You did not exhaust the list of women's nonentity, but pretty good: I merely add that it wasn't just Black women who "still could not vote," it was anybody without a penis. 1920, for heaven's sake. When they said "all MEN are created equal," man, that was the reality. 1920.
You did not exhaust the list of women's nonentity, but pretty good: I merely add that it wasn't just Black women who "still could not vote," it was anybody without a penis. 1920, for heaven's sake. When they said "all MEN are created equal," man, that was the reality. 1920.
I did not mean to imply that Black women could vote before white women. I assumed that women’s suffrage meant all women.
The disease of white supremacy played a role in Black and white women working together to achieve a common goal. Divide and conquer is the strategy of oppression and often keeps those with common interests apart. The MAGA movement is more than just old white males.
I actually got that, but couldn't resist clarifying! Anyway, what a point you make now! By coincidence, I happen to have read-only a month before Unjust Kacsmaryk's hate-ruling, an amazing serious scholarly history book about EVERYTHING going on just prior to the Civil War; "Other Powers" by Barbara Goldsmith, which included the whole Anthony Comstock horror show we now revisit. But also includes an account of a classic triumph of "divide and conquer." The suffragettes had been stalwart allies of the abolitionists; Susan B. acquainted with and counted Frederick Douglass a friend. But Congress was poised to pass the franchise for male ex-slaves. Anthony begged Douglass to hold out for the vote for women, as well, but he took half a loaf. Like you say: divide and conquer.
Sometimes half-a-loaf is better than nothing depending on the issue. The problem is whether the other half is ever acquired and if so how long it takes. When a group consists of disparate groups, eg. men and women, and only one gets the prize, the other can’t help but feel resentment. In such cases where this is a possibility, prior agreement must be established on whether to take an “all or nothing” position or a half-loaf. What proves to be successful becomes clear in hindsight, but is gut wrenching in the present
Now you remind me of a saying of a college dorm-mate, a nuclear physicist with a Bronx sense of humor: she used to say, "That's so profound it's ob-scyou-ah." (obscure) Definitely the "prior agreement" between the suffragettes and Fred. Douglass was, we are on the same side. The women did not fail. Was it "nothing" that they waited FIFTY YEARS? The more I re-read your post, the less sense it makes. It is a problem to today, with suspended ratification of the ERA,(Only Mormon MEN get the prize. Male centered religion held the fort against the ERA. "From Housewife to Heretic," Sonia Johnson.) What is your idea of what lagging half of the loaf women are to settle for "resentment" now!?
I don’t think there is a one size fits all answer. It may take only a few women state legislators to provide the margin necessary for passage of the ERA. Remember the 19th amendment was ratified by a single vote cast by a young male legislator at his mother’s behest to “do the right thing”.
Usually a structural change must precede a revolutionary change. Many structural changes are the result of serendipitous events unforeseen until they happened. That’s why life is so unpredictable. Just consider how past week has unfolded.
Not everything comes out as the box already assembled. In reality most things we deal with are not only unassembled, but also lacking instructions. As the Moody Blues sang
You did not exhaust the list of women's nonentity, but pretty good: I merely add that it wasn't just Black women who "still could not vote," it was anybody without a penis. 1920, for heaven's sake. When they said "all MEN are created equal," man, that was the reality. 1920.
I did not mean to imply that Black women could vote before white women. I assumed that women’s suffrage meant all women.
The disease of white supremacy played a role in Black and white women working together to achieve a common goal. Divide and conquer is the strategy of oppression and often keeps those with common interests apart. The MAGA movement is more than just old white males.
I actually got that, but couldn't resist clarifying! Anyway, what a point you make now! By coincidence, I happen to have read-only a month before Unjust Kacsmaryk's hate-ruling, an amazing serious scholarly history book about EVERYTHING going on just prior to the Civil War; "Other Powers" by Barbara Goldsmith, which included the whole Anthony Comstock horror show we now revisit. But also includes an account of a classic triumph of "divide and conquer." The suffragettes had been stalwart allies of the abolitionists; Susan B. acquainted with and counted Frederick Douglass a friend. But Congress was poised to pass the franchise for male ex-slaves. Anthony begged Douglass to hold out for the vote for women, as well, but he took half a loaf. Like you say: divide and conquer.
Sometimes half-a-loaf is better than nothing depending on the issue. The problem is whether the other half is ever acquired and if so how long it takes. When a group consists of disparate groups, eg. men and women, and only one gets the prize, the other can’t help but feel resentment. In such cases where this is a possibility, prior agreement must be established on whether to take an “all or nothing” position or a half-loaf. What proves to be successful becomes clear in hindsight, but is gut wrenching in the present
Now you remind me of a saying of a college dorm-mate, a nuclear physicist with a Bronx sense of humor: she used to say, "That's so profound it's ob-scyou-ah." (obscure) Definitely the "prior agreement" between the suffragettes and Fred. Douglass was, we are on the same side. The women did not fail. Was it "nothing" that they waited FIFTY YEARS? The more I re-read your post, the less sense it makes. It is a problem to today, with suspended ratification of the ERA,(Only Mormon MEN get the prize. Male centered religion held the fort against the ERA. "From Housewife to Heretic," Sonia Johnson.) What is your idea of what lagging half of the loaf women are to settle for "resentment" now!?
I don’t think there is a one size fits all answer. It may take only a few women state legislators to provide the margin necessary for passage of the ERA. Remember the 19th amendment was ratified by a single vote cast by a young male legislator at his mother’s behest to “do the right thing”.
Usually a structural change must precede a revolutionary change. Many structural changes are the result of serendipitous events unforeseen until they happened. That’s why life is so unpredictable. Just consider how past week has unfolded.
Not everything comes out as the box already assembled. In reality most things we deal with are not only unassembled, but also lacking instructions. As the Moody Blues sang
“Isn’t life strange?”