Talk:Women's suffrage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] General discussion

Why is it that Utah was the second state to grant Women's sufferage? It was generally assumed at that time that Mormon men were authoritarian in nature, so why would this be the case? Does a brief explanation belong here, or somewhere else? tito2000

Can Kuwait be removed from list of countries not supporting women's suffrage due to their allowance now in the 2007 national election?

Someone started a change yesterday; I've added more today. In 2007, we can drop them from the list entirely. Somone put it on their "things to do" list! :-) Atlant 12:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Can someone clarify the apparent disconnect between 'The earliest country extending...' and the countries listed before Australia? What is the disqualification?

In UK, wasn't the age requirement different for men and women when women were first allowed to vote (age 30 or so)? -- Someone else 21:19 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Where is it called "female suffrage?" I have never heard of this phrase. Do people in England or Australia call it female sufferage? Slrubenstein

Where is it called "woman's suffrage?" I have never heard of this phrase. Do people in England or America call it woman's sufferage? Tannin
I don't know if "female suffrage" passes the google test or not. I get 4200 hits on that phrase, compared to 48300 for "women's suffrage". I agree that as long as female suffrage redirects to women's suffrage, which it currently does, we are fine.

women's (plural), not woman's. While women's suffrage is the most popular phrase online, but ~8% "female suffrage" is sufficient to call for a bolding in the intro, I suspect. Martin

Sorry. The "female suffrage" stub was there in the first place because someone had been looking for that phrase and, not finding it, had added a comment. I turned it into a stub without realising there was already an article under women's suffrage -- I should have known, because that's how I normally refer to it! Deb 23:15 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Women should have the right to vote. how would the men feel if it was the other way around

Wouldn't the list of countries be more illustrative in chronological order? --- Timo Honkasalo 14:46 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

I think so :) Martin

The Inter-Parliamentary Union, a highly respected, reliable and serious organization, established in 1889 and now working in close cooperation with the UN, clearly states that full women's suffrage was institued in Australia from 1962. From 1902, women's suffrage was subject to race, where by 'aboriginal natives were not allowed to vote. See also [1] -- Egil 14:52 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

What a load of silly nonsense: tell me, just exactly how were the voting rights of women different from the voting rights of men during the period 1902 - 1962? (Ans: none - they were exactly the same.)

Egil, that is one of the most absurd distinctions I ever heard! Tell me this also: how many women were allowed to vote in ... oh ... let's say Alabama ... in the 1950s? You want to make a point about race, that's fine with me. Do it in a page where it has some shred of relevance.

Oh, and you had better remove that 1962 date as well, because there are still all sorts of exceptions. For one thing, you cannot vote if you are serving a prison term. Seeing as there are some women in prison in Australia right now, then we had better say that we still don't have female sufferage.

And seeing the male prison population outnumbers the female one by something like 15 to 1, we don't have votes for men either. Tannin 16:04 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

In terms of years, I am referring respected sources, not making things up. Please study my sources carefully.
You call me words like "silly", "fool", "absurd", "nonsense". I will not call you words, you seem to manage that yourself by seeming you believe that the title of this article is White women's suffrage. How dare you compare the rights of the original inhabitants of Australia to those of criminals? (I did not know that serving prison time automatically lead one to loose ones right to vote, but perhaps that is the ways in Australia).
In the case USA, the case is not quite clear. The 15th Amendment did in fact mean there was a constitutional women's suffrage from 1920. But de facto women's suffrage in all states cannot really be claimed before 1965 with the Voting Rights Act.
In Australia, there were laws that explicitly took away the rights of men and women to vote due to race. That situation is exactly similar to that of South Africa, where true women's suffrage cannot be said to exist before 1994. Or do you mean to say that South Africa had women's suffrage from 1930? (Oh wait, was it only white women that mattered?)
-- Egil 16:53 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

You've got it arse-about again. According to the 1902 act (which I am not going to look up again right now because my cable link has gone belly up and I've dug out a 56k modem and brushed the dust off it to tide me over, which is painfully slow by comparison), the responsibility for allowing/not allowing the vote on the basis of race was assigned to the individual states. At the time, being Aboriginal was indeed very similar to being a criminal (only you didn't have to actually do anything, except be born). Aboriginal people were not really considered to be part of the nation or to be citizens: they were "too primitive" to understand civilised things like elections (or at least this was the more-or-less unquestioned assumption). It is more sensible to compare white Australia's interaction with the Aboriginal people with America's interaction with Native Americans than with African Americans. That parallel is fairly exact, although it didn't go as far as outright war - not, in my judgement, because the European colonists of Australia were any better than their opposite numbers in the US, but simply because there was no particular point to it: Europeans arrived in Australia 250-odd years after they started colonising North America: this meant that the technology gap was bigger, and because Europeans spread across the country faster, the impact of disease was more concentrated and the possibility of armed resistance even less.

Mate, in Australia in 1902 it was only white people who mattered. (Unless you were not white, in which case your opinion didn't count.) The provisions of the voting laws were not intended to deny Aboriginal people power, the intention was to be kind (in the worst of paternalistic ways, of course) by not imposing the requirement to vote on people who "could not understand it". Voting is compulsory in Australia, remember - you get fined if you don't show up at the polling booth, and in 1902 there were not a lot of polling booths in the Gibson Desert. In fact, there are none there to this day: they use mobile ones now, carried on trucks and in aircraft. Also, there were exceptions: in particular, Aboriginal people who had served the nation in the armed forces were entitled to vote. As I remember, the 1962 constitutional change referendum to give Aboriginal people the vote was carried by the largest majority any referendum in history. The original intention, though, was nothing to do with denying the power of the vote, that was an accidental by-product: in 1902, broadly speaking, it simply didn't occur to European people that there could be such as thing as Aboriginal people with the ability and the interest to be citizens, rather than simply "poor primitives" to be cared for in an off-hand sort of way and ignored so far as possible. Tannin 17:21 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Strange that you believe that the issue of human rights didn't occur to European people 1902? That issue was already well developed at that time. Ever heard of Rousseau? I suggest you make yourself familiar with his ideas; he lived in the 18th century. And what do you think the American Civil War was about (amomg other things)?
Or in other words, Australia had women's suffrage in 1902, but didn't have universal suffrage until 1962? Martin
That is a matter of definition. If we go for the definition of some women being sufficient, then South Africa is 1930, Portugal is 1931 etc. This I feel is quite misleading. If a full women's suffrage was not available, the nature of the restrictions should be noted. -- Egil 13:08 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
It has got nothing to do with gender, Egil. Accuracy is a fine and admirable quality, but absurd hair-splitting is just that: absurd hair-splitting. As a matter of detail, it also affected a very small number of people in population-relative terms, just a few percent, where in the South African example the proportions were reversed. By 1902, there were not many Australian Aborigines left alive; a generally accepted figure is 10% of the original population. Appropriation of land and deliberate violence played a part, but by far the main killers were smallpox, measles, influenza, chicken pox, and various other European nasties. There is debate about the specifics, but a broad consensus view is that around 90% of the population loss was due to disease. Again, the parallel to the fate of Native Americans is close. If we are going to take the view that it must be "all women", then (as I commented above) there is still no female sufferage in Australia, nor is there male sufferage. (I imagine that an identical situation obtains in many (probably most) other countries around the world.) Tannin 13:46 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Would you both agree that the current notation:


is misleading? To the casual reader, it suggests that women were treated differently to men until 1962. If Egil wants to continue to split hairs, he'd better do it in a clearer, more accurate way. If Egil doesn't do it I will, when I have time. I suggest finding out the nature of the exception in each of the five cases, and writing something like:

-- Tim Starling 14:25 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

In broad, I agree. In detail, I don't think this is really the place to discuss matters of race at all. However, the opening few paragraphs should say something to the effect that "this is about voting and gender, but other matters besides gender are important too and they are discussed at ABC and XYZ". At the end of the entry, there should be a "see also" that leads to the entries that cover the many other ways that:
  • (a) Voting rights have been granted or denied to people. Race and economic class are the two obvious front-runners (one imagines that these are covered in some depth here already, if they are not then this ought to be rectified) but there are doubtless others as well.
  • (b) Other rights (i.e., not to do with voting) have been granted or denied on the basis of gender. Property rights and inheritance rights are examples.
In summary, this topic sits at the intersection of gender and political rights, and the signposts should lead off in both directions. (BTW, I'm knee-deep in fauna entries at present, but I'll try to remember to take a longer look at these topics at some stage, maybe help out here and there.) Tannin
I'm with Tim & Tannin on this. Egil, it's simple set theory. "All women can vote" and "no blacks can vote" means "black women can't vote". if you really want to find out whether it was women's suffrage, you'd have to check the actual laws that were passed and see how they worded it: "all white women", or just "all women" and let the apartheid laws take precedence -- Tarquin 15:34 May 5, 2003 (UTC) (PS -- I can see that it would be interesting to know which way it was done at the time -- how they unravelled / justified the inconsistencies!)
Which would make 3:1, doesn't it. With Tim's addition (finding why the exceptions is a rather interesting and enlightening exercise), that could work for me. -- Egil 16:09 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I thought Kuwaiti women were given the right to vote and stand for office in 1999. Could somebody please verify this and edit accordingly?

[edit] South Africa 1930

Contray to what's said above, here there was a gender divide maintained. At this time in the Cape province, black and coloured men who owned sufficient property qualified for the franchise. In 1930 only white women were enfranchised on the same basis as white men; black and coloured women who owned property did not get the vote on the same basis as black and coloured men. The reason was that the non-white voters tended to support the South African Party and the Nationalist Party government wanted to water this down by increasing the number of white voters on the role.

I think this is very clearly not a case of the franchise being completely non-gender specific and have marked it as such. However I'm not sure when the non-whites in the Cape were completely disenfranchised - which would effectively mark total gender equality in the franchise by default. Timrollpickering 21:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Coloureds says "the political rights of Coloureds varied by location and over time ...(they) lost their votes largely in the 1950s, with the last municipal votes being removed in 1972." The date may be complicated because it involved an entrenched clause and a Supreme Court dispute. --Henrygb 19:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

24.126.89.154 08:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone change "In 1869 the Wyoming Territory in the United States became the first modern polity " to "In 1869 the Wyoming Territory, the first modern polity in the United States became.." ? It is a little less broad and sweeping of a statement. 24.126.89.154 08:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oman

Wasn't suffrage to all granted in 2003? Dainamo


[edit] Opening

The international movement for women's suffrage, led by suffragists (commonly called suffragettes), was a social, economic and political reform movement aimed at extending the suffrage (i.e. the right to vote) to women, advocating equal suffrage (abolition of graded votes) rather than universal suffrage (abolition of discrimination due to, for instance, race), which was considered too radical. A catch phrase was "one man, one vote!"'

Surely "one man, one vote" refers to calls for universal suffrage (either for all men or for all) and the demands were actually for the gender distinction to be abolished - in the UK at least there wasn't universal male suffrage until 1918, with a strong property/rate franchise still in existance (and continuing for susbequent decades at local government level). Also would "one man, one vote" really have been used in calls for female enfranchisement?

I find the opening rather confusing, in the UK a distinction is made between suffragist and suffragette whilst here it implies there is no difference. The point about eual suffrage v. universal suffrage is probably more relevent for America than the UK, where I don't think it was such an issue. The catch phrase I'm completely lost about, I suspect again it's an American thing. If I get some time I'll try to reword this. -- Joolz 13:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kuwait and more.

With the news of Kuwait allowing women to vote do you think we should / could put together a table of what countries gave women the vote when (and to what extent)? gren 21:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

To me, that sounds like a great idea! Be bold!
Atlant 23:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orphan article about suffrage in South Carolina

I happened upon Women's suffrage in South Carolina (originally South Carolina Woman Suffrage) and moved it to its current location, but I'm not sure what to do with it. It looks like copyvio, but random Google searches say otherwise. It looks too specific for Wikipedia, but it's good information. I'm debating whether to put wikify, merge, copyvio, and/or vfd tags on it. Nifboy 05:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ======================================

I think this is a good article and provides some good specifics, at least relating to the suffrage movement overall in the Southern states, where resistance was often at its highest.

I don't like the following though:

"One of these arguments is that the women of South Carolina still believed in the ideal of the "Southern Lady." This ideal encouraged women to be subservient to their husbands and to take pride in their place in the home as mother and homemaker."

I think the idea of women becoming anything other than "mothers" and "homemakers" (which many suffragettes could afford somebody else to take care of "homemaking") was highly unheard of anywhere, and not just in South Carolina, at the time. The East coast states were all the most resistant to women's suffrage. Getting rid of "demon rum" was part of the movement for women's rights (never mind the syringes they were shooting up with), and even in South Carolina, it was harder to get between men and their booze.

Anyway, don't think you can pinpoint anything about South Carolina specifically, other than a resistance to change. I'm a proud native, but SC is notorious for that - I wish that wasn't the case, but it is. SC will change and adjust if it is forced to, but it will resist it as much as possible. I don't want to go on and on but that's what South Carolina is all about. I remember my 8th grade SC history textbook ('89), where the antebellum period was nearly twice as big as what has happened here since 1865. Yet, I don't know why, but I am a proud sandlapper, despite the anachronism that we are... I guess its sort of like being proud of an underdog, except we've put ourselves there and we aren't anywhere near shining shoes like Underdog did

[edit] United Kingdom

I am begining on a project to write about The Votes for Women campain in the United Kingdom. Please could you indicate in your title that this page is dedicated to the movements in the USA? Thanks. Levi_allemany 1945 GMT 26/09/05

[edit] New Zealand

New Zealand wasn't even a "country" when this claims it became the first country to adopt universal suffrage. It was a colony until 1907.

[edit] Deatails of women sufrage DURING THE 19TH AMENDMENT

[edit] Finnish claims

This was published by the Finnish government. It claims that "In 1906, Finnish women were the first women in Europe to receive universal and equal franchise, and the first women in the world to become eligible for parliamentary elections.".

Is this correct? Have they not heard of NZ? As pointed out above, NZ was still a colony when it granted universal suffrage in 1893, but by the same token Finland was still a duchy of Russia until (?) 1917. JackofOz 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The claim about Finish women becoming the first in Europe to gain suffrage (without caveat) may be true, but the latter is false. The right to stand for election (right to political candidacy) was granted to women first in South Australia in 1894. What I believe this Finish claim derives from, though I'm not certain, is that it may have been in Finland that women were first successfully elected to parliament (in 1906). --cj | talk 14:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on the Spanish version of the page

Although slightly out of date, it has a huge list of the countries in order of their changing their laws, etc. If someone wants to import that (It'll take alot of plodding), it's there. I may get to it someday if noone else does. 68.39.174.238 03:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brunei

Considering that the sultan of Brunei rules by decree, does anyone have the vote in that country? Durova 02:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't Arab women get the right to vote in the US in 1920?

I think the sentence claiming that the first country to give Arab women the right to vote being Israel in 1948 is clearly factually incorrect. For example in the US Arab women got the right to vote in 1920; and there were some 10s of thousands of Arabs living in the US at the time.--jackbrown 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand merging and reforms!

Hello to everyone, -- of course you can see all the manifold changes for yourselves. I have merged the following independent articles here: History of women's suffrage in the United States, Women's suffrage in South Carolina, Women's suffrage (United Kingdom), Suffragette, and Anti-suffragism. Note that I have made few changes and reforms into those article themselves so as to fit in the whole. Most of these changes are quite minor. But still, this article now needs much work, particularly the In the United States section. Anyway, soon, this article could be nominated as a feature article.
I noticed that the other articles that are now merged here were quite small, and I thought it was a good idea to merge them here as they would make this article a better one, since this article too, was quite stubby. Yes, the result is a relatively long article, but I assume that after more clean-up editing, especially in the "In the United States" section, and perhaps other sections too, it will be shortened a little. However, if further editing came up with more data, perhaps then we could separate one section into an independent article; the only section qualified to stand by itself independently right now is that titled "In the United Kingdom". However, to spare too much potential reverting, I have not yet removed the other articles, until support or consensus has been given to the current modification. Thank you, __ Maysara 14:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for updating the suffrage by country list. I think that should be added to the Women's rights article. Felixboy 17:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello there, -- "Women's Rights" article is probably concerned with a lot more general and varied topics and issues, of which Suffrage is only one.
There is no need to add the whole list there too;
perhaps, adding a little link there would do.
For when so "dense", readers cannot go through!
 :-) Best, __ Maysara 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your enthusiasm, but I think this article has some way to go before it stands of chance of becoming a featured article. Featured status is not just about length, but also about addressing a topic comprehensively, but concisely, with references. The standards at Featured article candidates are quite high - see the criteria.
I am not convinced that it is sensible to merge all of the other artices here - the essence of writing in Summary style (which is one of the criteria) is have a shorter, more general overview article, which links to other "main articles" with a narrower focus that address sub-topics in more detail. So, for example, this article should do a general overview of women's sufferage, including a section on women's sufferage in the UK, with a link to a separate article that deals with the UK in more detail. That is to say, the parts that have been copied here need to be radically shortened if they are to stay. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello there, ALoan -- I totally agree with you, and actually, I just hope that what you said will be the case in the near future. But if you look up those other articles right now, including that here, you will find that non of them truly "address sub-topics in more detail." they are stubs, in fact, with no stub template - I think. I also believe that it is more proper, in such occasions, to derive those articles that "address sub-topics in more detail" and to appoint a separate and independent pages for them, as they grow fuller within the more general article, not before that. The reason I believe so is, having so many stubs and scrawny articles that relatively address the same topic, more or less, is more uncontextual than having all these little articles gathered in an embracing whole. They -those many little articles- make more sense in such setup. Also, I think that by doing what I just did here, I have managed to turn "Women's suffrage" from, generally and relatively, a bad article, into a very good one (said humbly and objectively! Though not so well referenced, I just trust the editors who added all these information). Although, as you say, it is yet to meet with the higher standards and criteria of Wikipedia, it is still quite in good shape as a whole, in my personal openion. I should here refer again to the contextuality issue. I think that is better than before. But yes, as I said earlier, section "In the United Kingdom" could very soon move into an independent article, I certainly hope so. But someone simply must do some work on it; it is currently poor. If you looked up the current independent article that is Women's suffrage (United Kingdom) and which has been merged into a section here, you will find no references at all. This problem does not vanish as it is merged here, but at least, there is thus "less weakness" all-in-all.
Again, I assume that giving much time to that article in its current form, will lead to the better shape you want for: Independent articles will eventually be derived from it, in a more strong and encyclopedic form than that they currently are. But having them scattered the way they are now, or would be, I think might at least hinder or retards the process of development and improvement. At the same time, it avoids the possibility of having a relatively good article (I refer to that here now).
As for the featured status issue, I think that it might be featured when shortened and not lengthened further. But yes, you're right, let's keep that issue for sometime, indeed, much work is needed for this article right now. (I think I just perhaps liked the images so much!)
What do you think? Consider! Thank you, __ Maysara 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Aloan. I do not see the rationale for merging those articles here and then spliting some (such as the UK article) off again. The UK shouldn't have a stand alone article unless other countries do. However, U.S. states should be combined in a U.S. article. The article as it is right now is not well enough written and is way too long. It would be nice to discuss major actions such as this merge before they happen. Sunray 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sunray, I will even put it like this:
(1) I did provide a rational for "merging those articles here and then spliting some (such as the UK article) off again." Or is it that by "I do not see" you mean that you do not agree. However, for the rational, please see above, my reply to ALoan. Or, if you already did, I hope you may tell us why you "can't see" (i.e. agree with) the rational.
(2) You say "The UK shouldn't have a stand alone article unless other countries do." I just wonder, WHY NOT?! It is quite a Wiki in here!
(3) You say "U.S. states should be combined in a U.S. article." Well, that does not quite conform to the standards and criteria of Wikipedia, in fact. ALoan was just talking about this: to "have a shorter, more general overview article, which links to other "main articles" with a narrower focus that address sub-topics in more detail." In the end, it all depends on the quality of all those presumed articles.
(4) The article right now is not well enough written, you're absolutely correct - then?! Now I, too, can't see, the relevance of this to our discussion here! Please elaborate. However, the article is not way too long. It is a little long, yes, but that too may change, we hope.
(5) Finally, "major actions" have always been the deeds of great and able personalities; not anyone can perpetrate major actions! Thus, not anyone can conceptualise, major actions. Well, "this merge", according to me, is among the slightest of all actions! However, never before has a major action "happened" by means of discussion and by being nice! These little and dainty attitudes, indeed belong to the "slightest of all actions", faraway from major actions and from where they occur - they simply negate the "happenning" of the action, if it should continue to be, major. Thus, they shall never occur before it happens, and perhaps they shan't occur at all, unless with the slightest of actions; thus, you're right!
In other words: It was going to be very difficult to convey how the merge, "this merge", will be, by means of discussion (and I presume that this is quite evident already). I myself did not know how was it going to be, and, by the way, "this merge" was not merely a blind merge of articles. It took hours so that I may fit them all together. If you even try to check this fact, it will take you hours as well, going back and forth, here and there, between all the articles. So, what I did so far is already quite NICE, regardless of whether you agree or not. What is truly not nice is, when you come to me with your conceptions about the quality and nature of "major actions" and, very conclusively say: "Hey, you know you shouldn't have done what you did!" Especially that I haven't really merged the articles yet; the original separate articles are still there, and earlier versions of this article are going no where. So how can I be more nice?! I seriously disagree with your protective and restrictive attitudes in Wikipedia, as far as I can see here (and such attitudes are becoming, somehow, more and more frequent). Other editors should be encouraged to edit rather than "be careful, be nice, discuss first, etc." It is a WIKI, and where one finds serious and constructive contributions, one does not debate their appropriateness, one debates there value and usefulness (which, honestly, you haven't even done in your comment!). There is no such thing as "major actions" here; you either can do things, or can do them not. I will not be frustrated at all if agreement does not ensue for the current modification. But I will certainly get frustrated and annoyed, when someone comes to me saying that I shouldn't even have done it, because it was n o t - n i c e . __ Maysara 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have two brief points:

1) I said I agreed with Aloan. You ask what that means. Here's what he said:

I am not convinced that it is sensible to merge all of the other artices here - the essence of writing in Summary style (which is one of the criteria) is have a shorter, more general overview article, which links to other "main articles" with a narrower focus that address sub-topics in more detail...

What don't you understand about that?

2) "Be Bold" does not mean conduct a "grand merge" for an article that has been around for some time (whatever its faults) without discussing it first on the talk page. Sunray 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaining to railings

The suffragette bit claims that suffragettes chained themselves to railings. Now, in the UK I know this to be a myth, it genuinely didn't happen, and more postboxes had acid poured in them than were set alight. Can somebody who knows about the American movement comment on whether this was the case in America? If not then I could quite easily ammend some of the protesting methods. Levi_allemany

Myth? Well, the BBC are reporting it as fact.
1908 On 17 January a handful of suffragettes chain themselves to the railings of 10 Downing Street. The WSPU also introduce their stone-throwing campaign. Emmeline Pankhurst is imprisoned for the first time.[2]
Perhaps it was not as common as is generally thought, but are you saying that it never happened? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stand for election

What does it mean to "stand for election"?? Georgia guy 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would defind to "stand for election" as "to place one's name before the voters for consideration or to actively campaign for a political position". Other definitions, anyone? WBardwin 01:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds about right 10:37, october 31, 2006

[edit] Australia, South Australia etc

A lot of people are missing the point here that, when countries like Australia and some others (whether at state or federal level) gave women the vote, they were essentially only giving *white immigratns* the vote. This defies then definition of "universal suffrage" as it was anythign but universal, and only selective.

Australia only introduced universal suffrage late in the 20th century less than 50 years ago. I come from New zealand, while I am not an expert on the dubject what we are taught there at school was New zealand was the first "country" as such to unrestricted voting rights across to the entire population, regardless of gender ro race.

While not technically a country at the time, you could still argue "technically" it is not its own country in it's own right at the moment... as the head of state is still british. Although you may be right to point that out, it's only a technicality.. We still had basically unreserved right to decide our own affairs. We still have that right, although the British Crown *still* has the right to dismiss parliament in New zealand - so it entirely depends on what your criteria is to meet to define yourself as a country (which differs between experts)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.215.242 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 June 2006.

New Zealand is an independent country, and has been by any definition since the passing of the Statute of Westminster. In 1894, South Australia did grant universal suffrage: men and women of all races and classes could vote in general elections. However, voting for the South Australian Legislative Council did remain restricted until 1973.--cj | talk 05:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lynchers produced fear

I placed the [citation needed] entry tag onto the United States portion of the page because the colored women were terrified of being lynched in 1913. They were not politically active. Whatever occurred involved actions between white men and white women. The statement about "African American women" is bunkum.Superslum 14:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What's "bunkum" is the slightly bizarre assertion that the KKK was all-powerful in 1913... Churchh 22:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add individual U.S. territories/states to timeline

Maybe we should add the dates when women were allowed to vote in individual U.S. jurisdictions to the nineteenth-century part of the timeline (though at the beginning, these were mainly territories, and women didn't have the right to vote for the national congress and the president until such territories were admitted as states). Also, the first U.S. congresswoman was elected in 1916. Churchh 08:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What about including South Australia as mentioned in the article? Subdivisions of other countries where they have distinct dates have been listed separately, like the constuituent republics of the USSR and of Yugoslavia. Also, should countries which have had their names changed be listed under their name as at the date mentioned, with their current name in parentheses? For example, Myanmar, a number of African countries, and in particular the reference to the F.Y.R of Macedonia seems a little anachronistic when Yugoslavia was well and truly functioning in 1946 - hardly "former"! - Pedrocelli

[edit] Man Show

Is the man show information really that important? Futhermore, I am 99% sure that the ending womens suffrage episode was released way before 2004 (I think it is probably from 2000 or 2001 at the latest). Flyerhell 07:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism or valid edit on December 9?

I don't know if this edit, made on December 9, is a valid edit or vandalism. Anchoress 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What were the cons of women's rights?

I've researched it many times, but there doesn't seem to be anything on what was tragic about it. Getting in trouble with the law from illegal strikes and such, losing time, and hunger from the hunger strikes were bad about it. That's all I could come up with. Does anyone have any ideas on how it could come off as a bad thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.97.231 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/m/Talk%7EWomen%27s_suffrage_da52.html"