How did the US go from women having no voting rights to passing the 19th Amendment in the early 20th century? What actually made it happen? Did people just change their minds, did suffragettes force the issue, or was it all political maneuvering? How did they convince enough people to allow it? How did the men allow it? Why weren't they as successful during most of the 19th century?/his/ explain
>>18760074Affirmative action just works
>>18760074allowing anyone but white men to vote has been a tragic disaster which bore nothing but rotten fruit
>>18760074Men got very weak
>>18760074Democracy in general doesn't workIf you give only male land-owners voting rights then you create class-based hatred and give credence to MarxismIf you pass universal male suffrage then women are going to start rioting 24/7 until they get voting rightsIf you pass universal male and female suffrage then society just collapses into incompetence and corruptionThe only solution is to get rid of voting entirely except as a ceremonial show of support for a one-party regime
>>18760074you are mistaken--many states already had women's suffrage in the 1910s
>>18760074>How did the US go from women having no voting rights to passing the 19th Amendment in the early 20th century?9 western states allowed women to vote in state elections by the turn of the century, and had for several cycles, so this undercut arguments that women's suffrage was unworkable and would lead to the destruction of the family. When you look at the arguments being advanced by anti-suffragists they really were very weak, and due to committed and persistent activism a lot of people were convinced there was no good argument against it. So as the suffragist movement built in size it increasingly became seen as something it was bad politics to be openly against, even if politicians werent really on board with. During the 1916 presidential election, support for a women's suffrage amendment was on both the republican and democratic platforms although it didnt pass congress and get signed by wilson until 1919.
>>18761013Then why are 9/10 democracies with universal suffeage better places to live than 9/10 one party states.
>>18761027Selection fallacy. It depends on the ethnicity of the countries in question
>>18760074Social trojan horse.
>>18761013>>18761186There is no selection fallacy. Everyone would rather live in modern Poland than Soviet Poland, modern Spain than Francoist Spain. The idea that 'democracy is bad' is entirely reliant on you just not knowing anything. And imagining that if you just put the smartest people in charge, the world would be perfect.
>>18760074>Be women>Get the right to vote>As your first act propose the most based policy in human history (prohibition)>Never propose a based policy ever againSeriously what went wrong with women?
>>18760078The biggest fail in American political history wasn't extending suffrage to women or blacks, it was extending it to non-property-owners. Allowing the poor to vote means they just vote to give themselves more money, creating inflation and the national debt.
>>18763262There's too many confounding factors but government receipts as a percent of gdp has tended to increase as soon as women's suffrage is enacted.
>>18762447>Everyone would rather live in modern Poland than Soviet Polandexcept for the locals lol
>>18763817For instance britain which had an income tax for the latter half of the 19th century without government bloat
>>18763824switzerland, an admittedly gradual effect
>>18760074Mass politics as political machines really became possible for modern times after the United States civil war and the possibility with enfranchising disenfranchised citizen becomes a possibility and a goal and also the theme of mass democracy towards the nineteenth century with the suffrage of women is also the suffrage more broadly of the individual who had until then been broadly limited from voting or participating at participatory democracy
>>18762447> Everyone would rather live in modern Spain than Francoist Spainlol, lmao even
In order of importance:1. Giving white women the right to vote allowed territories to county women as Citizens and therefore apply for statehood with half the normal population.2. Giving white women the right to vote instantly doubled the white vote.3. Women were already doing male jobs anyway due to WW1.4. President Wilson's stroke forcing First Lady Wilson to be the defacto US President.Women's suffrage happened at the same time as the Eugenics movement and any place that let women vote had government-supported, state-sanctioned Eugenics programs to sterilize low value males and nonwhites. This program worked flawlessly and quickly rationalized everything else women wanted to do, like banning alcohol, which had substantial support amongst White, Anglo Protestants.
In some of the western states there were almost no woman settlers. Giving hoes the vote was supposed to encourage them to move there. They should have just stayed all male desu
>>18765516Is there where the Gay Cowboy tropes come from?
>>18765517The range is a lonely place anon
Sjould have drafted the women the second they got the right to vote. If negroes can be drafted, why not women?
>>18765593many women joined the women's auxiliary voluntarilyand, see >>18765510 they were already reporting to work at factories. If the government could have given them guns and sent them to war, as the communists did, they would have.
