Arguments Against Women's Suffrage

It may often appear that the United States has always been at the forefront of bringing equality to its citizens, but several times this has not been the case. One such issue in which equality was not immediately granted was women’s suffrage. Although several European nations had already granted women the right to vote, the United States had not. The delay experienced by women to gain the right to vote brings into question why a right that seems essential to people in the United States today was so vehemently opposed by many people, and whether such a viewpoint was legitimate and rational. Women’s suffrage was largely hindered due to rigid existing gender roles and fear of change, which suffragists had to combat through reasoning and persistence.
There were several arguments against women’s right to vote, most of them driven largely by gender roles and stereotypes during that time. Although views were slowly beginning to change, a large majority of people, especially men, believed that it was a women’s duty to take care of household affairs. It was the duty of men to manage outside affairs, such as voting and handling jobs. More than anything else, men were afraid of the huge changes that would result from meddling with these fixed roles. Disrupting the roles would create changes in the functioning of daily family, work, and political life. When people are comfortable with their present situation, ideas of change appear threatening. Giving women the right to vote would make them legally equal in status to men. People worried that giving women power would distract them from managing their household duties. Since having men take care of household affairs was not seen as an option, giving women power would allow them to pursue activities that men normally handled. Others reasons were that people felt that women did not need to have the right to vote since “the men are able to run the government and take care of the women” (Sanford).
Others felt that not only was such a situation inconvenient, but also unnatural. Women were capable of giving birth and so it seemed natural that women should take care of the house and children while men take care of other affairs. Although such an idea sounds practical, it was unfair and unreasonable to expect women, or men for that matter, to be responsible for activities they may not have any interest in. These people also believed that women were intellectually inferior to men and therefore were not capable of handling political power. Although this attitude still has not completely disappeared, at the time women were seen as sensitive beings who were driven largely by their emotions. There was also the concept that women were weak and not as intelligent as men, and therefore could not handle much intellectual activity. People feared that if women were given the right to vote, women would not be able to reason correctly to make the right decisions. Although gender roles were the main hindrances in allowing women to vote, several other excuses were made to reduce or eliminate the support given to women’s rights. Religion was also used as a reason to not grant women the right to vote. Right Reverend Joseph P. Machebeuf, a Roman Catholic priest from Denver stated his viewpoint on giving women the right to vote by saying, “Had God intended to create a companion for man, capable of following the same pursuits, able to undertake the same labors, he would have created another man; but he created a woman, and she fell” (Machebuf). Since most of the people who held religious positions were men, they were able to use their influence by putting forward their own interpretation of the Bible to instill fear into people. This allowed the religious officials to influence and change the opinions of men and women by causing them to abandon their own reasoning and personal religious beliefs to follow the beliefs put forward by religious officials who claimed they understood the wish of God. There were several anti-suffragist movements and groups during the time that the suffragists were pushing to gain the vote.
Although pro-suffragists had to use reasoning and rationale to persuade people that women had the right to vote, anti-suffragists could use the already existing preconceptions and attitudes towards women and their capabilities. Making women’s suffrage appear ridiculous and unnecessary was the main tactic of anti-suffragists. Anti-suffragists mainly aimed at trying to make the act of granting women the vote appear too extreme and absurd to create discomfort among people and have them lean towards having no change. Those opposed to women’s suffrage magnified the differences beyond reality so that the idea of granting women the right to vote would seem unreasonable and absurd. They tried to make it appear that the right to vote was not a natural right that women needed to have. They argued “that under the Constitution of the United States, women are not invested with the right of suffrage” (Women Suffrage
Unconstitutional). Some women themselves were against the vote for several reasons.
Like several men, they believed that women should not meddle in politics. Much of their reasoning was also due to the stereotypes and gender roles that existed then. The strong stereotypes that society imposed caused women themselves to believe that they were in fact mentally incapable of properly handling political power. They, like several men, also believed that women had duties to fulfill in the household whereas it was the men’s duty to manage outside affairs. Allowing women to vote would create a disturbance in these roles as women would be able to have a voice outside of household affairs. Having a voice in political processes would not just be a privilege, but would be a responsibility and bring more responsibilities. The possibility of having another responsibility made women uncomfortable. Some women were already content with their roles and did not wish for any changes. Other women were already overburdened with other responsibilities and gaining a new responsibility as a citizen would burden them further. Poorer women had to manage families and work in factories at the same time to make ends meet. With the gender roles present, women would be expected to manage the household without any help regardless of whether they also had jobs or outside affairs, since the participation in those activities in addition to the duties she was expected to fulfill would be seen as a choice. Having these
many responsibilities repelled some women from wanting the right to vote. Women who did want to participate in the struggle for the right to vote were often prevented from doing so. Since several men were against the idea of having women be able to vote, they prevented their wives from participating in the struggle. Although they appreciated the idea of being able to vote, other women did not have the time to participate in the movement. Women from poorer families had to balance jobs along with their household chores and did not have the ability to make time to prioritize fighting for their rights. Other women who liked the idea of having the vote did not have enough motivation to disrupt their schedules and join the movement. Despite strong opposition, women who wanted the right to vote were able to battle these gender roles and stereotypes with reasoning and rationality. In the pamphlet, “The Nonsense of It,” the pro-suffragist authors pose counter-arguments to popular arguments against women’s suffrage. They are able to point out the contradictions in the arguments that the anti-suffragists propose. For instance, to the argument that “Women are entirely distinct from men,” they put forward a witty reply: “If they are the same with men, they have the same rights; if they are distinct, they have the right to a distinct representation… Arrange it as you please, it comes to the same thing” (The Nonsense of It). Through reasoning as well as persistence, pro-suffragists were able to reduce and overcome the impact of their largest obstacle, which was gender stereotypes. They had to put forward the idea that having a voice in the government was a right for everyone and whether people were similar or different should not have any effect on this right. By pointing out the several contradictions in the reasoning of anti-suffragists, they were able to prove that the main reason women were not able to vote was not due to the arguments put forward by the anti-suffragists but rather to the fixed mindsets and bias of the anti-suffragists. Since reasoning was not always enough to change the opinions of those with fixed mindsets, they had to respond to the persistence of the anti-suffragists with persistence of their own. As they felt they were being deprived a basic right, they had to try to force the idea on others and make them feel more comfortable and familiar with the idea of such a change. Women engaged in rallies, parades, and published several writings and pamphlets to advocate their cause. They therefore were able to send the message that keeping people away from their rights was neither reasonable nor an option. The right to vote as a citizen seems essential and undeniable to us today, but women and several other groups have been oppressed through history and denied some of their basic rights. Outside of the United States, many groups are still denied the right vote in their countries. Although voting for women is no longer an issue in the United States, gender roles and stereotypes are still widely held and prevalent, even if not as prominent as before. The United States has already made enormous steps towards gender equality, but more action must be taken to resolve current issues regarding existing gender stereotypes that do still exist. The lengthy fight for women’s suffrage must serve as a reminder of how easily the rights and concerns of specific groups can get pushed aside due to traditions and attitudes of more superior groups. The movement clearly demonstrates the damages and hindrances that bias and stereotypes can generate.