Skip to main content


“Vote NO on Woman Suffrage” 🙄

Not ancient #history, but just a century ago.

Source: State Archives of North Carolina

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Wow, "petticoat rule" is a new one on me. Also: "can only double or annul their husbands' votes" is genuinely incredible sophistry.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Staggering gibberish that some would undoubtedly still support today...
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

The good thing about being reminded about things like this, and how recent they are, is that it gives me hope that we will move on from where we currently are so in 100 years people look at things happening today with a similar feeling of disbelief.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Not just 'petticoat rule' but Evil may happen. Evil petticoat rule.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

So they actually thought someone would buy those arguments, huh?

Now read again the reasoning of their day and then tell me how it's always perfectly appropriate to judge yesterday's thinking by today's standards.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I thought Petticoat Rule was just a thing that happened in Petticoat Junction #TheMoreYouKnow
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I feel like similar tactics were used with the whole "Vote No to the Voice" thing that happened in Australia a few days ago. One of the flyers I got in the mail had something similar to #6 if I remember correctly.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Astonishing. It’s all terrible, but points 3 and 5 are especially vile. And the fact is, Roe vs. Wade was 50 years ago, and those rights are being rolled back in many places. We must not let our guards down!
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

And loads of MAGA women have no idea that if they make progress on other goals they want, they'll eventually lose this. "I never thought the leopards would eat my face!"
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

"Votes of women can accomplish no more than votes of men" is a hell of a way to say "yeah voting is useless period"
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Phew. Thanks for the clarification. I assumed it was part of the current RNC platform.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

This sounds similar to the thinking of the current GOP in Texas and Florida.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

21st Century Christofascists want to steal the right to vote from American women. Stealing their reproductive rights is only the beginning.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

If it wasn’t for women’s suffrage, Trump would be serving his second term, and then a third, fourth and so on.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

talking about not ancient history, women got the vote in Switzerland in 1971. And in the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden, women didn't get the vote until 1990, and that was only due to a decision by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

"can only double or annul" if true, is necessarily also a property of all sets of votes of cardinality two!
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Speaking of "Just a Century ago" ...

In the Swiss canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden, women gained the right to vote only in 1990. That's right, not 1890. 1990! And only by intervention of the Supreme court.
And even for federal elections, women (in all cantons) have been allowed to vote only since 1971, which is also a damn shame for such an ostensibly modern country.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I particularly like the vacuous third argument.

These kinds of arguments are still used today and people see nothing wrong with it because they haven't learned to think.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I love how they managed to both argue women's votes could accomplish nothing and was pointless, *and* raise the spectre of "petticoat rule" and the supposed risk of "the evil which may occur".

The classic self-contradictory myth of how [insert group they're against today] is simultaneously feebleminded and unable to do anything of consequence *and* at the same time a bunch of evil, dangerous schemers so regularly relied on by bigots in any time period.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I love the doublethink in “women don’t want to vote” and “women will outvote men.”
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

100 years? Try 50—at least in quaint little Switzerland. Here are a couple of posters. I've included translations in the alt text.

(YES, Switzerland gained women's suffrage in 1971)

This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

love the "double or annul" argument. Each one of us can only double or annul the vote of the guy next door so nobody should have votes
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

this reminds me of the no campaign in Australia that just won by an overwhelming majority.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I was certainly surprised when I learned who founded this organization.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171023074005/http://www.crusadeforthevote.org/naows-opposition

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Did these people also organize the No campaign for indigenous people’s rights in Australia?
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Not gonna lie, being under petticoat rule sounds totally metal.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

well I bet some people were like “I don’t want women to suffer, so I will vote no”
🤷‍♂️
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

have to admit not allowing one person to vote because their vote could only, “double or annul”, another persons vote is a durable argument.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

My favorite part of this pamphlet is the assertion women’s votes aren’t any different from men’s votes, which is apparently a reason to not have equality. Like imagine an opponent of gay marriage saying “Gay marriage would be just the same as straight marriage, it wouldn’t be better, so we shouldn’t have it.”
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Seeing the 'double or annul' line really drives home how messed up the two-party system we have is.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

@siracusa I love the fact that Republicans haven’t even changed their arguments for a hundred years.

- it’s fine for us, so why change it?
- it would cost money
- disenfranchised groups either don’t want power or don’t care (the rest are troublemakers)
- it’d be different
- we’d have less power and then things might change

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

The last canton in Switzerland to give women the vote was forced to do so by the Swiss supreme court in 1990. (They got federal voting rights in 1971.)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

here in Mexico we have an election and now we're gonna have the first Mexican woman president but the feminist movement in Latinamerica it's kinda like,,, you know...
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Sigh. i also learned a couple of months ago when my wife gave a presentation that 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the Son of Bahá'u'lláh - Founder of the Bahá'í Faith, had been invited by many women suffrage groups in England when He was there to give talks and that at that time there were MORE women opposed to suffrage than for it!

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.