Here’s something worth celebrating: Today is the 90th anniversary of the day when American women got the right to vote. It’s shocking to think that women in the U.S. didn’t have that right until 1920, but there you have it. Women didn’t gain the right to vote in America until after a decades-long struggle that split the country. As you’d expect, progressives were in favor of women’s suffrage, while conservatives railed against it. (And of course, one of the arguments made against women voters was that it was contrary to biblical scripture, just as scripture was supposedly in favor of slavery, against the civil rights laws of the ’60s, and gay rights today.)
Women around the world were generally denied suffrage until 1869, when Britain granted the right to vote in local elections to unmarried women who were householders. The same happened in Sweden in 1862, and Scotland in 1881. Here are the dates when women were granted the right to vote in various countries:
1893: New Zealand
1902: New South Wales
1906: Finland
1907: Norway
1908: Australia, Denmark
1915: Iceland
1917: Russia, Netherlands
1918: Canada, Germany, Ireland, Austria, Latvia, Poland, Estonia
1919: Belgium, Belarus, Luxembourg, Ukraine
America wasn’t the last to come around to gender voting equality, though. Two nations now considered models of modern democracy waited even longer: France in 1944, and unbelievably, Switzerland in 1971. If you’re glad American women can vote (and if you’re not, please see a therapist), here are three women without whose authority-defying courage it never would have happened.
This article appears in Aug 24-30, 2010.
As far right as this country is moving I wonder how much longer women will be allowed to vote?
I think this article would be best labelled celebrate white women’s right to vote. Black women (and other women of colour) had to wait sometime after for their right to vote to be recognized.
Using the word women within a context that is exclusively meant to describe white women, furthers the alienation of women of colour from the idea of the american women.
Conservatives have been on the wrong side of almost every major issue in this country’s history.
It’s because they are so terrified of change.
Conservatives even supported the King during the revolution.
Concerned, you are correct in saying that the right to vote for women of color (and unless you’re British, “color” is how it’s spelled, fyi) was suppressed in many places in the U.S. In the South, particularly, most black women had to wait until civil rights gains were made in order to vote (so did most black men). Those people were discriminated against by their states and local governments, but the amendment giving women the vote nationwide was non-discriminatory and was supposed to apply to all women of voting age. Even though it was applied unevenly for the first few decades after passage, the amendment is still something worth celebrating, if only for the fact that it provided a legal basis for voting rights protests lodged by women in the years afterward.
As for “Using the word women within a context that is exclusively meant to describe white women,” the context of the blog post was NOT exclusively meant to describe white women, since 1. the post was about celebrating in the present, not going back in time to do it, and 2. all American women have the legal right to vote as they damned well please. And that’s a great thing.
You are right that the amendment was non-discriminatory, but the intention of those who fought for it and passed it were. The “right of all women to vote” or the “end of gender-based discrimination of voting” was passed solely on the technicality that they did not write the disfranchisement of women of colour into the amendment.
The reason I am concerned, is the when one speaks about a historical victory such as the passing of women’s right one should give an accurate portrayal of what that meant in American society.
During the National American Woman Suffrage Association Meeting of 1903 in New Orleans, Susan B Anthony, Carrie Catt, Anna Howard Shaw, Kate Gordon, among others including the board of the NAWSA signed a prepared statement which essentially endorsed white supremacy in most states particularly the south. This was response to the question of whether black women should be given the right to vote as well – to which the organization said no.
I understand that the right for “women” to vote would not have been passed if women of colour were included. Especially with a withdrawal of Southern Women’s clubs who threaten to leave the movement if black women were included.
And because I understand those things, I also understand that the Women’s Right Movement actively excluded Black Women and other women of colour in order to gain the right to vote for themselves. This was a direct slap in the face of the black women who worked as suffragists within the movement and were ultimately discarded. It was seen as the ultimate betrayal and actually increased the distance between white womanhood and black womanhood.
So yes, celebrate the present right of women (of all colour) to vote, I believe it was a hard fought battle and it is a right that should not have been withheld to begin with. But I also remember that on this day, while many white women celebrated, many black women lost faith in this sisterhood.
There is a reason Sojourner had to ask a mainly white woman audience “Ain’t I a Woman?”
and I’m not British, nor am I American but I was taught the word “colour” – I think you’ll find a good amount of non-British english speakers that do. (also didn’t reread my post so there could be tons of typos)
Concerned, it’s true — and it wouldn’t have hurt to include the info in my original post — that the leaders of the woman’s suffrage movement were, by and large, racist, as was the whole country at the time. At the very least, the suffragists in America were willing at various times to reject voting rights for black women, in order to keep Southern white women in their coalition.
Related discussions of the widespread and indomitable nature of white racism in America in the early 20th century could go on in this forum for the rest of the year, as could arguments over the white suffragists’ “whatever it takes” political strategy. Getting back to the original intent of the post about the 19th amendment, however, the amendment itself was utterly non-discriminatory (something of a miracle in itself, given the mainstream racial views of the times), and black women outside the South did gain the right to vote by its passage — and that is more than worth celebrating. Full voting rights for Southern blacks, whether male or female, as we know, weren’t guaranteed until 1965’s Voting Rights Act due to southern states’ oppressive policies. To me, that doesn’t make the passage of the 19th amendment any less of an achievement. The history of social progress is full of two-steps-forward-one-step-back lurches, which eventually, have brought the country more widespread participation in the democratic process. You’re right about some of the specifics of the 19th’s ratification, but I would also suggest pays to have a longer view of overall progress. At the very least, it saves us from grinding our teeth at night.
If there was any doubt left about Frank Griffin being a misogynistic piece of shit, the above comment pretty much removes all doubt. I don’t care what circumstances his mail order bride was escaping, it couldn’t have been worse than being married to this pig who sees her only as a baby making machine and a sex object (and that second one’s doubtful since those on the right are known for being repressed prudes).
Wait a sec, women are allowed to vote?
Bonjour tout le monde j’aimerai que quelqun maide a repondre a cette question qui me perturbe un peux ..
EN QUOI LES FRANCAISE ON DU SE BATRE POUR DEVENIRE DES CITOYENNES RECONNUE PAR TOUS ????