Conference turris::womannotes-v1

       re .0:
       
       Is that the same type of helping hand and do-goodedness as when
       whites (white men, actually) helped out the black folks in the
       1860s by passing a Constitutional amendment that outlawed slavery? 
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    I don't think Jim was saying that we should be grateful to men because
    they gave us the rights that we should have had to begin with...
    
    It does appear that those in power chose to share the power.  There
    MUST be more to it... This amendment _is_ an important historical
    event for women.  How this amendment came about is something _I_ was 
    never in history class; it was barely mentioned that such an amendment 
    existed.   
                                                
    I'd like to hear some discussion about it... 
    
    
    
    

    How many men marched for suffrage?  I forget.
    
    Why don't we discuss the important historical women fighters for
    suffrage instead?
    
    PS--It was not a GIFT, and so it was not GIVEN.  "Enfranchisement"
    is a less loaded word, and the more articulate among us can likely
    remind us of a better.  This is not a quibble: if you think of it
    as a gift, you over-empower the "giver".  Indeed--that's the point:
    why do you think you're not taught about all those strident :-)
    women?  
    
    Those in power never give it up (Lear aside) unless threatened by
    something.
    
    Right.  Well, I have my weekly assignment now.

    Re .0, men didn't help women get the right to vote.  Women helped
    women get the right to vote.  I have a book I'd like you to read,
    Jim.  It's called "The History of Women In America", a paperback
    book, very fast reading.  It's a good start to understanding how
    it all came about.  I'll have to look up the authors and publishers,
    but I just saw the book in a bookstore recently.  I had bought mine
    at an Annie's so didn't know if it was still in the stores, but
    it is.
    
    I wish you could just stop being so defensive and just accept the
    fact that it's a shame women got screwed by the system in the past
    and that isn't great that now things are getting better.  I don't
    think the male population of the U.S.A. really needs you to try
    to defend them singlehandedly and repeatedly in womannotes :-).
     (Just my opinion and not meant in an angry way at all, really.)
    
    Lorna
    

    The author of the base note does not seem to be putting us on the
    defensive.  I view the note as an attempt to understand how the
    law was inacted and the role men had in the amendment.
    
    I would suggest that we go back even further though.  It is my under-
    standing that all men did not vote in George Washington's time.
    I think we may have had three movements for voting rights....all
    men...women and minorities.
    
    I expect we will find though that there were very few men that
    supported the amendment.  I think they were forced to vote by the
    very successful campaign run by the Women Suffrage Movement.
    
    It is a good note and I like the idea of doing research and getting
    facts.  I will see what I can find this weekend also.

RE: .1

I am aware that the Constitutional amendment did not 'actually' free any slaves.

I don't know much about the history of the Woman's Sufferage Amendment.

RE: .2

You are correct, I'm not asking for any gratitude.  I am asking about a point of
history that I know little about.  I am hoping for a slightly more balanced
picture of the male sex then what is normally portrayed in WOMANNOTES.

RE: .3

I see your point, that voting is supposed to be a "right", which (supposedly)
cannot be given, or taken away.  However, I was attempting to avoid 25$ words.

You mean that you don't think that it is possible that some men felt that women
should have the right to vote?

RE: .4

Who was it that voted to allow women to vote?  It was men, I believe.  Are you
going to discount this *entirely*? 

I would like to read the book, but for the present, could you give us any
information you remember?  (I'm working on chalice & blade at the moment)

"I wish you could just stop being so defensive and just accept the fact that
it's a shame women got screwed by the system in the past and that isn't great
that now things are getting better."

If that was the accepted opinion here, I would shutup.  I believe as you say,
the *system* has screwed women (& men).  But I believe the prevelent opinion is
that *men* have screwed women.  There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement
that thinks *are* getting better, and isn't that great, and what can men & women
do to make it even better. 

The emphasis in WOMANNOTES is on how women have been, are, and will continue to
be screwed by *men*.  I tell you, sooner or later, you have to work past that
anger, stop wailing about it, past seeing yourself as a victim, and work in a
POSITIVE way to do something about it.

"I don't think the male population of the U.S.A. really needs you to try to
defend them singlehandedly and repeatedly in womannotes"

I don't think so either.  BUT I think that the people in WOMANNOTES need to hear
that there are positive things about men.  Believe me, if you fill your ears
(eyes) and brain with all the negative things in here about men, and not hear
any positive things of men, you will come to hate men more and more.  You will
be digging yourself a hole deeper and deeper that it becomes harder and harder
to to get out of, and do anything positive about.

RE: .5

I believe that that is true, that originally only propertied men could vote.
When did this change to all (white) men voting?  When did it change that all
men, including black and other minorities could vote?  When did women start
voting?

It seems to me to be a gradual enfranchisment toward everybody voting.  Now,
what is there any reason *now* to be negative about women not being able to vote
in the *past* in particular? 

Jim.

As one who is learning about our past, with copious help from the authors here,
I am not ready to let go of the past.  I want to understand the past so that I
can better understand how to create my future.  For instance, I am a 
recovering Catholic, and I feel a lot of anger at the way things are & were
in the church.  Learning about our spiritual contribution from past era 
is an important part of knowing what I need in the present age.

Nancy

    I look forward to people posting their research on this one!  It
    has real promise for communication, rather than just a list of
    defensive bickering.  I'm going to concentrate on Dale Spender's
    _Women_of_Ideas_ (found it this morning next to my bed, under 3
    Jane Austins and a few P.D.James).  Good luck to you too!  There
    are over 130 years behind us in the women's movement--plenty for everybody
    to find something!  Even the encyclopedias ought to have some gems.

    re: .5
    
    I agree:  good topic, one well worth exploring.  As Jim points
    out, somehow men were convinced to give up (or share) some of
    their power by voting for the amendment.  What were the dynamics?
    It occurs to me that among other things there's a lesson on
    political strategy in the women's sufferage movement; whether
    we feel it was a "good", "bad", or "indifferent" strategy from
    say, an ethical/moral viewpoint, we have to admit that from
    the pragmatic view it was "good" - it worked.
    
    Questions I have include:  What was the overall strategy?  Who
    formulated it?  What tactical moves were made in support of the
    strategy and who made them?  Would this be a viable approach
    in today's world?
    
    I'd also be interested in the longer history.  The remarks about
    the vote initially being granted to only propertied males rings
    a bell for me, too.  I seem to recall learning at some point that
    early drafts of the Constitution were worded ". . .life, liberty,
    and the pursuit of property".
    
    Steve
    

    re .9:
    
    The first draft of the Declaration of Independance was worded "life,
    liberty, and property".
    
    If you read Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, you will see
    that it originally did not give anyone the "right" to vote. It says:

    	The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen 
    	every second Year by the People of the several States, and the 
    	Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite 
    	for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
    
    Thus, it was left to the States to determine who could vote. Most States
    at that time believed that only propertied men should vote since
    they were the ones being taxed. 

                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re .4, .6, it took an enormous amount of pressure over a long period
    of time before men "allowed" women to vote.  Just because some changes
    are finally accomplished doesn't mean it was an easy road getting
    there.
    
    I'll hunt through my boxes of paperbacks for the book I mentioned.
     It seems to me I underlined some of my favorite passages.
    
    And here you are talking about women hating men again!  I don't
    hate men in general.  I'm good friends with quite a few men including
    my ex-husband, my ex-SO, my brother, and my father when he was alive.
    The impression I get from some of your notes is that you've been
    hurt by women (or a woman) and that when you read some of the negative
    things that women say about men in notes, your reaction is.  Yeah,
    but you women aren't all perfect either!  You women have actually
    hurt men, too!  (But, maybe I'm completely wrong since I don't know
    you.)  I know there are women who have hurt men, and caused harm
    in the world, but I think there is a larger proportion of men who
    have hurt women, and caused harm to the world.  
    
    Also, I do think things are getting better for women, or this file
    filled with women with good jobs (of which I'm not one) wouldn't
    even exist.
    
    Lorna
    

       A positive side-effect of moving from one building to another
       is when you find stuff that's been at the bottom of a pile
       for a while:
           
           "The Nineteenth Amendment ("The right of citizens of the
           United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by
           the United States or by any State on account of sex...")
           was proposed by resolution of Congress on June 4, 1919. It
           was declared in a proclamation [on] August 26, 1920 to have
           been ratified by 36 States, which 'constitute three
           fourths.' Subsequent records of the national Archives show
           that the 19th Amendment was ratified by 5 additional
           States.
           
           It was rejected by Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi,
           Delaware, and Louisiana.
       
       --Mr Topaz 
           
           

    	I did a paper on this topic in college, which was a while ago,
    	so this may be a little vague.  Some women were very active
    	politically in the 19th century, even in the first half of 
    	that century.  Most of these women were also wives and mothers.
    	Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony are two names that
    	come to mind, but there were lots of others.  They travelled,
    	lectured, distributed pamphlets.  The early issues were temperence
    	and abolition of slavery.  I think that the first rally where
    	an "agenda" for women's rights was drawn up was at Seneca Falls,
    	NY, and I forget the year, maybe 1847?  Of course the
    	vote was one of the demands.  Early on there were many other
    	issues, such as education for women, and women's rights in 
    	marriage, but in the last half of the century there was a
    	focus on the vote perhaps as the key to getting other rights.
   	  Most of the women who were
    	actively campaigning for women's rights were also active in
    	the anti-slavery movement, and there was very much of what
    	would now be called a coalition.  Sad to say when the time came
    	to push for passage of the ammendment to grant voting rights
    	to blacks, the women's rights delegates were asked to put aside their
    	own demands, so as not to hurt its chances.  When that ammendment
    	was passed, the movement lost alot of its steam, having achieved
    	one of its major goals, and thus it wasn't until decades later
    	that enough support was built up again for women to push for
    	and get the vote.
    	  Linda

    	  Also it is interesting that alot of women gained political
    	experience speaking out on behalf of others, and then used
    	that experience to make their own demands.
 	  Linda

    On the wall of my study there are three pictures of women:
    
    	Cristable Pankhurst, LLB
    	Mrs. Pankhurst
    	E. Syliva Pankhurst
    
    They were English Sufferagets (sp).  There was a program on them
    that has been broadcast on PBS called "Shoulder to Shoulder".
    
    American women included Alice Paul (who died recently), Lucria Mott,
    Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Staton, The Grimki sisters, and
    many more.
    
    The Senca Falls meeting occured becasue the American women were
    not allowed to participate in the "World Wide" conference on the
    Anti-Slavery movement held in London in the 1840's.  The women vowed
    to never allow that to happen to them again and begain to work for
    the rights of woman.
    
    I will attempt to find some of the books and references to this
    topic to get the name spelled correctly.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |	These women are real revolutnaries.