Difference between revisions of "328--Week 6 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
In "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" it is mentioned that after the Senate and President remained silent on the issue of women's suffrage they announced their intention to hold a (peaceful) demonstration yet, when President Wilson heard this, he immediately said he would accept and talk to a delegation of women. I was wondering if he decided to talk to the women because he was afraid that they would meet together and gain support instead of quieting down if the bill didn't pass? And if this was his hope, how could he have expected the women who wanted the vote so badly to simply back down? In other words, did he talk with them with the hope of preventing the very demonstration that they had despite (or maybe because) of this meeting?- Elizabeth Frank | In "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" it is mentioned that after the Senate and President remained silent on the issue of women's suffrage they announced their intention to hold a (peaceful) demonstration yet, when President Wilson heard this, he immediately said he would accept and talk to a delegation of women. I was wondering if he decided to talk to the women because he was afraid that they would meet together and gain support instead of quieting down if the bill didn't pass? And if this was his hope, how could he have expected the women who wanted the vote so badly to simply back down? In other words, did he talk with them with the hope of preventing the very demonstration that they had despite (or maybe because) of this meeting?- Elizabeth Frank | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yet again I found the readings in Modern American Women absolutely fascinating! I enjoyed reading how many different ways the suffrage movement was promoted and with what ideas, as well with ideas that the anti-suffragists would use (although that came through a satire). Perhaps one of my favorites of these readings was the first one, "A Western Suffragist Talks to her Eastern Sisters" by Abigail Scott Duniway. It said in the introduction that the East coast suffragists saw her as more radical than they wished to be but I don't understand what was so radical about the ideas expressed in the piece we read (this may simply be due to the time period difference). I would have thought that her arguments that the movement was not a war between the genders but a movement for interdependence and that women did not want to remove men from their rights or limit them, but simply wanted to gain the ability to chose their own rights would have been comforting to those men who felt that the movement was a threat to their power. The "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" as also very interesting, at the same time irritating because I am aware that there were women who did actually hold these beliefs. However I do wonder if they would have phrased them in this way or it the arguments were exaggerated in this piece due to its satirical nature. Lastly, I also found the rules contained in "Front Door Lobbying' for Suffrage' by Maud Wood Park to be extremely interesting because it demonstrates the desire of women to gain suffrage while still being viewed as lady-like and proper. I found every single one of these readings interesting but it was those three that stood out to me the most.-Elizabeth Frank | ||
