yeah true, but the men did not stone them to death here either
they where still treated better here than over there {east, west}
2007-10-04 04:15:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
And yet, in 1787 while the form grow to be written, there grow to be plenty greater freedom interior of america than in the different usa in the international. on the time, balloting grow to be heavily limited in England and France nevertheless had a monarchy. Your question shows how good the form of america is. The amending technique has allowed the form to get replaced without basically changing the form or destroying it. the place because of the fact america has stepped forward and grown improved, France has long previous by using 5 republics and the united kingdom nevertheless has no formal shape. BTW. No usa had suffrage for women human beings till the 20 th century, with few permitting women human beings to vote formerly america ratified the nineteenth modification.
2016-10-21 00:40:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
hey Abdul. 1920. When we get it right we like to brag about it. Just because cars weren't invented until late 19th century doesn't mean we don't think they're useful now. truth is, only white (or nearly white) landowners could vote when "all men are created equal" was written. That's because it was felt that only those with stake in country (real estate, that is) should have a say in running it. The direct vote for President wasn't always so, either.
Now that the 19th amendment gave females the right to vote (after they got out of the kitchens, naturally), look at the string of diminished characters we've had as President since then...
Anyway, we know a good thing and realized the errors of our ways...isn;t it right of us to want to see that others don't wait as long to correct the SAME mistake? Wouldn't you stop a friend from crossing in front of a speeding car? (especially if you were hit last week yourself?)
2007-10-04 04:21:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Goethe's Ghostwriter 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Several States had women's suffrage before the Constitution was amended in 1920. Wyoming, for example, enfranchised women from its inception.
But why the invective. Should women participate in the democratic process in any country. Should every country be democratic, whether in the American sense, or the European sense, or the Japanese sense?
If that is true, then when people make, or made the change, is quite irrelevant. Nor is there anything particularly hypocritical about pointing that out. Moreover, if one accepts that it is a "right" (whatever that is) independent of governments, then women always possessed it.
HTH
Charles
2007-10-04 04:20:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Charles 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
An excellent point. Hypocrisy is rampant on this planet - and has been for a very long time.
Also, note that Pakistan (as an example) is a Muslim country that has had a female prime minister in Benazir Bhutto. The US... still waiting.
Edit: Agree, though, with Sansfear and others above me. The US had taken relatively rapid steps in civil rights in general between the 20's and the 60's. I'm no historian but this was a time of broader social change brought about by three major wars, I believe.
2007-10-04 04:18:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Other territories and states granted women the right to vote in the late 19th and early 20th century, but universal women's suffrage did not come until the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1920.
2007-10-04 04:15:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Justsyd 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good point.
But just because it social change happened recently doesn't mean it is not valid.
I like your point about the time it takes for change to happen. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to point out cultural behaviors as backwards, when we were in the same boat 200 years ago.
We are lucky to live in an educated, progressive society, and should try our best to enable the rest of mankind to appreciate the benefits of science for all of our safety.
Many Americans think that they are blessed by God, rather than realizing that Science is the real reason for social enlightenment in the western world. If it wasn't for advances in medicine, biology, technology etc.. we would still believe that there was a God controlling disease and inflicting pain and suffering on non believers, and we wouldn't have progressed socially.
"Backwards" societies all rely on religion primarily for belief. It is our duty to mankind to help them out of that mistake, and to help humans in our own countries out of the damaging religious belief structures.
2007-10-04 04:16:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
So you're saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Or are you saying that the 'enlightened' people of today aren't enlightened because back in 1919, women didn't have universal suffrage? That doesn't make much sense either. That's like saying I don't know how to use a computer because my great-grandfather didn't have one.
Just because our ancestors were unenlightened jerks, doesn't mean that we should keep that tradition, or not try to convince other nations that they should be more democratic.
2007-10-04 04:21:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It was and is a work in progress. I think New Zealand actually beat the US in allowing women to vote earlier.
The history doesn't matter except as a guide for what to do and not to do. The important thing is to continue to work for human rights.
2007-10-04 04:16:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Pirate AM™ 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I heard this point before. I think it's 140 years after the revolution when women in America were able to vote!
2007-10-04 04:22:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Investor 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
In the US, women won the right to vote about 20 years after women in Canada.
Oh and it's spelled "criticize" for the record. The spell check function is free you know...
2007-10-04 04:15:05
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋