Here I will be researching upon the history about depriving women from their right to vote, how did it change and when, if there were any significantly big changes in the period of when they earned the right to vote until now ‘’political wise’’ and a more outsider detail that could be connected to the topic.
In the shortest version, I will mention the way that women were viewed as, from 17th/18th century until they earned their right to vote or more close to it.
In these times women were more looked at as their jobs only belonged in the house, whether it was cooking, taking care of the babies,…etc.
There was a theory called separated sphere, which is more precisely as the man being the person for ruling, politics, military, and as been said women for the house.
In some countries, women could not even file a lawsuit, purchase land, sign contracts, without the permission of the husband or at least guardian, could be brother, father,..etc.
They were also deprived in some parts from even education, which they only learn crafts or about religion or whatever some say that is convenient for them to learn.
And basically this idea has been historical until this day and some attach it to being a religious thing, others could say it is just because the man is stronger so he could be more demanding and whatever he says happen, so, shall we check on any historical female’s rulers, that could have ruled a nation, entire population, in any culture of history?
There are many more examples but let us check out these 5
https://www.history.com/articles/ancient-female-rulers-cleopatra-boudica
Based on the 5th examples, the majority of them, are from different culture of the world, so that brings me to, if women from most centuries were deprived from a lot of rights, and even from recent history, from simple right. A right to elect, vote or have a political opinion, why did these five or many more examples were able to rule?
The majority of them were from a royal family, and they have had ruled due to a death of the king or the ruler at that time, but once they had ruled, many of them succeeded to had made significant changes and do very well throughout the ruling time while being considered by many as historical figure and that led me to, did the population of men from that certain nation, changed their opinion on a particular female, just because she was a sister, a mother or a wife of a king?!
And here I want to define the word ‘’Patriarchy’’
The term patriarchy comes from the Greek words patēr (father) and arkhē (rule), meaning “rule of the father.”
a society in which the oldest male is the leader of the family, or a society controlled by men in which they use their power to their own advantage.
Patriarchy is also the control by men, rather than women or both men and women, of most of the power and authority in a society.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/patriarchy
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/03/world/what-is-patriarchy-explainer-as-equals-intl-cmd/index.html
So with all being said, lets now proceed to the moment where women started demanding their right to vote and the first country that gave it to them.
https://www.women.govt.nz/about-us/history-womens-suffrage-aotearoa-new-zealand
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/womens-suffrage
The right to vote
In early colonial New Zealand, as in other European societies, women were excluded from any involvement in politics. A significant proportion of Pākehā men took part in the colony’s early elections from 1853, and universal male suffrage was introduced for Māori men in 1867 and almost all other men in 1879. Most people – men and women – accepted the idea that women were naturally suited for domestic affairs, such as keeping house and raising children. Only men were fitted for public life and the rough-and-tumble world of politics.
In the later 19th century, some women began to challenge this narrow view of the world. New opportunities were opening up for women and girls (especially those from wealthy or middle-class families) in secondary and university education, medicine, and in church and charitable work. Attention soon turned to women’s legal and political rights.
A movement emerges
The suffrage campaign in New Zealand began as a far-flung branch of a broad late-19th-century movement for women’s rights that spread through Britain and its colonies, the United States and northern Europe. This movement was shaped by two main themes: equal political rights for women and a determination to use them for the moral reform of society (through, for example, the prohibition of alcohol).
New Zealand’s pioneering suffragists were inspired both by the equal-rights arguments of philosopher John Stuart Mill and British feminists and by the missionary efforts of the American-based Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU).
A number of New Zealand’s leading male politicians, including John Hall, Robert Stout, Julius Vogel, William Fox and John Ballance, supported women’s suffrage. In 1878, 1879 and 1887 bills or amendments extending the vote to women (or at least female ratepayers) only narrowly failed to pass in Parliament.
Outside Parliament the movement gathered momentum from the mid-1880s, especially following the establishment of a New Zealand WCTU in 1885. Skilfully led by Kate Sheppard, WCTU campaigners and others organised a series of huge petitions to Parliament: in 1891 more than 9000 signatures were gathered, in 1892 almost 20,000, and finally in 1893 nearly 32,000 were obtained – almost a quarter of the adult European female population of New Zealand (You can search a database of the 1893 signatures here.)
Political manoeuvres
By the early 1890s, opponents of women’s suffrage had begun to mobilise. They warned that any disturbance of the ‘natural’ gender roles of men and women might have terrible consequences. The liquor industry, fearful that women would support growing demands for the prohibition of alcohol, lobbied sympathetic Members of Parliament and organised their own counter-petitions.
The suffragists’ arch-enemy was Henry Smith Fish, a boorish Dunedin politician who hired canvassers to circulate anti-suffrage petitions in pubs. This tactic backfired, however, when it was found that some signatures were false or obtained by trickery.
The Liberal government, which came into office in 1891, was divided over the issue. Premier John Ballance supported women’s suffrage in principle, but privately he worried that women would vote for his Conservative opponents. Many of his Cabinet colleagues, including Richard Seddon who was a friend of the liquor trade, strongly opposed suffrage.
In 1891 and 1892 the House of Representatives passed electoral bills that would have enfranchised all adult women. On each occasion, though, opponents sabotaged the legislation in the more conservative upper house, the Legislative Council, by adding devious amendments.
Victory at last
In April 1893 Ballance died and was succeeded by Seddon. Suffragists’ hearts sank, but following the presentation of the massive third petition, another bill was easily passed in the House.
Once again, all eyes were on the Legislative Council. Liquor interests petitioned the council to reject the bill. Suffragists responded with mass rallies and a flurry of telegrams to members. They also gave their supporters in Parliament white camellias to wear in their buttonholes.
Seddon and others again tried to torpedo the bill by various underhand tactics, but this time their interference backfired. Two opposition councillors, who had previously opposed women’s suffrage, changed their votes to embarrass Seddon. On 8 September 1893, the bill was passed by 20 votes to 18.
The battle was still not over. New anti-suffrage petitions were circulated, and some members of the Legislative Council petitioned the governor to withhold his consent. In a battle of the buttonholes, anti-suffragists gave their parliamentary supporters red camellias to wear.
Finally, on 19 September, Lord Glasgow signed the bill into law. All women who were ‘British subjects’ and aged 21 and over, including Māori, were now eligible to vote (the nationhood requirement excluded some groups, such as Chinese women).
Suffragists celebrated throughout the country, and congratulations poured in from suffrage campaigners in Britain, Australia, the United States and elsewhere: one wrote that New Zealand’s achievement gave ‘new hope and life to all women struggling for emancipation’. For women in many countries, the struggle for voting rights would be long and difficult.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/womens-suffrage/brief-history
By all of this, the movement pretty much started to become stronger in late 18th century and by latest 19th century, the first country to declare the women suffrage was New Zealand.
Questions:
- Did women suffrage had to do anything with economy, did women remained quiet all this time because only the man made money?
- When women could have finally been able to vote, what were the major changes politically?
Answers:
https://www.uml.edu/tsongas/barilla-taylor/women-industrial-revolution.aspx
In these times women could have only work, if they are unmarried, and if they are, their money belonged to their husbands, when they even could work, it was for limited and restricted jobs, with no protections, no law to protect them, and very low wages compared to men.
I can see that this back up my hypothesis, as I can say, that the reason they had not fought for this right in a strong way, was the same reason they all came together and decided to be brave in order to get their equal minimal right.
It suggests that due to the fact, they could not really support themselves, it made them listen to the man, and due to that fact, at the end, they said enough is enough!
B.
https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/milestones-women-american-politics
As you can check, from The political changes that happened in the US from approximately 1940 until 2000s, you can see that when women finally could vote, they improved their circumstance rapidly in term of earning a place in politics, getting equally paid and even expanded for others to demand their basic right, with strong movement, they finally also could have it. So it did not only uplift the situation of women in work or politics but also encouraged minorities to take actions.
My personal opinion and recommendation
I believe that this movement was a long fought battle, that ended with a happy story, although a lot more needs to be done.
Does it have any relation with fewer marriage rate and more families being separated, since the women are no longer financially depended on a man? Don’t really know, and could be, but either way this is a more important problem and a minimal right that they deserved it and had to have it, and families can easily stay connected by other factors than just financially, so even if it differ it by a high percentage, this problem could easily be solved, if families ‘’husband and wife’’, couples,..etc. can come to more rational agreement to determine of finding the suitable clear objective and path of each one, in their relationship, and his/her duties and rights, so honestly if it had change it, it does not really matter for two reasons:
- THIS IS THEIR RIGHT
- The problem could easily find infinitely many solutions without depriving them from their right
I encourage anybody who have read this or will read it, and liked it, to do more depth research and make it more scientific and maybe worth publishing with clear outcomes, and going asking the women of today about their opinion, if he/she has good research abilities, I think it could be done in more productive way!
You may say it was a problem that had been solved, I tell you, when you understand and fully understand previous problems, you can easily come to a solution for present and future problems.
Write as you Breathe 