Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Try Catharine Beecher or other anti-suffragists. To sum up, she considered the lack of women's suffrage a feature. Just like the legislature is separate from the administration and the courts, so too the power of the ballot box should be restricted to a subset of the society.
Parties and voters are shaped by partisanship. If party A supports restrictions on smoking, then party B will oppose restrictions on smoking, just because it's the opposite position. Voters that love smoking will gradually adopt other positions of party B. Both parties will naturally drift further apart on the issue, one trying to ban smoking, one trying to get rid of all restrictions.
When women can't vote, this doesn't mean they aren't involved in politics. They can influence their men both individually and in organized groups, and because they aren't influenced by partisanship, they form a massive moderating influence that counteracts the forces that push the parties apart. "I don't care if you smoke on the porch or in your study, but I don't like when you smoke in the dining room or in the bedroom" is something the wives of both party A supporters and party B supported can say.
If I am not mistaken, anti-suffragists considered the prohibition, its failure and subsequent repeal a direct consequence of universal suffrage.
More options
Context Copy link