Because women were a significant source of revenue?
Working class women have always worked outside the home as well as in it, and therefore have paid income taxes where applicable. Upper class women paid taxes on whatever property they owned. If I'm paying taxes to support my state and federal government I get to have a say in how they are spent. Otherwise we may have well just stayed a British colony and enjoyed their insane gun-control laws.
The anti-suffragist Josephine Dodge argued that giving women the right to vote would overburden them and undermine their privileged status. There were quite a few anti-suffrage organizations starting in the late 19th century that became increasingly prominent as the suffrage movement became more militant...There were many respected and highly regarded women involved with anti-suffrage, and made intelligent and logical arguments for their case, within the framework of the constitution of our republic. Helen Kendrick Johnson's Woman and the Republic (1897) was a well received discourse on the reasons against women's suffrage. Ida Tarbell, a well respected author and journalist considered to be a pioneer of "investigative journalism" wrote The Business of Being a Woman, in which she proceeded to show that the tasks of child rearing and maintaining a home were, "far from being narrow, tedious, and unworthy of an emancipated being, are of the noblest, the most absorbing, and the most rewarding kind, requiring all the added culture and power which woman’s freedom has bestowed" ( C.D. Warner, et al, 1917).
So they could choose not to vote for themselves. They don't get to make that decision for me. I'll be the judge of whether voting overburdens me or not. 99% of this country's problems could be solved if folks of both sexes would stop using the heavy hand of government to force their lifestyle choices on others. As Thoreau said, "The government that governs best is that which governs least." The government is there to protect us from foreign enemies, enforce contracts, and prosecute crimes which harm others physically or financially. Not to tell us how to live our lives. I don't want a right-wing nanny state any more than I want a left-wing nanny state.
Now be a dear, and make me a sammich.
Sure thing, as soon as you attend to the half-dozen car and yardwork-related things that my husband's been procrastinating on ;) No such thing as a free lunch, you know.
I can see where this viewpoint is disagreeable to the modern post 2nd wave feminized American woman. Remember, most American women were Christian during this time, and I don't mean checking off the box "Religious Affiliation" kind of Christian. Also remember, their husbands were too. This relationship, if practiced how Ephesians 25 is written, demanded that the man sacrifice and love, the woman defer and respect. This relationship also carried into the political arena, and was also in place when the constitution was written. Proper Christian husbands did not lord over their wives (and still don't), put their lives on the line in a rough agrarian and wild America (there is a reason women lived longer than men and still do), and provided the best life possible for them and the children. Their wives provided comfort, family backbone and security, worked their butts off domestically, and advised their husbands, both spiritually and in other matters. To deny the immutable differences between the sexes is to lie to oneself. Each has a different role in the nuclear family, but without one or the other the family is destroyed (with exceptions).
Were they treated like chattel through most of history? Yes, especially by less enlightened cultures, which is also why the Enlightenment period is so important. The concepts of religious freedom, individual liberty, and natural law that were part of Enlightenment were important, both for women and Christians; organized religion (the Catholic Church) would no longer be the authority, both politically and spiritually, allowing post-reformation Christians to have a say in society and reflect the more Christlike concepts of the New Testament by providing a more scripture based Christian faith instead of a dogmatic, doctrine driven religiosity that imposed its will at the tip of a spear. Challenging the Church's rule no longer lead to being jailed and/or executed for being a heretic. This of course took some time to reverse the prevalent attitudes towards women (and slavery), but without the undeniable post-Enlightenment Christian influence of our founders, the Constitution would not be.
Now that my Holiday Inn Express version of history is over, let me try and make this relevant to our conversation. My statement about how suffrage ruined the country is less about denying women the vote and more about decrying the need for women to vote. Yes there have always been women that have owned business, worked for wage, and possessed property, but not in significant amounts, and were not taxed any differently than men. When there were significant amounts of female participation in these aspects of economy in a society, it was almost always an indication of a society in decline, and usually due to war and/or plague and famine. In other words, when men were killed off in vast amounts, women had to work. North American suffrage did not get into full swing until some years after the civil war; there is the requisite male death that opened the door for women to join the economy. This is important, as women were forced into this to survive and keep their families intact. Now, this could have, and did, correct itself in a generation, as male children matured Note that there was a higher amount of Anti-suffrage women organized than suffrage early on; they preferred the way it was, which was the point of Dodge's book. This response to natural law, the taking care of hearth and home and not dealing with the hostile world of economy and politics, knowing the tremendous responsibility and power of being the only sex that could repopulate society, this is what Dodge was talking about when she referred to "privileged status". Why "overburden" themselves with the mundane world of men and politics, when they had the most important job. Conservative men of foresight and intelligence realized this, and recognized and appreciated this status of privilege. As "progressive" thought took advantage of the political instability post civil war and gained a foothold in the political stage, it sought to devalue the this status of privilege (sound familiar?), encourage them to play the role of victim, and give them political validity and power. Hence, the rise of organized suffrage. Or, I'm talking out my toxically masculine ass.
The government that governs best is that which governs least.
So, with that in mind, would you not agree that government exponentially increased after the dust settled? Were their not huge increases in regulation, social spending, and other "nanny state" devices? Does this mean you are pro-choice? Different privilege status conferred by government such as the privilege to terminate life and receive socio-political perquisites and funds doesn't seem at all fair to me either. The privileges that Dodge spoke of are at least a product of a covenant between man and wife, or even in grander scale, men and women.
There was a choice...work or starve. Once progressive earworms whispered promises of this and that that could be, but only if you get the vote, well then they could very well band enough together and vote themselves a check. And then teach their fatherless boys to do the same.
I realize I speak in generalities, and that not all women, or men, are the same. But these particular generalities are rooted in natural law for the perpetuation of species. I once a gain refer back to the roles of Christian men and women, and actually, it is not limited to Christianity. Men are called instinctively to sacrifice his own life and comfort for the perpetuation of species; we are expendable to a point. Women are called to protect their family in a different way; their nurturing, care, and instruction are all geared for the immediate (present) protection of family. They vote the same way. Most women don't vote like you. You vote more like a man (I assume) in that you would sacrifice immediate discomfort for the perpetuation of our republic; cutting spending as opposed to raising taxes for example. You being knowledgeable and a member of this forum should know how a majority of American women vote; gibmedat and don't be mean.