Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All that said, do you think that maybe the addition of the 19th amendment is what allowed women to be as involved in society as they are today? Or do you think it would have come about anyway?
Women were no more involved in society nor had all of the skills and advantages men did during the 1920's than they did during the 1950's or 60's for that matter.
I believe it was when a large number of women started entering the labour force during the second War World is what paved the way. I believe it was the decline of the American standard of living is what enhanced it (which started during the 70's). Before a single income could support an entire family. Today, both men and women have to work to support a family. There are some women who are raising a family on their own.
Many of this increased the woman's role in the American society. It didn't start simply because woman earned the right to vote.
Your argument makes no sense at all. Upon what basis is the right to vote "earned" by "owning property" or "paying poll taxes" -- as opposed to simply being an adult citizen?
Are not citizens who don't own property .......... still citizens? And as such do they not represent a portion of the population?
Just curious --- you're not a US citizen, are you? I'm guessing from your spelling of the word "labour".
Literacy tests, poll taxes, and property requirements were specifically designed to prevent African Americans and other minorities from voting.
Period.
No, no they weren't. You just made that up.
You don't have the vaguest clue about American history, do you?
This is but one of many many examples of what he's talking about:
Alabama Literacy Test
Perhaps you should read some history before posting on topics on which you're ignorant.
Isn't it wonderful that you, as a woman, now have the right to stand up and complain that the women who struggled before you, didn't sacrifice the way you would have wanted them to.
Other people have died for my right to complain. It's not anyone else's right to give to me, nor is it anyone else's to discard so easily.
How exactly is this a fight for equality if you aren't willing to show how you are equal to your male counterparts? I'm a senior broker at my firm. I didn't get their by complaining to my boss about how I needed the same equal opportunity that my superiors, who were mostly male. I got there by showing I am just capable and competent to reach that level. I would expect any junior brokers under me to behave the same way.
Advocating for opportunities, or rights, doesn't always make things equal. Instead, often times it's made people vulnerable.
No , you got there because women before you fought long and hard so that you could get that opportunity.
Otherwise, you would be just another secretary fighting off their sexual advances
No, no they weren't. You just made that up.
You don't have the vaguest clue about American history, do you?
This is but one of many many examples of what he's talking about:
Alabama Literacy Test
Perhaps you should read some history before posting on topics on which you're ignorant.
The literacy test was adopted in American Society since the inception of America. The claim was said that it was 'specifically designed to prevent African Americans from voting.' This is patently false. All you have done was show me how Jim Crow has adopted it to intimidate blacks. The literacy test was not designed to target African Americans. You are wrong, and so is he.
Maybe you should take a literacy test of your own.
You don't have the vaguest clue about American history, do you?
This is but one of many many examples of what he's talking about:
Alabama Literacy Test
Perhaps you should read some history before posting on topics on which you're ignorant.
The literacy test was adopted in American Society since the inception of America. The claim was said that it was 'specifically designed to prevent African Americans from voting.' This is patently false. All you have done was show me how Jim Crow has adopted it to intimidate blacks. The literacy test was not designed to target African Americans. You are wrong, and so is he.
Maybe you should take a literacy test of your own.
You should have mentioned you weren't American. Your lack of understand of our countries history makes sense now.
The 1st literacy test to vote was in 1855, it was created to keep Irish Catholics from voting.
You don't have the vaguest clue about American history, do you?
This is but one of many many examples of what he's talking about:
Alabama Literacy Test
Perhaps you should read some history before posting on topics on which you're ignorant.
The literacy test was adopted in American Society since the inception of America. The claim was said that it was 'specifically designed to prevent African Americans from voting.' This is patently false. All you have done was show me how Jim Crow has adopted it to intimidate blacks. The literacy test was not designed to target African Americans. You are wrong, and so is he.
Maybe you should take a literacy test of your own.
You should have mentioned you weren't American. Your lack of understand of our countries history makes sense now.
The 1st literacy test to vote was in 1855, it was created to keep Irish Catholics from voting.
Sad reallyOther people have died for my right to complain. It's not anyone else's right to give to me, nor is it anyone else's to discard so easily.
How exactly is this a fight for equality if you aren't willing to show how you are equal to your male counterparts? I'm a senior broker at my firm. I didn't get their by complaining to my boss about how I needed the same equal opportunity that my superiors, who were mostly male. I got there by showing I am just capable and competent to reach that level. I would expect any junior brokers under me to behave the same way.
Advocating for opportunities, or rights, doesn't always make things equal. Instead, often times it's made people vulnerable.
No , you got there because women before you fought long and hard so that you could get that opportunity.
Otherwise, you would be just another secretary fighting off their sexual advances
If someone has to give you equal opportunity, it already shows you are inferior. The right to vote didn't get me where I am. I still don't have the right to vote, and somehow, I am more successful than the average citizen in this country. Women before me didn't fight for my opportunity. I did. I am where I am because of me, and no one else.
Sad reallyNo , you got there because women before you fought long and hard so that you could get that opportunity.
Otherwise, you would be just another secretary fighting off their sexual advances
If someone has to give you equal opportunity, it already shows you are inferior. The right to vote didn't get me where I am. I still don't have the right to vote, and somehow, I am more successful than the average citizen in this country. Women before me didn't fight for my opportunity. I did. I am where I am because of me, and no one else.
You were born on third base and act like you hit a triple
I remember women's employment in the 60s and early 70s. Your options were ....nurse, teacher, secretary, beautician, librarian and cashier. If you had higher aspirations you faced untold prejudice and harassment. The "women's libbers" fought a hard fight to open up opportunities
You benefitted, too bad you don't appreciate it
Sad reallyIf someone has to give you equal opportunity, it already shows you are inferior. The right to vote didn't get me where I am. I still don't have the right to vote, and somehow, I am more successful than the average citizen in this country. Women before me didn't fight for my opportunity. I did. I am where I am because of me, and no one else.
You were born on third base and act like you hit a triple
I remember women's employment in the 60s and early 70s. Your options were ....nurse, teacher, secretary, beautician, librarian and cashier. If you had higher aspirations you faced untold prejudice and harassment. The "women's libbers" fought a hard fight to open up opportunities
Women pursue different career goals than men and have different expectations than their male counterparts. They still do to this day. This is one reason why you will never understand -- aside from your economically understanding --the wage gap between men and women, without looking at it from a position of misogyny.
And there were women business owners, entrepreneurs, doctors and athletes. Even athletes who played in male dominated sports, on teams specifically ONLY for men. How did women accomplish these things? They did it the same way I did. Hard-work, dedication, perseverance, intelligence and inner strength.
You benefitted, too bad you don't appreciate it
You can be grateful with the opportunities others give you. And those same people will be happy because they'll know they will always get the better of you. This doesn't happen for those you are making things happen for themselves, on their own.
Women are still being harassed and are still suffering from prejudice in some way. Voting didn't change that. What people have lobbied and advocated for in the past didn't change that. The first line earning the respect of others comes from within. No one else can earn that respect for you.
No, no they weren't. You just made that up.
You don't have the vaguest clue about American history, do you?
This is but one of many many examples of what he's talking about:
Alabama Literacy Test
Perhaps you should read some history before posting on topics on which you're ignorant.
The literacy test was adopted in American Society since the inception of America. The claim was said that it was 'specifically designed to prevent African Americans from voting.' This is patently false. All you have done was show me how Jim Crow has adopted it to intimidate blacks. The literacy test was not designed to target African Americans. You are wrong, and so is he.
Maybe you should take a literacy test of your own.
Women were no more involved in society nor had all of the skills and advantages men did during the 1920's than they did during the 1950's or 60's for that matter.
I believe it was when a large number of women started entering the labour force during the second War World is what paved the way. I believe it was the decline of the American standard of living is what enhanced it (which started during the 70's). Before a single income could support an entire family. Today, both men and women have to work to support a family. There are some women who are raising a family on their own.
Many of this increased the woman's role in the American society. It didn't start simply because woman earned the right to vote.
Your argument makes no sense at all. Upon what basis is the right to vote "earned" by "owning property" or "paying poll taxes" -- as opposed to simply being an adult citizen?
The basis upon the efficiency and competence of the electorate.
Are not citizens who don't own property .......... still citizens? And as such do they not represent a portion of the population?
Then end voter discrimination now and let children vote in our elections.
Just curious --- you're not a US citizen, are you? I'm guessing from your spelling of the word "labour".
I am not an American citizen. I don't vote, nor do I wish to. That might change considering even dead people are allowed to vote in your elections.
HAs our political system gotten better or worse since 1919? Remember the support Edwards got from women because he has nice hair? Yeah. Like I said.
The history of which came to the 19th amendment certainly is clouded in ignorance. Sure, today, there would be no reason to keep women from voting AT THIS TIME. However, during that time period, it made perfectly good sense to keep women from voting.
Might have been a good day for America, but bad day for the American electorate.
Can you 'splain that for me?
Absolutely. The constitution gives specific rules on how your elected officials would be elected into office. The President was elected by the electoral college. The Senators were elected by the state legislator. The House of Representatives were elected BY THE PEOPLE. Not the men, but people.
Specific states had their own restrictions on voting. It didn't just target women, but all sorts of people. For example, some states required you to pay a poll tax. If you wanted to vote, you had to pay the tax. At the time, people gandered that you would be a more informed voter if you paid this tax. There were property requirements. States didn't want people voting who didn't own property. Literacy test were also a requirement. People wanted to know how competent a voter was before actually participating in their elections. And last, but not least, women were kept from voting, for obvious reasons.
Women back then, were obviously not like women today. Today, women are more involved in our society than ever before. Today, women have an active role in the workforce. They start their own careers. They work outside the home. They run businesses. They're more independent. They're even part of our military. Today, it makes absolutely no sense to keep women from voting, seeing as they are so involved in our society. The same wasn't true for women during late 1800's, early 1900's. Women back then didn't do any of the things that women are doing now. Therefore, it made zero sense having women vote when they don't own property, don't work outside the home, didn't pursue their own careers, or not involved in the work force what so ever.
I feel that many restrictions like these actually lead to good governance of the country. But since women were given the right to vote, voting restrictions were repealed state and nation wide to the point of where anyone can vote, as long as they are a citizen and are over the age of 18. As a result, our electorate is not as good, which you can obviously tell in more ways than one.
So no, I don't think women should be kept from voting now. But I understand why they were kept from voting in the past. The same reason why we keep children from voting now. At this point, the electorate can only get much worse when we start sliding down this slippery slope.
Your argument makes no sense at all. Upon what basis is the right to vote "earned" by "owning property" or "paying poll taxes" -- as opposed to simply being an adult citizen?
The basis upon the efficiency and competence of the electorate.
Then end voter discrimination now and let children vote in our elections.
Just curious --- you're not a US citizen, are you? I'm guessing from your spelling of the word "labour".
I am not an American citizen. I don't vote, nor do I wish to. That might change considering even dead people are allowed to vote in your elections.
So you're a dead person? That explains a lot too.
But ir figures you're not from here, considering your lack of Clue about how we do things.
But it's a simple misconception: you've got the concept of citizen voting confused with the concept of shareholder voting. A shareholder has a stake in the corporation, and therefore a vote, by virtue of his or her investment. A citizen has a stake in the country, and therefor a vote, by simple virtue of his or her existence. The latter needs no investment.
Can you 'splain that for me?
Absolutely. The constitution gives specific rules on how your elected officials would be elected into office. The President was elected by the electoral college. The Senators were elected by the state legislator. The House of Representatives were elected BY THE PEOPLE. Not the men, but people.
Specific states had their own restrictions on voting. It didn't just target women, but all sorts of people. For example, some states required you to pay a poll tax. If you wanted to vote, you had to pay the tax. At the time, people gandered that you would be a more informed voter if you paid this tax. There were property requirements. States didn't want people voting who didn't own property. Literacy test were also a requirement. People wanted to know how competent a voter was before actually participating in their elections. And last, but not least, women were kept from voting, for obvious reasons.
Women back then, were obviously not like women today. Today, women are more involved in our society than ever before. Today, women have an active role in the workforce. They start their own careers. They work outside the home. They run businesses. They're more independent. They're even part of our military. Today, it makes absolutely no sense to keep women from voting, seeing as they are so involved in our society. The same wasn't true for women during late 1800's, early 1900's. Women back then didn't do any of the things that women are doing now. Therefore, it made zero sense having women vote when they don't own property, don't work outside the home, didn't pursue their own careers, or not involved in the work force what so ever.
I feel that many restrictions like these actually lead to good governance of the country. But since women were given the right to vote, voting restrictions were repealed state and nation wide to the point of where anyone can vote, as long as they are a citizen and are over the age of 18. As a result, our electorate is not as good, which you can obviously tell in more ways than one.
So no, I don't think women should be kept from voting now. But I understand why they were kept from voting in the past. The same reason why we keep children from voting now. At this point, the electorate can only get much worse when we start sliding down this slippery slope.
see, i didnt need to assume anything. I waited and found this nugget of retard. Only a conservative would see women not voting as a good thing.
You don't have the vaguest clue about American history, do you?
This is but one of many many examples of what he's talking about:
Alabama Literacy Test
Perhaps you should read some history before posting on topics on which you're ignorant.
The literacy test was adopted in American Society since the inception of America. The claim was said that it was 'specifically designed to prevent African Americans from voting.' This is patently false. All you have done was show me how Jim Crow has adopted it to intimidate blacks. The literacy test was not designed to target African Americans. You are wrong, and so is he.
Maybe you should take a literacy test of your own.
Umm..... I backed up my point. You didn't.
So much for that.
Absolutely. The constitution gives specific rules on how your elected officials would be elected into office. The President was elected by the electoral college. The Senators were elected by the state legislator. The House of Representatives were elected BY THE PEOPLE. Not the men, but people.
Specific states had their own restrictions on voting. It didn't just target women, but all sorts of people. For example, some states required you to pay a poll tax. If you wanted to vote, you had to pay the tax. At the time, people gandered that you would be a more informed voter if you paid this tax. There were property requirements. States didn't want people voting who didn't own property. Literacy test were also a requirement. People wanted to know how competent a voter was before actually participating in their elections. And last, but not least, women were kept from voting, for obvious reasons.
Women back then, were obviously not like women today. Today, women are more involved in our society than ever before. Today, women have an active role in the workforce. They start their own careers. They work outside the home. They run businesses. They're more independent. They're even part of our military. Today, it makes absolutely no sense to keep women from voting, seeing as they are so involved in our society. The same wasn't true for women during late 1800's, early 1900's. Women back then didn't do any of the things that women are doing now. Therefore, it made zero sense having women vote when they don't own property, don't work outside the home, didn't pursue their own careers, or not involved in the work force what so ever.
I feel that many restrictions like these actually lead to good governance of the country. But since women were given the right to vote, voting restrictions were repealed state and nation wide to the point of where anyone can vote, as long as they are a citizen and are over the age of 18. As a result, our electorate is not as good, which you can obviously tell in more ways than one.
So no, I don't think women should be kept from voting now. But I understand why they were kept from voting in the past. The same reason why we keep children from voting now. At this point, the electorate can only get much worse when we start sliding down this slippery slope.
see, i didnt need to assume anything. I waited and found this nugget of retard. Only a conservative would see women not voting as a good thing.
Show me where I said women voting was not a good thing.
Women today benefit from the battles fought in previous generations. You think "I did it on my own" and you did from today's perspective.
But you never would have been given a shot if women before you didn't prove they could exist in a mans world
