Arguments for and Against Suffrage

Home / Modernizing America, 1889-1920 / Women’s Suffrage / Arguments for and Against Suffrage

Print Page

Arguments for and Against Suffrage

Women in the Home

New York State Woman Suffrage Association, Women in the Home, n.d. New-York Historical Society Library.

Document Text	Summary
WOMEN IN THE HOME We are forever being told that the place for women is in the HOME. Well, so be it. But what do we expect of her in the home? Merely to stay in the home is not enough. She is a failure unless she attends to the health and welfare, moral as well as physical, of her family, and especially of her children. She, more than anyone else, is held responsible for what they become. SHE is responsible for the cleanliness of her house. SHE is responsible for the wholesomeness of the food. SHE is responsible for the children’s health. SHE, above all, is responsible for their morals. How Far Can the Mother Control These Things?	We are always being told that women belong in the home. Fine. But what do we expect of women in the home? Just staying home is not enough. She is a failure unless she takes care of the moral and physical wellbeing of her family, especially her children. She is held responsible for how her children turn out. She is responsible for the cleanliness of her home. She is responsible for providing good meals. She is responsible for her children’s health. She is responsible for building their character. But can a mother actually control these things?
She can clean her own rooms, BUT if the neighbors are allowed to live in filth, she cannot keep her rooms from being filled with bad air and smells, or from being infested with vermin.	She can clean her own rooms, but she cannot prevent bad air, smells, or rodents from getting into her home if she has messy neighbors.
She can book her food well, BUT if dealers are permitted to sell poor food, unclean milk or stale eggs, she cannot make the food wholesome for her children.	She can plan healthy meals, but if grocers sell bad food, she cannot make it better for her children.
She can care for her own plumbing and refuse, BUT if the plumbing in the rest of the house is unsanitary, if garbage accumulates and the halls and stairs are left dirty, she cannot protect her children from the sickness and infection resulting.	She can keep her home sanitary, but if her neighborhood or building are unsanitary, her children will get sick.
She can take every care to avoid fire, BUT if the house has been badly built, if the fire-escapes are inadequate, she cannot guard her children from the horrors of being maimed or killed by fire.	She can prevent fires in her home, but if the house is badly built or her fire escapes are inadequate, she cannot protect her children from being killed in a fire.
She can open her windows to give her children the air that we are told is so necessary, BUT if the air is laden with infection, with tuberculosis and other contagious diseases, she cannot protect her children from this danger.	She can open her windows for the fresh air her children need, but if the air carries diseases, she cannot protect her children from them.
She can send her children out for air and exercise, BUT if the conditions that surround them on the streets are immoral and degrading, she cannot protect them from these dangers.	She can send her children outside for fresh air and exercise, but if her neighborhood is unsafe, she cannot protect them.
Alone, she cannot make these things right. Who or what can?	A woman alone cannot make everything right. Who or what can?
The city can do it—the city government that is elected by the people to take care of the interests of the people. And who decides what the city government shall do?	The city government that is elected by the people can do it. And who decides what the city government will do?
FIRST, the officials of that government; and, SECOND, those who elect them. Do the women elect them? NO, the men do.	First, the government officials, and second, the people who elect them. Do women elect them? No, men do.
So it is the men and not the women who are really responsible for the Unclean Houses Bad Plumbing Unwholesome Food Danger of Fire Risk of Tuberculosis and Other Diseases Immoral Influences of the Street	So it is men, not women, who are really responsible for the Unclean houses Bad plumbing Unhealthy food Fire risks Infectious diseases Bad neighborhoods
In fact, MEN are responsible for the conditions under which the children live, but we hold WOMEN responsible for the results of those conditions.	In fact, men are responsible for the conditions children live in, but we hold women responsible for the results.
If we hold women responsible for the results, must we not, in simple justice, let them have something to say as to what these conditions shall be? There is one simple way of doing this. Give them the same means that men have. LET THEM VOTE.	If we hold women responsible, should we not let them have a say in what the conditions will be? There is a simple way to do this. Give them the same power as men. Let them vote.
Women are, by nature and training, housekeepers. Let them have a hand in the city’s housekeeping, even if they introduce an occasional house-cleaning. NEW YORK STATE WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION 303 Fifth Avenue New York City Printed by the NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE PUBLISHING CO., INC., New York City	Women are, by birth and education, housekeepers. Let them help with the city’s housekeeping, even if they occasionally give the city a house cleaning.

New York State Woman Suffrage Association, Women in the Home, n.d. The New York Historical Library.

An image of an anti-suffrage essay written by Alice Hill Chittenden, the president of the New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. Her essay is titled “Ballot Not a Panacea For Existing Evils.”

Ballot not a Panacea for Existing Evil

Alice Hill Chittenden, Ballot not a Panacea for Existing Evil, 1913. New-York Historical Society Library.

Document Text	Summary
BALLOT NOT A PANACEA FOR EXISTING EVILS By Alice Hill Chittenden. President of the New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage.	The right to vote is not a cure for our current troubles.
There can be no doubt that many earnest, sincere women declare they want to vote because they wish to take a hand in what they call municipal housecleaning. More schools are needed, more parks and playgrounds; better tenements and cleaner streets. Give us the ballot, they argue, and all these things shall come to pass. But these enthusiastic would-be housecleaners fail to take one point into consideration, which is, that the ballot does not clean streets, nor provide more seats in schoolhouses, nor lighten dark tenements, nor furnish pure milk, nor stop child labor, nor administer justice.	Many sincere women say they want the right to vote because they want to participate in what they call city housecleaning. More schools are needed, more parks and playgrounds, better buildings and cleaner streets. They say, “Give us the right to vote, and we will get it done.” But these women are forgetting something. Voting does not clean streets, build schools, improve buildings, provide healthy milk, stop child labor, or create justice.
The advocates of women’s suffrage who cling to this idea, which was prevalent at the time of the French Revolution, and even half a century ago, that the ballot in itself is a panacea for all existing evils and a short cut to the solution of government problems, are not progressive, but are in reality behind the times as students of government. Suffrage isn’t a remedial agent in government, but is merely a means of keeping the wheels of government in motion.	The women who think that voting is a solution to society’s problems are not progressive. They are behind the times. Voting does not fix government. It just keeps government working.
Men who are interested in social reforms—and their number is legion—have found they could not bring about these essential reforms by merely voting on Election Day, and that is the reason they have organized all kinds of commissions and committees to consider the question of child labor, the care of dependent children and kindred subjects, from an economic and humanitarian point of view in order to educate and stimulate public opinion to a more intelligent and comprehensive understanding of these questions.	Progressive men cannot bring about these changes by voting. That is why they have formed so many clubs and organizations to educate people about the problems in the world.
They realize that public opinion must first create a demand for a law, and afterwards enforce it in order to make the law effective. In this task of moulding and stimulating public opinion woman plays a great and important part—never greater than at the present day. She is not excluded from any conferences for the discussion of special problems because she hasn’t a vote, neither is her influence lessened for that reason as a member of any committee where men and women are working together. In appointive positions, as members of educational, philanthropic and reformatory boards, which deal directly with the needs of the unfortunate of both sexes, individual women of judgment and ability who are free from other obligations can render valuable service to the city or state.	They know they have to convince the public to demand a law and then enforce it. Women already play an important part in public education. Women can already attend meetings, and their opinions are respected even though they do not have the right to vote. As part of these organizations, women can have a direct impact.
Mayor Gaynor has appointed several women as members of the Board of Education, and the borough presidents have also appointed women on most of the local school boards. Women are also members of various state boards and receive such appointments from the Governor. Two women were members of the Massachusetts Commission appointed to consider the question of establishing minimum wage boards in that state. Two women also served on the Connecticut Industrial Commission to investigate the conditions of wage earning women and minors, which has just made its report to the Connecticut General Assembly.	Women have been appointed to the city Board of Education and local school boards. Women are also on different state boards. Two have been appointed by the governor. Two women served on the Massachusetts state commission on the minimum wage. Two women served on the Connecticut commission to investigate working conditions for women and children.
Any one who has closely followed the remedial legislation of the past few years must realize that such organizations as the Consumer’s League, the Woman’s Municipal League and kindred organizations, as well as individual women who are members of these organizations, have been influential in securing such legislation. . .	Anyone who has been following legal reforms knows that women’s groups have been influential in getting laws passed.
The women who are opposed to women’s suffrage are in hearty sympathy with all lines of constructive social reform, and they are confident that they can do their work better along these lines because they are outside of politics. As non-partisan citizens, untrammeled by party affiliations or obligations, they can go before any legislative committee or municipal organization and ask for the passage of any measure, and their request will be listened to on the merits of the case, and not because they have any political axe to grind or because they voted with this or that party at the last election.	The women opposed to women’s suffrage want to see social reform, but they believe they can do the work better if they stay out of politics. Without political loyalties, they can speak before any member of government and expect to be heard because they are neutral parties.
I believe we would lose immeasurably if this power were taken from us for we would then become but another spoke in the wheel of political machinery.	I believe women would lose if they got the right to vote, because they would just become another part of the political machine.

Alice Hill Chittenden, Ballot Not a Panacea for Existing Evil, 1913. The New York Historical Library.

Background

By 1900 the fight over women’s suffrage had persisted for more than fifty years, and suffragists and anti-suffragists were publicly campaigning to make their voices heard. But the two sides had more in common than they wished to admit. Most were white, educated, and financially stable. Many in both movements favored the idea that women belonged in the home. They simply differed on the question of whether the vote would empower or hinder women. Suffragists argued that the right to vote would empower women to be better wives and mothers because women voters would bring their moral superiority and domestic expertise to issues of public concern. Anti-suffragists argued that politics was a corrupting influence that would diminish the ability of women to make change in their homes and communities.

For more about the arguments against suffrage, watch the video below.

This video is from “Women Have Always Worked,” a free massive open online course produced in collaboration with Columbia University.

About the Resources

These documents are samples of the materials created by suffragists and anti-suffragists during the debate over women’s suffrage. Materials like these were distributed at meetings, rallies, and parades. They could also be displayed in meeting rooms, coffee shops, and other public places.

The first is a pro-suffrage broadside created by the New York State Woman Suffrage Association in New York City. The second is an anti-suffrage essay written by Alice Hill Chittenden, president of the New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage.

Vocabulary

suffrage: The right of voting; in this era, suffrage often referred specifically to women’s suffrage, or the right of women to vote.
suffragist: A person who campaigned to win women the right to vote.
anti-suffragist: A person who campaigned against granting women the right to vote.

Discussion Questions

What are the key arguments in each of these documents? Why do suffragists want the vote? Why do anti-suffragists want to prevent the vote?
To what extent do these documents offer a similar view of women’s roles? What does this tell you about the differences between suffragists and anti-suffragists?
Who is the audience for these materials? What are the authors trying to accomplish?

Suggested Activities

Dive deeply into pro-suffrage arguments. Analyze the first document in tandem with Rose O’Neill’s poster “Together for Home and Family” and Adella Hunt Logan’s article “Colored Women as Voters.”
To learn more about the opinions and approaches of suffragists of color, see:
Compare “Women in the Home” with the illustration from Life magazine depicting the evils of urban life. How do these two pieces present a case for women taking on a more active role in social and political issues?
Dive deep into anti-suffrage arguments. Analyze this document in tandem with the photograph of Southern anti-suffragists.

Themes

AMERICAN IDENTITY AND CITIZENSHIP; ACTIVISM AND SOCIAL CHANGE; DOMESTICITY AND FAMILY

Source Notes

Resource