Jeannette Bickford, Class of 1918, Anti-Suffrage essay, November 13, 1914

MHC Archives

Jeannette Bickford, Class of 1918, Anti-Suffrage essay, November 13, 1914

Jeannette wrote “Reasons for the Opposition of the Further Extension of the Suffrage,” for her English I class. Because she has not been fully convinced by any of the pro-suffrage arguments she has heard, she explores the logic behind the anti-suffrage position. Anti-suffragists opposed women’s suffrage for various reasons, but Jeannette focuses on their arguments that there are more effective ways to change society than the vote, that “society can not be rid of its evils through legislation,” and the belief held by many “Antis” that “granting the suffrage to woman would mean a social revolution such as would cost the world much more than could possibly be gained from it.” Comments and corrections are written in pencil throughout the essay, presumably from Jeannette’s English professor. They also give an evaluation of the assignment as a whole: “a clear presentation of one side of the question.”

Jeannette Bickford

November 13, 1914

Paper, ink

English

Essay

case04_votes_011

As I have never heard a good speech for woman suffrage and have never studied the question carefully, I do not feel that I could argue in favor of it intelligently. Therefore I will set forth to the best of my ability the views of those who oppose this extension of the suffrage to women.

Both sides are working for the same end, but their means differ widely. The anti-suffragists, like those who want the suffrage extended, say that they are working for better states, and for better conditions of living. The suffragist would improve conditions by obtaining the right to vote and then by making new laws. The anti-suffragist would try to secure better conditions by improving the units of society and by educating the people.

Looking into the past, the anti-suffragist declares that women have not made any particularly good use of the suffrage rights which they have had; and where women have full suffrage right snow, conditions are not improved. Massachusetts women have had the right to vote on educational matters since 1879. Our anti-suffragist naturally does not mention any good which she has done there. The English militant suffragettes march about the streets with banners saying that they wish to serve, but they do not take the opportunity of serving their country by using their right to vote on questions of education, and poor-house regulations, and such things. In states where suffrage has been granted to women they have lost their intent or have failed to secure improved conditions by their vote. When suffrage was granted to the women of Chicago, only a comparatively small percent voted. In cities in California, bills for improved hygienic and educational conditions have been voted down with the women having a right to vote for them. From all this, the anti-suffragist concludes that the system does not, in practice, do what it is expected to accomplish. 

The suffragist claims to be working for the rights of the tax-paying woman, for the rights of the woman in industry, and for the improvement of the bad condition of society. The anti-suffragist says that no great help for the injustice and wrongs in these cases can come through the ballot. If women vote, the cost of elections will be much increased. Then taxes will be higher. The wages of the woman in industry are not equal to those of the man in suffrage states. Furthermore, the anti-suffragist argues that society cannot be rid of its evils through legislation. They contend that conditions will be improved in all these things, only when women use their influence for good and their efforts for the education of the people

The anti-suffragist again says that granting the suffrage to woman would mean a social revolution such as would cost the world much more than could possibly be gained from it. All the old social and political life would be changed with the women voting. Where full suffrage has been granted to women up to this time, the population is comparatively small. The big cities would present a much more difficult problem, if the change were made there. The suffragist claims to be working for the advancement of woman. The opposition says that woman under the present social regime has advanced as much as man who has had the ballot; so, what is the use of going to the trouble of changing our whole social and political scheme of life?

I have given briefly a few of the arguments which are used in opposing the extension of the suffrage to women. In short, the aim of those who take this stand seems to be to improve existing social conditions without changing the present political status of women. Time alone can tell us whether or not their arguments will have weight with the people.