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.
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.
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!
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!"
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 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.
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.
Anti-suffrage views dominated among men and women through the early
twentieth century. The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage did
not form until 1911.
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.”
@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
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.)
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...
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!
Alistair Davidson
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •David Croyle
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Sturm und Drag
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •eclectech
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Timo
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •doktariskip
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Seth 🎙️:jawn_sg:
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Berel Youdovich 😷💉🚫♻️🦠
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.
GJ Groothedde 🇪🇺
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •aethervision
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •athe52
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Sheril Kirshenbaum
in reply to athe52 • • •SparkleTea
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Peter Christensen
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Shark Attak
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •mjc0961
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •There is No Dana
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Johanna's Garden
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Katzedecimal
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Wild Eyed Boy From Freecloud
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •🌼 Dagnabbit, Pascaline! 🌼
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •And the evil resulting from it 😱💣
Richard Rathe
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •"Petticoat Rule" 😂
Love this poster from 1913...
Scott, present & accounted for
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Bahkey
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Joe Quinlan 🇵🇸 🇮🇪
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Manon
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •The over 90% don’t want it nugget…
#Auspol #referendum
catsynth / amanda c
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Sensible Crone for Harris
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Nicole Parsons
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •In 2016, #KochNetwork funded polling from Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight to see election maps if women didn't have the right to vote.
https://www.salon.com/2016/10/12/repealthe19th-donald-trump-supporters-tweet-new-anthem-after-nate-silvers-poll-shows-hed-win-if-only-men-voted/
https://baptistnews.com/article/why-these-christian-men-believe-women-shouldnt-have-the-right-to-vote/
Women's civil rights are under attack by Republican billionaire donors.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-supporters-tweet-repeal-the19th-amendment-after-poll-shows-he-would-win-if-only-men-vote/
https://www.themarysue.com/conservatives-are-attacking-the-19th-amendment-again/
They're still funding malign influence campaigns to disenfranchise young voters.
https://www.mediamatters.org/michael-knowles/daily-wire-host-supports-disenfranchising-millennials
Conservatives Are Attacking the 19th Amendment Again | The Mary Sue
Kate Hudson (The Mary Sue)Runyan50
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Alun Parsons
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Donovan Young
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Bernd
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.
Phil Landmeier
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.
Vidar Hokstad / Galaxy Bound
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.
Dr Ian McCormick
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Bodhipaksa
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Aleks
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)
Sheril Kirshenbaum
in reply to Aleks • • •Socialist Rococo Realism
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Betsy Bee
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Stevens R Miller
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
Opposition to Suffrage
National Women's History MuseumBen Zanin
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Super Nintendo Chalmers
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Thaddaeus
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Khurram Wadee ✅
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Lowering the Bar
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •peterb
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Michael Hughes
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •acm
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •MadisonMonkey
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •🤷♂️
Randy Clayton
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Pierre Tzt
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •John Infante
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Sparrows
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Frank Reiff
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
Anna
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Saulo Alvarado
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Comunidad bahá´í de Mexicali
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Aliceonboard
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •