On June 4th, 1919, Congress passed the 19th amendment, granting women the right to vote. This is known as women’s suffrage, and, for many years, women’s suffrage has been widely regarded in mainstream discourse and modern education as a good thing for women. But there is a question that has gone unasked in recent times that deserves to be revisited: what did women think about women’s suffrage?
While feminists assert that it is unquestionably the case that suffrage was a good thing for women, it might befuddle some to learn that, in the years leading up to the suffrage act being passed, most women disagreed. Up until just a few years before the 19th amendment went into effect, the majority of women didn’t want the right to vote and thought it a bad thing for women (and for men). It wasn’t until some time after feminist activists had started to officially gather and form organizations and gain some relative traction in the mid 19th century that the majority of women felt it was time to respond and form a counter response to combat the movement.
Subsequently, later into the 19th century, women started to form several anti-suffrage organizations. One of these was known as The National Association Opposed to Woman’s Suffrage. NAOWS, for shorthand, was organized primarily by women to reject the suffragettes’ proposals and the underlying principles that guided them.
And in 1894, in the early upswell of the suffrage movement, NAOWS drafted and released a statement enumerating their reasons for opposing women’s right to vote. You may find these reasons interesting, given that they represent a perspective that has largely gone unheard of in the mainstream, whether in media or in education. The document reads:
Some Reasons Why We Oppose Votes for Women
Because the basis of government is force—its stability rests upon its physical power to enforce its laws; therefore it is inexpedient to give the vote to women. Immunity from service in executing the law would make most women irresponsible voters.
Because suffrage is not a question of right or of justice, but of policy and expediency; and if there is no question of right or of justice, there is no case for woman suffrage.
BECAUSE IT IS THE DEMAND OF A MINORITY OF WOMEN, AND THE MAJORITY OF WOMEN PROTEST AGAINST IT.
Because it means simply doubling the vote, and especially the undesirable and corrupt vote of our large cities.
Because the great advance of women in the last century—moral, intellectual and economic—has been made without the vote; which goes to prove that it is not needed for their further advancement along the same lines.
Because women now stand outside of politics, and therefore are free to appeal to any party in matters of education, charity and reform.
Because the ballot has not proved a cure-all for existing evils with men, and we find no reason to assume that it would be more effectual with women.
Because the woman suffrage movement is a backward step in the progress of civilization, in that it seeks to efface natural differentiation of function, and to produce identity, instead of division of labor.
Because in Colorado after a test of seventeen years the results show no gain in public and political morals over male suffrage States, and the necessary increase in the cost of elections which is already a huge burden upon the taxpayer, is unjustified.
Because our present duties fill up the whole measure of our time and ability, and are such as none but ourselves can perform. Our appreciation of their importance requires us to protest against all efforts to infringe upon our rights by imposing upon us those obligations which cannot be separated from suffrage, but which, as we think, cannot be performed by us without the sacrifice of the highest interests of our families and of society.
Because it is our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who represent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and our brothers love us; our husbands are our choice, and one with us; our sons are what WE MAKE THEM. We are content that they represent US in the corn-field, on the battle-field, and at the ballot-box, and we THEM in the school-room, at the fireside, and at the cradle, believing our representation even at the ballot-box to be thus more full and impartial than it would be were the views of the few who wish suffrage adopted, contrary to the judgment of the many.
We do, therefore, respectfully protest against the proposed Amendment to establish “woman suffrage” in our State. We believe that political equality will deprive us of special privileges hitherto accorded to us by law.
Our association has been formed for the purpose of conducting a purely educational campaign. If you are in sympathy with this aim and believe as we do in the righteousness of our cause, will you not send your name to us and pass our appeal on to some one else?
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE, 35 West 39th St., New York City.
Interesting, right?
In future posts, I plan to revisit some of these reasons listed and explore their significance in relation to a Christian worldview. But one major thing can be said here: if there’s any conclusion that we can draw from the reasons listed and the historical context that preceded them, it’s that the majority of women didn’t think women’s suffrage was good for women, and they actually had good reasons for it.
Now, one may disagree and say that, despite countless women objecting to it, women’s suffrage was still good for women; that their reasons weren’t actually good enough reasons, and it’s been nothing but a net positive. All power to them. But that doesn’t mean the jury should pack their bags and go home.
When we take into consideration these oft unnoticed aspects of history, they should make us stop to wonder: what do we make of these women’s perspectives? Do their perspectives on what’s good for women mean anything to feminists of today? Coming to grips with real history such as this should challenge us to reexamine many of our commonly held assumptions on what’s good for women and what’s not. After all, why is it that the voices of these women have gone largely undetected and unheralded in contemporary society? It’s near bordering on the line of outright suppression. But, most importantly, did any of the reasons these anti-suffragist women enumerate bear the truth?
For my part, I think it’s undeniable that they did. That doesn’t mean I’m suggesting that we should repeal the 19th amendment. For the moment, I’m just saying this: if we care about women, then these women’s voices matter just as much as the voices of the radical feminists that are upheld and lauded as heroines in today’s mainstream culture, and it’s our duty as Christians (especially Christian men) to discern which group of women bear more resemblance to the truth and wisdom; to discern and determine which group of women are the actual heroines and then regard them as such. As is often the case in today’s cultural moment, I think the more we examine the actual evidence, the more we’ll be surprised at where we land.
Colton Banks 