Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your original mention of women's rights. Except that it didn't happen as you seem to think it did. Well-educated, rural (yes, you can be both!) women began the movement; men in the Western territories were the first to grant women the right to vote, long before "America at large" insisted upon it.
Again, you're the one that mentioned women's rights. If you want to limit your arguments to modern times, you'd best define the parameters at the outset, instead of moving the goalposts whenever you're proven wrong.
Exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay
Again, since apparently you missed my explanation to Katiana, I brought it up in the context of MODERN trends. I also gave a parallel to illustrate the point- I brought up the Democratic vote TOO, but it was in the context of MODERN trends, as Democrats stood for completely different things if you go far back into history, they stood against social rights while Republicans stood for social rights. Of course that has changed in modern American politics as we all know, and that's the point. So regardless my having brought up THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE, my point pertaining to modern trends means that what the Democratic vote was like in 1890 is irrelevant to my point. And it isn't relevant just because you might say that I was the one to bring up the Democratic vote. Likewise my having brought up women's rights in the context of modern political trends makes bringing up what it was like in 1890 irrelevant to my point.
So if I say the well established trend for many years is that so-and-so votes Democrat, you coming back with who voted Democrat in 1890 is interesting information, but not relevant to the point I was making. Likewise my having used women's rights to make a point about current trends for many years makes who initiated the women's rights movement in the 1890s irrelevant to the point I was making.
Again, interesting information but not relevant to the point I was making. I'm talking about trends that can be applied to states in the United States in a national context. You are bringing up information about BEFORE many states even existed, BEFORE there was that common national fabric, and is just as irrelevant to my point as what kinds of people voted Democratic at that time is irrelevant to my point about who votes Democratic now and has for the past several decades.
If you want to talk about modern times, why did you bring up women's suffrage? Women have had the vote nationwide since 1920!
Another example of this rural social tail-dragging is gay rights. Right now America at large is telling rural America (because urban America already has their ear) to give gays equal rights as heterosexuals. And it doesn't matter if the first gay person to ever push for equal rights did so in a rural community or not- it is STILL the more populated areas which is leading the charge in gay rights and the more rural areas which are strongly against it. Another example proving that neither origin nor exceptions negate the overriding trend. And that trend is rural America dragging up the rear on social rights nationally and that being reflected in rural America's tendency to vote red nationally, and by contrast urban America leading the charge on social rights nationally and that being reflected in urban America's tendency to vote blue nationally.
Another example of this rural social tail-dragging is gay rights. Right now America at large is telling rural America (because urban America already has their ear) to give gays equal rights as heterosexuals. And it doesn't matter if the first gay person to ever push for equal rights did so in a rural community or not- it is STILL the more populated areas which is leading the charge in gay rights and the more rural areas which are strongly against it. Another example proving that neither origin nor exceptions negate the overriding trend. And that trend is rural America dragging up the rear on social rights nationally and that being reflected in rural America's tendency to vote red nationally, and by contrast urban America leading the charge on social rights nationally and that being reflected in urban America's tendency to vote blue nationally.
You are mostly right - but I will say Iowa was one of the earliest states to even entertain the idea of gays marrying.
If you want to talk about modern times, why did you bring up women's suffrage?
Because attitudes TOWARDS a "woman's place" (which women's suffrage is one aspect) did not POOF and vanish as soon as the first territory passed it or the first state passed it or it was added to the constitution. Any more than attitudes towards school integration changed as soon as civil rights legislation made it the law. Any more than interracial marriage being made legal has evaporated all negative social attitudes TOWARDS interracial marriage. Even with that category, urban America has led the charge in acceptance of interracial marriage, with rural America once again dragging up the rear. And that is true regardless of WHEN interracial marriage was made legal for any particular state or which state was the first one to legalize it.
Notice I also mentioned a "woman's place" and equal pay for equal work as well. My point is about ATTITUDES of urban versus rural people and how that gets reflected politically. And attitudes are not eliminated by promulgation of law. Attitudes in a social context are changed for the better by having personal life experiences related to that social progression. So no matter where or when women's sufferage was promulgated into law, attitudes towards whether women should vote or whether women should work or whether women should get equal pay when they work have nonetheless followed the same pattern I'm speaking of- urban America leading the progressive charge forward, rural America slow to adapt, quick to resist and badmouth the progressive charge forward.
I am making a point about a NATIONAL context of urban American attitudes versus rural American attitudes and how that has translated into political beliefs/voting. And the bottom line is that while the idea that lights the spark that ignites the flame of social change can happen in a variety of places, both rural and urban, by people with experiences from both, the NATIONAL ADOPTION of that social change has consitently been led by urban America, with rural America dragging up the rear, again that being the overriding trend but having some exceptions here and there.
I brought up women's suffrage as a category that highlights a certain national trend/tendency amongst the rural mindset that contrasts with the urban mindset. I brought it up to make the same point as barefoot and pregnant, as equal pay, as minorities' rights, as gay rights. And the point WASN'T that nobody from any rural place ever advocated for a progressive stance in advancing those rights. It was that across the spectrum of American states, it is the tendency that people in rural places have a much more resistant attitude to that national soical change than people in urban places. And those attitudes happen to be reflected in people in rural areas of states tending to vote Republican, modern Republicans and their policies being the ones most fitting the attitude of resistance to social progress and equality.
You are mostly right - but I will say Iowa was one of the earliest states to even entertain the idea of gays marrying.
Yes, and I still am interested in understanding what it is about Iowa that makes it so much different from, say, a Nebraska or South Dakota. I would say typical rural state, but some might want to bring an argument of Iowa being regionally different. Well Nebraska and South Dakota are rural state in the SAME region, but are politically different than Iowa. That was reflected in the Obama vote, and like you said in the idea of gay marriage. Something is unique and special about Iowa which bucks the trend and I'm keenly interested in knowing what it is.
You seem to be taking the most extreme cases (Massachusetts political gradient, Wisconsin suburban more Republican than rural) and trying to use it to counter the existence of the national trend. I've said before and will say again, there are always exceptions to trends, but pointing out the exceptions does not negate the larger trend.
There IS the obvious trend of the rural being more Republican than the urban and suburban across the nation, and Wisconsin is an exception to that trend specifically on the suburban/rural relationship, NOT on the urban/rural relationship. There IS the obvious trend of there being a repeated gradient of more Democrat to more Republican as you go from urban to suburban to rural, and Massachusetts is an exception to that trend. Just as more rural states tend to be solidly red, with Iowa being an exception that I noted earlier. So yes, I find the exceptions interesting, but they don't defeat the trend. I understand the Massachusetts' exception because of the state's size and density, but I don't understand the Wisconsin exception (and why it's different from Minnesota and Michigan for example) and the Iowa exception (and why it's different from Nebraska and South Dakota for example). None of that negates the larger trend, and that trend rings true whether we're talking about the South or the Northeast or the Midwest or the West or the Southwest, but still I'm interested in why the exceptions are exceptions.
I point the exceptions to point out rural areas aren't the same everywhere in cultural or political values. In general, rural areas do tend to be conservative than urban areas, but the difference varies greatly everywhere. While most Massahussetts is influenced by big cities (though parts are a bit isolated), much of northern New England. Maine has little big city influence and it voted to legalize gay marriage this year. There are plenty other rural areas the same distance for large cities that are more conservative.
Even with that category, urban America has led the charge in acceptance of interracial marriage, with rural America once again dragging up the rear.
any evidence of this?
Quote:
I brought up women's suffrage as a category that highlights a certain national trend/tendency amongst the rural mindset that contrasts with the urban mindset.
But there's no evidence there was rural/urban divide for women's suffrage.
That's a good point. I hadn't really thought about that. I'd be curious to know too. I'd be interested to know the North Dakota/South Dakota type of states' demographics in that context too, because they are solidly conservative Republican in voting but I've never particularly thought of them as hard core religious, though they might very well be.
No idea about the Dakotas (although I do think of them as very socially conservative), but FWIW, Minnesota just had a major battle this past election over a proposed amendment to write one woman/one man marriage into the state constitution. It lost (and yes, there was a huge rural/urban split), but the role of religion was a BIG factor for both sides of the debate. There was no unified "religious people on this side" aspect, and here in the Twin Cities, many of the local churches and temples (not sure about other religious groups) were very, very active in addressing the issue of gay rights, or in this case the attempt to deny future gay rights, in a faith framework. There are a lot of very liberal, very religious people around here.
On another point, the gay rights issue can get complicated in that there are a lot of people out there who are definitely not liberal, yet who support gay rights for more libertarian reasons. I don't know what kind of rural/urban difference exists when it comes to libertarian views, but my guess would be that libertarians run more rural. Sometimes that would fall in line with positions liked by liberals, sometimes they'd fall in with conservatives.
Yes, and I still am interested in understanding what it is about Iowa that makes it so much different from, say, a Nebraska or South Dakota. I would say typical rural state, but some might want to bring an argument of Iowa being regionally different. Well Nebraska and South Dakota are rural state in the SAME region, but are politically different than Iowa. That was reflected in the Obama vote, and like you said in the idea of gay marriage. Something is unique and special about Iowa which bucks the trend and I'm keenly interested in knowing what it is.
Shhhhhhhhh ... Apparently this is news to some folks!
Nevermind that more than half the nation had allowed women the right to vote before the 19th Amendment.
And that most of them were west of the Mississippi. Those rural rubes, you know ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
