Marie J. Howe Parodies the Opposition to Women’s Suffrage
1. The arguments that anti-suffragists made in the 1800s and early 1900s include that women were not logical, they are creatures of impulse, instinct, and intuition and make decisions based on their emotions. Women have physical inabilities, mental disabilities, spiritual inabilities, and general inability that prevents them from marking a ballot and putting it into the ballot boxes. Other arguments include that if women were given the right to vote that they wouldn’t take advantage of it, or if women were given the right to vote then they would hang around the polls and abandon their homes and neglect their families. If women were enfranchised then they would vote the same as their …show more content…
Marie J. Howe arranged her arguments in couplets so that if readers don’t agree or like one of her arguments they might agree with the other. She does this to include all of the arguments made by anti-suffragists and to show both sides of every argument that the anti-suffragists make and to poke fun at their silly arguments. My favorite couplet is the couplet in which she states that women are angels but if you don’t like that argument then take the one in which women are wicked. The would introduce a viscous element into politics and ruin everyone’s national life. I find this couplet very amusing because it is interesting to me that anti-suffragists would go so far as to say that all women are evil and allowing them to vote would ruin politics and destroy the nation. That is a very drastic argument to …show more content…
Stephen Kinzer’s argued that they should not change the name of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School for International and Public Affairs because he believed that Wilson represents the duplicity at the heart of much American foreign policy, and therefore is the perfect person for whom to name the school. He argued that we should study Wilson’s legacy and what he represents and learn from it. Kinzer’s argument differs from Darby’s in that Kinzer argues that Wilson is the ideal person to represent the school and the topics it studies and talks about Wilson’s time as President and direct examples of his hypocrisy, whereas Darby just argues in favor of keeping Wilson’s name and using the school’s resources, space, and cultural significance that it represents to address the problems associated with namesake and learning from it to create a better present and
1. The arguments that anti-suffragists made in the 1800s and early 1900s include that women were not logical, they are creatures of impulse, instinct, and intuition and make decisions based on their emotions. Women have physical inabilities, mental disabilities, spiritual inabilities, and general inability that prevents them from marking a ballot and putting it into the ballot boxes. Other arguments include that if women were given the right to vote that they wouldn’t take advantage of it, or if women were given the right to vote then they would hang around the polls and abandon their homes and neglect their families. If women were enfranchised then they would vote the same as their …show more content…
Marie J. Howe arranged her arguments in couplets so that if readers don’t agree or like one of her arguments they might agree with the other. She does this to include all of the arguments made by anti-suffragists and to show both sides of every argument that the anti-suffragists make and to poke fun at their silly arguments. My favorite couplet is the couplet in which she states that women are angels but if you don’t like that argument then take the one in which women are wicked. The would introduce a viscous element into politics and ruin everyone’s national life. I find this couplet very amusing because it is interesting to me that anti-suffragists would go so far as to say that all women are evil and allowing them to vote would ruin politics and destroy the nation. That is a very drastic argument to …show more content…
Stephen Kinzer’s argued that they should not change the name of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School for International and Public Affairs because he believed that Wilson represents the duplicity at the heart of much American foreign policy, and therefore is the perfect person for whom to name the school. He argued that we should study Wilson’s legacy and what he represents and learn from it. Kinzer’s argument differs from Darby’s in that Kinzer argues that Wilson is the ideal person to represent the school and the topics it studies and talks about Wilson’s time as President and direct examples of his hypocrisy, whereas Darby just argues in favor of keeping Wilson’s name and using the school’s resources, space, and cultural significance that it represents to address the problems associated with namesake and learning from it to create a better present and