Did Women's Suffrage Dilute Female Power?
The Anti-Suffragettes in their Own Words
In the 2024 presidential election, one of the final Harris ads portrayed a woman and her unrefined, hillbilly husband entering the polling booth. It is implied he tried to bully her into voting for Trump but, after a knowing smirk exchanged with another woman, voted for Harris. It was a clear case of pandering to who they hoped would be their path to victory, female solidarity for the first woman president. It didn't work, and the ad was incredibly patronizing, the cherry on top of a disastrous campaign, but it did show the increasing political split between the sexes.
One pivotal movement in American history that is often glossed over is Women’s Suffrage. While the causes of slavery abolition and the 1960’s civil rights revolution is well, known, little ink is given regarding prominent figures of universal suffrage. The best known proponent of women’s suffrage, Susan B. Anthony, failed to achieve her goal, dying decades before women’s suffrage was established. It would seem there should be a mythology of the movement on par with other great upheavals, but little attention is given. It’s given as a moral inevitability.
The reason is not sexism, but rather that the story is embarrassing and makes for bad propaganda. The suffragettes were hardly a sympathetic bunch. Not only were they loud and abrasive, but they also weren’t above terrorism to get their demands met. Worse yet, most women had little interest in suffrage. Even as late as 1913 put up for a vote in Massachusetts, it was met with strong resistance or apathy by the majority of women, leading the suffragettes to actually resist letting women vote on the question, as they knew only a pitiable minority had a strong opinion behind the bluster. There is also the embarrassing fact that the voting rights women had, such as in school boards election, were notorious for incredibly low turnout.
The narrative on the left regarding the anti-suffragette women often revolves around oppressive social conditioning they couldn’t untangle themselves from, or simply not understanding their potential outside a boring domestic life. On the right, they understand the anti-suffragettes as being more interested in hearth and home than politics and power games. Both are inaccurate. Women understood their collective power, wielded it very effectively, and had ways of getting their interests met outside the realm of party politics. Women’s groups were some of the most effective actors for social change in this time, and it was often the most active and powerful women that resisted suffrage.
They understood suffrage was a double-edged sword, and while they would gain power in the abstract, the organizations they developed and the social role they played would be transformed in a way that would serve as a long-term hindrance in getting their interests met.
I came across a fascinating collection of essays called Anti-Suffrage Essays by Massachusetts Women that laid bare the misconceptions by both sides. These women understood power, but that power took a different form. They weren’t ignorant leftovers from a previous misogynistic era, nor were they humble housewives uninterested in a public voice. To understand this dynamic, one has to understand their rights and responsibilities that, while different from men’s, allowed them to leverage influence in different but arguably more effective ways. One must also understand that universal suffrage had aftereffects on their social standing that, while they could now vote, made it harder to advocate for their interests.
Woman as Non-Partisan
A dispatch from Topeka, Kansas, describing the recent campaign in that state says that three years ago the Kansas Federation of Women’s Clubs lined up solidly for suffrage, and won it—and that they have not been lined up solidly for anything since! Instead of throwing their influence as a unit for good legislation, as women’s clubs are wont to do in male suffrage states, these women are divided into Republicans, Democrats, Progressives, and Socialists, and the friction among them is greater than ever before.
They do as the men of Portland did a short time ago, when a number of citizens became convinced that the moral conditions in Portland were not what they should be. And what did they do? Did they vote about it? Did they form party organizations? No; they resorted as nearly as they could, to what is known as ‘women’s methods,’ and formed a non-partisan citizen’s committee, just as detached as possible from politics. And why did they resort to women’s methods? Simply because they had all had the vote since coming of age, and they all knew how useless it is as a means of accomplishing reform work.
Margaret Robinson
The ideal of democratic institutions is a public expression of grievances and policy preferences. It assumes all interested parties will eventually agree on a happy medium that, while not ideal, is at least tenable. Modern mass-politics does not work like this due to the complexity of listening to every policy proposal from every person. Political parties are formed that, if you want any voice at all, you must at least partially conform to. As can be seen, internecine squabbling becomes rampant as loyalty to one's side and maintaining power takes precedence over good policy.
It’s not a coincidence that the most effective modern organizations have avoided naked partisanship, even if their advocacy is definitely coded to a certain party. While the NRA gets a lot of flack, they have been more successful in protecting their interests than those who tie their flag to a political party. Another example, the homeschool lobby, has punched dramatically above its weight by being a single issue, nonpartisan entity.
Before they received the vote, women's advocacy groups were well staffed and very effective. Freed from the constraints of partisan loyalties, they could designate themselves as above politics, the reasonable people that could find a solution amenable for everyone without taking a visible side.
For representatives of a cohort with no voting rights, they were incredibly effective. While they were not voters, they were wives, daughters, respectable society women, and philanthropists men running the legislatures admired and, sometimes, greatly feared. Upper class women had incredible organizational abilities and with it the ability to create good and bad publicity. Snubbing the wife of a prominent individual was as bad as a personal insult. Dismissing the grievances of a society of mothers made for bad optics. Standing outside politics gave leverage, and also the ability to organize without being beholden to a party.
Woman as Moral Force
One of them is that a few women, representing perhaps ten per cent of the sex, have under present conditions too much influence. These women, the World says, “have maintained at times a reign of terror over legislative bodies, in consequence of which half the country is now bedeviled by some form or other of harem government, and legislators are forever making ridiculous concessions to women agitators.” These “women agitators” are, of course, the club women, social workers, and others interested in social welfare. In order to make it unnecessary for legislators to make “ridiculous concessions” to this type of woman, the World advocates—what? Giving the vote to all women!
Margaret Robinson
I never saw so many women working for social betterment as I have seen in the American cities I have visited. In England women have turned their attention to politics and have accomplished nothing like so much in civic reform.
Mrs. Pethick Lawrence
The ability of women to appear truly non-partisan also meant they were seen as above the petty ambitions of politicians. One didn’t have to worry about someone pushing an angle for personal political vainglory, giving the impression of a class truly concerned with the public good without outside ambitions.
While there are plenty of examples of writers in this era lambasting the moral busybodies of society, far more talked about their innate virtue in a way that would make even the biggest boomer simp blanch. While the mantra of modernity is “well-behaved women rarely make history”, the reality is their enforcement of norms and ability to work within such norms gave moral weight to their sex, and with it moral deference.
Woman as Educator
Every man is born of woman and almost every man is cared for by a woman throughout his earliest years. The Jesuits, in their wisdom, founded on much experience, have said: “Give me a child until he is seven and after that you may do what you like with him!” It is these early years that count most in a man’s future. What have the mothers done in these years?
Women, through their training of their sons and daughters, hold the future of the world in their keeping. This training cannot be given by the enactment of laws; we cannot legislate the control of human passion. The law-maker bears no relation to the character builder.
Mrs. William Putnam
The chances are that woman suffrage would tend to make the school more truly the servant of the party in power than of the general good.
…..
Would her judgments be cooler because she is in the thick of the fight, and her statements more convincing because she is in direct conflict with the fathers and mothers of half her class? It is of the utmost importance that the child shall look upon the teacher as impartial. He may consider her in some respects his natural enemy, but he must none the less regard her as one of the immutable things of the universe. For this reason public commotions over school affairs, however well intentioned, injure the institutions they design to benefit. Anything which tends to increase the possibility of opposition between the teacher and the child's family, and makes the child's attitude partisan is a menace. Suffrage in this field as in so many others, offers no compensation for the increased friction and unrest.
Elizabeth Jackson
Men are not raised exclusively by other men. On the contrary, much of the rearing was done by women. They grew up with mothers who nurtured them, young teachers who advocated for the virtues in which to live their lives, and understood their responsibility to protect and provide later in life. The soft power of the schoolhouse allowed women to instilled these mindsets, and have men act on them long after leaving the classroom.
This moral training was largely instilled by women, buoyed by their status as unsullied by politics and personal ambitions. Since women did not exist in the partisan sphere, they could instill values on the young without political infighting. As they were not active partisan participants, there was a level of trust one’s child was not being indoctrinated into particular political causes but instilled with the virtues to be a good citizen. Feminists aren’t wrong when they say men need to be taught to control their sexual impulses and to help those weaker when they are younger, but such advocacy will fall on deaf ears if part of a power struggle between the sexes.
As Elizabeth Jackson stated, once the women who fill the halls of schools become political partisans, being able to say you are simply instilling values is simply untrue, as the schoolhouse from a young age on becomes a battleground of partisan politics. Instead of being able to be see as above such power games, every one of their lessons become suspect. She asks the pertinent question, does this help women’s causes? Instead of being relatively unencumbered in educating children, they are now foot-soldiers of other powers. Instead of the demeanor of serving general society, often to women’s benefit, they will be forced to take sides. Trust erodes, parents question the teachers, and young boys their own mother’s loyalties.
Woman as the Protected Sex
Thus far we have made a few crude experiments in double suffrage, but nowhere has equal suffrage been tried. Equal suffrage implies a fair field with favor to none—a field where woman, stripped of legal and civil advantages, must take her place as man’s rival in the struggle for existence; for, in the long run, woman cannot have equal rights and retain special privileges. If the average woman is to be a voter, she must accept jury service and aid in the protection of life and property. When the mob threatens, she must not shield herself behind her equal in government. She must relinquish her rights and exemptions under the law and in civil life, if she is to take her place as a responsible elector and compete with man as the provider and governor of the race. Such equality would be a brutal and retrogressive view of woman’s rights. It is impossible, and here we have the unanswerable answer to woman suffrage theories.
A. J. George
Massachusetts gives to her women the best protection of any state in the Union. In January, 1915, New York ranked first, but since our legislative enactments of 1915, Massachusetts is again in the lead. We have, in the first place, the Maternity Act. Then we have the law prohibiting women in industry from working more than fifty-four hours per week. We have the absolute prohibition of night-work for our women in textile, mercantile, and manufacturing establishments. We are one of the five states in the Union to have such a law. All the five states are male suffrage states. Not a single woman suffrage state prohibits the night employment of its women; and yet among the laws safeguarding the health of women workers, the prohibition of night work is of the most fundamental importance.
Catherine Robinson
Because of women's status as non-partisan moral educators of the next generation, there was a healthy paternalism in the culture. It was acceptable, and even morally required to ensure women weren't mistreated, often given special consideration in legislation. State labor laws, especially for night work, protected women better than suffrage states that veered towards equality while ignoring the clearly different lived realities of both sexes. Also, contrary to common sentiment, marriage law was heavily skewed towards women even in the 1920's.
When the Titanic sank and the declaration of “Women and children first” came through without a second thought, men were not acting just on instinct, but social conditioning instilled upon them since they were babies. In their youngest years, the rules of proper behavior were bestowed on men, including the treatment of women. The social contract was that women would receive protection and deference in some matters in return for safeguarding and protection.
It was considered unmanly, a violation of this social contract, to not come to a woman’s aid when in danger. It was shameful to not assist a woman in a physically arduous task. This is not the natural state of man but built from culture build over several generations that instilled values necessary for society to flourish. He was trained by women that a man did not speak ill of a lady, a man did not take advantage of a lady, and a man went out of his way to assist a lady.
Equilibrium Over Equality
More talk and less thought is expended on the subject of sex today than on almost anything else.
Mrs. William Lowell Putnam
If only Mrs. Putnam could witness the modern day.
Probably the fundamental disconnect between the suffragettes and the anti-suffragettes was where the basic building block of society lied. The suffragettes saw it as the individual, and saw women as a distinct class with political grievances that needed to be fulfilled. The anti-suffragettes did not see women as a class, but a sex, and considered the family society’s fundamental building block. Because of the nature of the family unit, there needed to be incentives for everyone to have their needs met and fulfill their responsibilities within this unit to raise the next generation. Once the family is dissolved in favor of the individual, the natural cooperation turns into squabbling over dominion. Instead of the sexes asserting their power in different but complementary domains, they all fight in the same sphere.
It goes without saying a lot of the fears of the anti-suffragettes were fulfilled. Men and women have become politically antagonistic; marriage has become a brittle and non-sensical institution as trust has broken down and there is little groundwork for cooperation. The reality of easy divorce has entered the calculations of husbands and wives with all-too-predictable results. Women believe they have to earn an income, even if not necessary, for divorce insurance. Men fear long hours in the office to build a nest egg, fearing it will be used against them in a custody battle.
The moral panic over the mikes of Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, or another boogeyman of the week has festered due to this out-of-control partisanship. Schoolteachers lost their leverage as non-partisan entities generations ago, and the gap keeps increasing. Young boys rightfully see these women as hacks trying to indoctrinate them into mindsets that benefit a particular political project rather than common civic mindedness. With this, chivalric impulses have gone to the wayside as men and women have become partisan adversaries. Argue you should risk your life to save a woman you don’t know and be prepared to get mocked mercilessly. White knight online and get called a simp.
As the internet is inundate with slurs such as Karen, Becky and others, it’s apparent the kind deference that previous generations exhibited has gone to the wayside, and many see no reason to follow the old social mores in modern times. As women entered the workforce in larger numbers, the they demand marriageable men make more. In the quest for equality, these are obviously contradictions and need to go. As much as conservatives lament the breakdown in these norms, it’s part of the renegotiation regarding roles between the sexes. One can’t demand equality in every sphere while maintaining special privileges. One doesn’t show deference to a political rival.
Still, even with all the upheavals, women do have the vote now. They are the majority of college graduates, and they get preferential treatment in the workplace. Doesn’t that mean they have more leverage to live their lives as they see fit? On paper, all the standard indicators state they are more powerful than ever.
The truth is likely more nuanced. It bears to mention that the rise of women’s philanthropy groups and other social organizations was partially a reaction to the rise of industrialization, and family businesses and estates to manage became a thing of the past. They were deprived of many traditional means of status, and women’s suffrage and their rise in the workforce was a reaction to that change.
While women have gained power in certain spheres, one might ask how much power is really here. Is a woman working as a high-powered executive more powerful than a lady a hundred years ago who could successfully petition governments for social reform? Is a teacher now more morally influential than educators in years past? The truth is, women still have a boss, and arguably one far more demanding than the overbearing husband of feminist mythology. Social atomization has fostered the creation of a propaganda apparatus that has strange new social demands and taboos, and there is no individual one can speak with to redress grievances.
Technology has sullied traditional means of personal interactions and relations that made power dynamics possible. You don’t pay your local doctor, but an impersonal medical leviathan. You don’t have a relationship and mutual back-scratching in working with a local business, but deal with a global conglomerate. The ability to assert power and influence has dwindled as impersonal technology has flattened human interaction.
The amount of power wielded is also not a static entity, or even a universal value. Trying to make the power dynamic between men and women equal is a fools’ errand. Biology is real, and men and women operate in different worlds, have different motivations, and relate to power differently. What’s needed isn’t equality, but equilibrium, the ability for both sexes to move in the social sphere and get their interests met. It’s only in such an equilibrium, when both sides can let their guard down and cooperate, that family formation can stabilize.
When there is not equilibrium, parties start to “sit out”. As family formation is becoming more and more difficult, and the sexes unwilling to play the current rules of the game, it’s clear this phenomenon of “sitting out” is going to get more pronounced, whether by mindless entertainment or empty and unrooted “live, laugh, love" ideology. While some state this is due to men not stepping up, the truth is as women wield more male coded power, the more resentful they are with men as a whole. As the anti-suffragettes feared, many women see themselves as a class, not a sex, and men are following suit. And his has made both men and women more miserable as the lack of cooperation has ended up failing to get both side’s needs met.
Of course, demanding equality between the sexes is akin to wishing unicorns into existence, and the ugly head of biology and innate psychology will win over in the end. One can argue about equal work conditions, equal pay, equal housework, equal childcare, and equal emotional labor until the heat death of the universe and get nowhere. Social norms that only serve the 5 percent of male-brained women and female-brained men will create abject misery for the rest of the population.
In some cultures the men work, but the women handle the finances. In some arrangements it’s vice versa. Some couples have harsh barriers between responsibilities, some are more fluid. The fanatical impulse for equality has inhibited the sexes from ascertaining what they really want, and what they’re willing to sacrifice to get it. The oppressed/oppressor dynamic makes it impossible to engage in good faith. Technology has reshaped the landscape, and the new equilibrium will not be a fanatical equality or the “trad” 1950’s.
Legal requirements of equality under the law has stymied the only indicator that matters, revealed preference. It has disallowed legal and cultural norms that might not give everything they want, but makes the tradeoffs worth it for most of the population. “Are things equal?” is a nonsensical question. “Are the tradeoffs acceptable?” is a framing that allows conversation and rapport.
Of course, the 19th amendment isn’t going to get repealed. Even if it could, it would not guarantee equilibrium is reached. That being said, as feminine means of non-partisanship, non-combativeness, and indirect means of persuasion as avenues of power has been forgotten, there is a vacuum in modernity that is begging to be filled. While it would be suicidal to abandon partisan politics, there is an opening for anyone, man or woman, who can be “above it all” and not worried about getting personally ahead, simply a concerned citizen who wants things to be better. There’s a place for a moral force that can disarm and influence a partisan neighbor. Paradoxically, it will likely need to be men who employ this more feminine approach, at least in the short term. Of course, a difference will be men won’t be able to play the victim. No one cares. They can, however, look like strong, reasonable, confident actors in a declining society. The adults in the room who just want both sexes to flourish. They can gently offer an alternative to both men and women.
A subculture that can replace combativeness with cooperation will allow easier mating off. Replacing power struggles with flexible and complementary norms that eschew rigid scorekeeping can build lasting trust, even if their relative “equality” can’t be spreadsheeted optimally. Of course, many will refuse any tradeoff, oftentimes by parties believing themselves to be on the side of angels. It’s not relevant whether everyone is convinced, but to find a critical mass of outsiders who find the arrangement a healthy equilibrium to get their wants met and buy in. This will not be won through arguing online, but living a new reality.
Thank you for reading Social Matter. If you enjoyed this article, please like and subscribe. I am inserting more and more paid content as my list grows, so please consider becoming a paid subscriber.