Julia Porretto

October 2, 2015

ENC4374

Wonderful World of Voting Women

Youre ridiculous and mens rights is nothing. Leslie Knope.

All women bring all voters into the world. Let women vote. Really simple. This

advertisement appeals emotionally to men by targeting the one person many hold close: their

mothers. The woman who carried you for nine months, took care of you, raised you, and was

essentially your best friend through adolescence. This ad essentially humanizes the devilish

caricature created of a women with a right to vote. This ad is also visually important and

stimulating. It is simple: an image taking up a little less than half the page and only contains ten

words. It issues a command: Let Women Vote. It delivers a clear and concise message. The

complete capitalization of the word WOMEN and VOTERS is important to establish that a

women voter could exist. The eyes are drawn to those two words in the first split second you see

the image. The phrase women voter fort the first time probably ran through the head of

whoever saw this image. I find this image to be important due to the power of simplicity

exemplified in it.

It seems as though a special breed of man ruled (you could argue that it continues to rule)

the world. A class of controlling men who felt as though they were God and simply because they

were born onto this Earth with white skin and a penis to match which in turn gave them the

1
ability to control whatever it was that they so desired. Not all men, however, as states Elizabeth

Cady Stanton in her 1868 speech titled The Destructive Male. She says: I do not wish to be

understood to say that all men are hard, selfish, and brutal, for many of the most beautiful spirits

the world has known have been clothed with manhood. This was a smart stance to insert into

her speech. This makes her relatable. What man would ever want to be undesirable? It would be

so easy for any man to dismiss this movement as just a crusade for women to hate men. Stanton

utilizes rhetoric to show that it is necessary in order for society to improve that women be

granted the right to vote. Stanton appeals to women by speaking of diviner qualities of a

woman. The whole speeches intention was to empower, which would have appealed emotionally

to women all the while considering the opposing argument stating that suffrage would in turn

make women more masculine showing that she is well versed in both arguments, making her an

easy to trust source. By citing the need for a sixteenth amendment in the beginning of her speech,

she established ethos. She obviously knows what she is talking about in regards to the male-

driven political system of 1868.

Being a 19 year old woman in 2015, I read this text as a rallying point. I feel the emotion

when I read it, the strong sense of her trying so desperately to will a crowd with her words. I feel

her frustration with the world she lived in the system of government that she wished to have the

ability to have a say in. This speech was delivered at a Womens Suffrage Convention. In the

crowd there were to be women and presumably a few men to eavesdrop, neigh-say, and all

around protest the abhorrent idea that someone with a vagina could vote. I find this speech to be

very interesting simply due to her use of strong emotional appeals. I feel goosebumps when I

read this and can only imagine what this felt like being heard while sitting in the crowd. This is a

very strong speech and its emotion persists even after 147 years.

2
 A counterargument exists. Molly Seawell explains in her book The Ladies Battle

published in 1911 that she, along with many other women, oppose womens suffrage. On the

first page of her book she argues that those women who argue for suffrage know very little about

how government actually works. while they propose a stupendous government change, they

have little knowledge of the fundamentals of government, the evolution of representation, the

history of politics, or the genesis, scope, and meaning of suffrage. I find this to be incorrect.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton exhibited a great deal of knowledge in her speech. She knew what she

was fighting for. It is interesting that Seawell argues that suffrage would be a great,

fundamental change greater perhaps, than they really contemplate (Seawell 9). In ready

Seawells book it seemed as though her main argument against suffrage was that women did not

know what they were fighting for, something I take as calling women too stupid to understand

something that is so complex and hard for their little lady brains: the government. I would also

love to point out that the author states that there are basic principles against womens suffrage

and that a basic principle works the merciless mechanism of a natural law like gravitation, and

is indeed a natural law. (Seawell 17). What a saucy, entitled remark. I get the image of her sitting

down wearing the ridiculous outfit consisting of too many garments that was socially required

for women to wear while maintaining a smirk while her husband sat by and congratulated her for

having the correct viewpoint. She is the real life embodiment of the character from the movie

The Help who is just so awful that she is baked that ever-so-famous pie. Imagine enjoying the

luxury of having the right to publish a book but not wanting to allow her fellow woman to have

the right to decide to vote. Reading what pieces of her novel I did felt like reading some fiction

work of a utopian society. Imagine knowing someone so close-minded who whole-heartedly

believed in what they were preaching. Its comparable to the Westboro Baptist Church and that

3
resemblance makes her work hard to swallow for me. Her point stating that suffrage would bring

on an influx of divorce is rather disconcerting and worrisome. What a scary reality she must have

lived in where a dispute on a difference of who one voted for would result in an inharmonious

difference between the man and women where she compares a vote to a weapon to be used

against one another. It is close-minded to assume that all women would use her right to vote as a

weapon and not take it seriously. Also, what kind of reaction was to be expected of a man who

did not agree with his wifes decision on who to vote for? Maybe the real issue here is how to

deal with your controlling, abusive husband who cares too much about politics rather than how

to prevent an outburst.

Such manly calm and reserve was discussed in Anna Howard Shaws 1913 speech at the

NAWSA convention. Shaw went to Baltimore, Maryland to witness the calm repose of the male

politician. Hysteria was a main concern when it came to the womens suffrage movement.

Women were too emotional to vote, says Shaw. In Baltimore she witnessed what is only to be

described as a circus. Using what is undoubtedly facetious language Shaw witnessed the world

of politics that was apparently too difficult for women to handle, something that no woman

would be able to deal with thanks to biological monthly hysteria that made the idea of women

in government a nightmare. What is it about a period that scares people so much? In my

experience with women it is not a period that makes women tick more so is it when they are

hungry or tired. Well, that is it for me at least. I will not speak for every woman. No hysteria

about it just patriotic loyalty, splendid manly devotion to principle, describes Shaw. Hey

sarcasm is painted over this speech so brightly you could see it in space. Shaw even says in her

speech that she had never seen women at a convention act like the men at the DNC convention in

Baltimore. What she described was nothing short of a human circus, a man zoo that showcased

4
the buffoonery of what happens where there is too much testosterone and entitlement in an

enclosed space.

I draw a lot of similarities between Shaw and Theodore Roosevelt. In his editorial

published in 1912. He says that he is in favor of womens rights and that the men who find the

action unfavorable are the ones who associate this movement seem desirous of associating it

with disorderly conduct in public. As well, he points out that the women who would entirely

benefit from this right and ability to vote are the wives of those brutal or inconsiderate. This

led me to believe that what made many men so avidly against this action was that women would

have a voice to speak out on any indiscretions. I think it is interested that he said that he believe

that women who were not interested in womens rights were in defenseless situations. That

brings me back to Seawells novel and especially makes me wonder how much her husband

influences her to write it. Stanton mentions the violence of man multiple times in her 1868

speech. Between this angry, violent portrayals of a man in the home in conjunction with

absurdity of how he is said to have behaved in the public setting it seems as though men who

were in charge in this time period were simply awful. Roosevelt sounds way before his time in

his editorial. He is smart about the way he speaks. I feel like he is well educated on the topic and

has full opinions that were ahead of the 1912 time.

I am now completely convinced that the world of 1850-1920 was absolutely insane and I

have no interest of ever time travelling if that were to become an option. Men were nothing short

of being creatures of oppression and women had to fight an insane amount to get what little

rights they wanted. The world in nowhere near perfect now, but the leaps made in 100 years are

truly astonishing.

5
 Works Cited

Flagg, James Montgomery. Women Bring All Voters Into the World. Let Women

Vote, The Woman Citizen. October 27, 1917. PDF file.

Roosevelt, Theodore. Womens Rights and the Duties of Both Men and Women. The

Outlook. 3 Feb 1917. Print.

Seawell, Molly Elliot. The Ladies Battle. New York: Mamillan. 1911. Print.

Shaw, Anna Howard. NAWSA Convention. Washington, D.C. 1913.

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. The Destructive Male. Womens Suffrage Convention.

Washington, D.C. 1868.