2006-11-27 17:01:25 · 12 answers · asked by hope 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I'm not completely sure. Maybe though it had something to do with the climate of the time. I'm not defending it or agreeing, just giving a "maybe" reason. Considering that the "family unit" was a little more defined and cookie cut in those days. The "one man, one vote" policy was not literal. The man was a representative of his family and at that time in history the head of the house. So his vote was the "family vote." It's possible (considering the climate at the time) that it was meant to be more of a "joint" vote rather than an individual vote. Just my two cents though. Who really knows.
2006-11-27 17:12:50 · answer #1 · answered by wldathrt77 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was commonly thought in the western world that women were not capable of making such decisions. Very few, if any, countries extended the vote to women before that time, and in fact, the USA's voter laws were broader than most.
Some of us noted that the women vote carried Bill Clinton to office in 1992 and 1996, and half-jokingly suggested that was a good reason for the 19th Amendment to be repealed.
2006-11-28 01:10:09 · answer #2 · answered by geek49203 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At no time in western society before the 20th century were women widely considered suitable participants in government. There were occasional ruling queens (when no king was available) and women who exercised considerable influence behind the scenes (Abigail Adams, Germaine De Stael), but ordinary women had little or no voice most of the time.
There was no better justification for this than "we have always done it this way." Science and Christianity were invoked (without merit in each case) to support the subordination of women from time to time. Similar arguments supported slavery, with equal lack of merit.
2006-11-28 01:45:11 · answer #3 · answered by Oregon Sage 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They took what the bible/Nature says to an extreme. Both of these say the wife should be in subjection to their husband support them. They took this too the point that the wife was not allowed to have her own view on matters. They supported their husbands vote. Women also really didn't talk about politics for a long time too.
2006-11-28 01:10:28 · answer #4 · answered by Cemos 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Basically, voting franchise was linked to ownership of property and women didnt own property.
2006-11-28 03:59:27 · answer #5 · answered by Jim T 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They were considered second-class citizens and not educated enough to vote.
2006-11-28 01:23:28 · answer #6 · answered by willow oak 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Women were not considered to be "persons" under the law.
2006-11-28 01:08:22 · answer #7 · answered by zenobia2525 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Women were considered "chattel" (property).
2006-11-28 01:36:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Who know's? why hasnt there been a woman president since then???
2006-11-28 01:04:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not really sure but it seems like that's when things started going downhill.
2006-11-28 01:09:17 · answer #10 · answered by chris B 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋