History.Thursday, August 26, 1920, women won the right to vote. Eighty-eight years ago. A blink of an eye in some ways.
Persons who literally gave birth to a country were no longer denied the right to vote. Why were they denied in the first place?
Looked through articles about this time I know nothing about. What did people of that time, think? No cell phones, no hip-hop, no internet, no Wal-mart—heck, there wasn’t even TV. I came across this article from The New York Times:
Sunday, August 29, 1920
EDITORIAL: The Woman of Thirty
It is almost cruel to recall the nineteenth century wit who offered to solve the suffrage question. It would suffice, he said, to permit all women to vote after thirty - the sly inference being that none would qualify. If the author of this merry jest is still alive, even he must find his taunt somewhat faded. Women in fighting for the vote have shown a passion of earnestness, a persistence, and above all a command of both tactics and strategy, which have amazed our master politicians. A new force has invaded public life and it is wielded by leaders who, whatever their foibles, perforce admit their three decades. A world that has hitherto recognized only the power of feminine youth and beauty is on its knees - no less - before the woman of thirty. What is to be the upshot?
It is doubtless true that women will divide much as men have done among the several parties. There will be no solid "woman vote." Having individual opinions and preferences, they will be individually swayed by them in respect to any given political issue or personality. But this is only half of the story. Even the democratic franchise cannot quite unsex either men or women. Hitherto the distinctively feminine instincts and aspirations have centered in winning the right of suffrage; but now that it is won, a vast, united force has been let loose. That political issues and leaders should continue to be merely man-made is inconceivable.
It is a fair guess, and indeed a fact already exemplified, that one distinctive interest of the woman politician will be in what is called welfare legislation - the regulation of the conditions of life and of industry with reference to the health and vigor of the nation, for the present and especially for future generations. Such issues should rouse all the powers of sisterly and motherly instinct; but as yet they have not developed an intensity, and especially a skill in leadership, at all comparable to that displayed in the suffrage campaigns. Perhaps it is because the feminine strength was divided between Albany and Washington; all may be well, now the great victory is won. Yet there is another possibility.
Unlike suffrage, questions of human welfare can seldom be answered by a categorical yes or no. If we legislate an eight-hour day for women, we are subject to unexpected repercussions. Seasonal industries like canning and millinery are crippled and their employees deprived of much valued overtime pay. If we legislate against night work, we hear from elevator girls and ticket choppers, who suffer a serious loss of employment. So the women welfare workers are confronted by others of their sex who demand in the name of freedom that they be permitted to work as they choose. It is not a question of black or white, but of delicately shaded values and the interplay of a thousand nicely adjusted forces, economic and social. The talents required are openness to evidence, accurate foresight and wise tolerance.
Women are beginning to have a sense of this, and they are developing a flexibility of mind and a capacity for compromise that make political discussion a thing very different from what it has been. Again, in the current campaign both parties are appealing to the feminine abhorrence of bloodshed, and especially to the desire to protect brothers and sons; but, while one party declares that the League of Nations will end all wars, the other, with equal assurance, declares that it will ceaselessly embroil us. Once more there is need of openness of mind and accurate foresight - the exercise of which is adding a new talent to the woman of thirty. By degrees the bickerings of politics as practiced by men are developing a really vital view of the situation.
Women who are fit to be mothers of the nation know that there is no sovereign remedy against death in any form, and that the one sure way to make life honorably safe is to face its responsibilities with a clear mind and a high heart. True citizenship means service and sacrifice, the giving as well as the taking.
Truly, we live in a new day and are blessed with new manners. Time was when it seemed a baffling fact that the decade of the feminine struggle for freedom was the decade when hobbles became tightest and heels most toppling. Now we know: it was necessary to convince men that even in politics women can still be feminine. With victory assured, the woman of thirty is already dressing more sedately. Once, at the most intellectual dinner tables, the departure of the ladies was a signal for the men to duck beneath the mahogany for things which, like Desdemona's handkerchief, were not lost but only mislaid. That also was the prerogative of the unenfranchised, and is also a vanishing ceremony. Some men still linger over their cigars, but only at debutante dinners, where the lure is callow youth. In circles dominated by the woman of thirty, cigars are laid aside half smoked and the men clamor at the drawing-room door to know how soon they may be admitted.
Copyright 1920 The New York Times
Eighty-eight years later, my comment is: Why waste a half smoked cigar? Pass it on over. We women of thirty and over know what to do.
Tonight, in this year of 2008, Hillary Clinton, a woman so close to the presidential nomination (or at least vice president?) - speaks at the Democratic Convention. Spirits of these warriors who fought for and received their right to vote on August 26, 1920, will be front and center. If those on the convention’s floor think a hint of cigar smoke tickles their noses…it does.
History.
No comments:
Post a Comment