't demand it here until 1920. mistertrickster Jan 2012 #160

They'd been demanding it since 1848, at Seneca Falls frazzled Jan 2012 #162

Now, that's so unfair. mistertrickster Jan 2012 #181

I'm sorry, but what was I to think frazzled Jan 2012 #185

Actually, women in the US could vote in New Jersey for awhile until the early 1800's IRCC. nt mistertrickster Jan 2012 #186

You could just tell us what our answer is supposed to be Codeine Jan 2012 #163

Why the hostility? nt ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #221

You couldn't have the 19th Amendment till you passed the 18th. Bruce Wayne Jan 2012 #166

Don't know for sure, but I'm feeling very guilty, thanks quinnox Jan 2012 #167

I'm a woman, but I have an opinion about it. Sparkly Jan 2012 #173

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

Add Washington State as #5 - with an asterisk suffragette Jan 2012 #187

Among plain sexism, this is what I was told by my father who was old enough to Cleita Jan 2012 #184

Because men had brute force boston bean Jan 2012 #188

I've made a mistake-- I answered from an incorrect perspective. Fire Walk With Me Jan 2012 #189

"Those who have gained compassion and love,... Zorra Jan 2012 #217

In history there is something called the "Sin Of Presentism." Yupster Jan 2012 #191

Because... WiffenPoof Jan 2012 #192

Because women are stupid and soft and emotional krispos42 Jan 2012 #194

Because most men are jerks lovemydog Jan 2012 #197

My thought? This is the definition of self-loathing. nt lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #207

My thoughts? Yeh, some people act like ignorant jerks sometimes. Zorra Jan 2012 #214

thanks for the thoughtful reply lovemydog Jan 2012 #225

America was 98% farmers til 1900. ErikJ Jan 2012 #199

Woo-hoo! Another Men vs Women thread! Iggo Jan 2012 #200

It's not intended as such; please don't try to make it that way. Zorra Jan 2012 #215

I'm not making it that way. They get that way all by themselves. (n/t) Iggo Jan 2012 #218

Uh-oh, black magic! No prob, bro! Close your eyes, click your heels together 3 times, and... Zorra Jan 2012 #220

The issue of bigotry has to be addressed in order to be alleviated. ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #222

This woman thinks it was because corporate America feared that women would be harder to control McCamy Taylor Jan 2012 #202

Religious views played a role... spin Jan 2012 #211

How in gods name am I supposed to know what the fuck SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #212

Please, see post #214. Zorra Jan 2012 #216

Holy shit. Discussing sexism in our society is no more man bashing ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #223

Because power over another is hard to give up superpatriotman Jan 2012 #213

Wow, a simple question has inspired a lot of anger. ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #224

The new word describing this phenomenon is Zorra Jan 2012 #229

I did not live in that time. I did not grow up in that time. I am not a historian. HuckleB Jan 2012 #226

. snagglepuss Jan 2012 #230