New York Times against women's right to vote (credit, title)

[Cida]

I hope you saw the wonderful PBS series, The Vote, about women's suffrage that aired recently. It mentioned an editorial in the NYT coming out against women, when the vote was being debated in New York State.



“Woman suffrage would result either in a needless political muddle or in a social and political turmoil
which would tend to weaken the State, to stir up discord in society and in the home, and would put
obstacles in the way of progress which the wisest statesmanship might fail to overcome…
The grant of suffrage to women is repugnant to instincts that strike their roots deep in the order of
nature. It runs counter to human reason, it flouts the teachings of experience and the admonitions of
common sense. Although women have other capacities without numbers held in equal distinction and
some in higher honor, they have never possessed or developed the political faculty. Without the
counsel and guidance of men, no woman ever ruled a state wisely or well. The defect is innate [a
characteristic they are born with] and one for which a cure is both impossible and not to be desired.
That they lack the genius for politics is no more to their discredit than man’s handiness in housewifery
and in the care of infants….
Let there be no mistake as to the import of this argument. It is not in the remotest manner based upon
the assumption or belief that woman is man’s inferior, either intellectually or in any other way. It rests
upon the established fact that man’s work is different from women's work, and that in his work and in
his striving in his own particular field that give man the qualifying knowledge essential to intelligent
voting….”

New York Times editorial, February 7, 1915

[DannyHobkins]

Originally Posted by Cida

I hope you saw the wonderful PBS series, The Vote, about women's suffrage that aired recently. It mentioned an editorial in the NYT coming out against women, when the vote was being debated in New York State.



“Woman suffrage would result either in a needless political muddle or in a social and political turmoil
which would tend to weaken the State, to stir up discord in society and in the home, and would put
obstacles in the way of progress which the wisest statesmanship might fail to overcome…
The grant of suffrage to women is repugnant to instincts that strike their roots deep in the order of
nature. It runs counter to human reason, it flouts the teachings of experience and the admonitions of
common sense. Although women have other capacities without numbers held in equal distinction and
some in higher honor, they have never possessed or developed the political faculty. Without the
counsel and guidance of men, no woman ever ruled a state wisely or well. The defect is innate [a
characteristic they are born with] and one for which a cure is both impossible and not to be desired.
That they lack the genius for politics is no more to their discredit than man’s handiness in housewifery
and in the care of infants….
Let there be no mistake as to the import of this argument. It is not in the remotest manner based upon
the assumption or belief that woman is man’s inferior, either intellectually or in any other way. It rests
upon the established fact that man’s work is different from women's work, and that in his work and in
his striving in his own particular field that give man the qualifying knowledge essential to intelligent
voting….”

New York Times editorial, February 7, 1915

He does make valid points but different time and different world. People will be look back 100 years from now and saying things about the times today.

[Matt Marcinkiewicz]

The title of this post made me believe the claim was being made about the 2020 NYT, not a 1915 NYT editorial.

[AloePurell]

What's your point?

[ContraPagan]

So? It was 1915, 105 years ago. Attitudes about a LOT of things were different in those days.