Women's History Month: Kate Sheppard

[RedRobin]

Is it right that your mother, your sister... should be classed with criminals and lunatics... ? Is it right that while the gambler, the drunkard, and even the wife-beater has a vote, earnest, educated and refined women are denied it?... Is it right... that a mother... should be thought unworthy of a vote that is freely given to the blasphemer, the liar, the seducer,and the profligate? - Kate Sheppard (1892)

Born in Liverpool in 1847, Kate Malcolm migrated to New Zealand in her early twenties and in 1871 married merchant Walter Sheppard. In 1885 she joined the new Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), which advocated women’s suffrage as a means to fight for liquor prohibition. For Kate Sheppard, the right to vote quickly became an end in itself. Speaking for the new generation, she argued, "We are tired of having a 'sphere' doled out to us, and of being told that anything outside that sphere is 'unwomanly'."

Sheppard travelled the country, writing to newspapers, holding public meetings and lobbying members of Parliament. Resistance was fierce. As one man wrote, women were "recommended to go home, look after their children, cook their husbands' dinners, empty the slops, and generally attend to the domestic affairs for which Nature designed them"; they should give up "meddling in masculine concerns of which they are profoundly ignorant".

In 1893 Kate Sheppard and her fellow suffragists gathered the signatures of nearly 32,000 women to demonstrate the groundswell of support for their cause. A 270-m-long petition - then the largest ever presented to Parliament - was unrolled across the chamber of the House with dramatic effect. Despite the opposition of Premier Richard Seddon, the Electoral Act 1893 was passed by both houses of Parliament and became law on 19 September, making New Zealand the first country in the world to allow women to vote. The governor, Lord Glasgow, honoured Kate Sheppard as a political leader, by symbolically presenting to her the pen with which the bill granting womanhood suffrage had been signed. The news took New Zealand by storm and inspired suffrage movements all over the world.

Kate Sheppard continued to work at home and abroad for women’s rights - from contraception to freedom from the corset. She became president of the National Council of Women of New Zealand (NCW) and editor of The White Ribbon, the first newspaper in New Zealand to be owned, managed and published solely by women. In 1909 she was elected honorary vice-president of the International Council of Women.

#WomensHistoryMonth

#KateSheppard

[Poppykate]

I think that's it great that women have the vote. However, I think that we should honour these women and our rights by taking an interest in politics (or at least have some basic general knowledge/ reading) and take our vote seriously. (I say this from a country where it is compulsory to vote)

[RedRobin]

Yes, I agree. I didn't realize that in Australia it was compulsory to vote. What happens if you decide not to vote one year?

[Poppykate]

We don't vote every year. Every 4 years for the state, and every 4 years for prime minister. ( This doesn't happen at the same time. If we don't vote, we get a fine. I think it's like $250.

[FakeName123]

Didn't know that. And it's ridiculous. It washes up the votes even more because people who don't bother, don't care and/or aren't knowledgable atlal (mostly due the former reasons) still have to vote and most likely do a crappy vote.

[RedRobin]

I know it's not every year, we have the exact same system in New Zealand :). I meant, what happens if you decide not to vote one year there is an election?

[Poppykate]

About two weeks after the election, those that didn't vote receive a fine in the mail.

[front2back]

Who knew New Zealand's suffrage movement was so awesome? A 270-meter long petition? That's making a statement.

[RedRobin]

It's things like this that make me proud to be a kiwi :) haha

[FakeName123]

The problem with the topic of women having no right to vote is that a key element to it is always pulled under the rug.

The time this came up was a time where countries just barely after transitioning from monarchies and other similar systems to a more democratic approach. Men just had gotten their vote barely a few decades prior - and often that vote wasn't exclusive to the man, but to the head of the household which traditionally was considered to be the man.

[ThisDudeHere]

This^

[lumos]

"and often that vote wasn't exclusive to the man, but to the head of the household which traditionally was considered to be the man."

Soooo in other words the vote was exclusive to the man.

[ThisDudeHere]

@lumos the implification was that not necessarily in completelly all cases.

[RedRobin]

In those times though the majority of the time it was the woman's husband who was the head of the household and if it wasn't then it was usually either her father or her eldest son

[ThisDudeHere]

Neat tidbit of history - in Roman times the woman was the head of the household.

[lumos]

@ThisDudeHere yeah, so that 1% or so in which the woman was the head of the household completely makes the point of women not being able to vote invalid? 99% of the voters were still men, voting for other men with political influence.
Also I'd like a source for that Roman claim, as I've never heard of such a thing in any of the history classes I took, and didn't find any evidence pointing to that after skimming through this article. en.wikipedia.org/.../Women_in_ancient_Rome

[ThisDudeHere]

@lumos for one, I did not invalidate women voting. FakeName, in my opinion, implied that men hadn't had the right to vote for pretty much just as long as women throughout history. If it did exist in certain cultures, then it was meant purely for the aristocratic elite, which in no way represented the common folk or the situation for the vast MAJORITY of humanity.

And the thing about women in Rome was mentioned by lindybeige in one of his videos that I don't want to search for:
https://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige/videos

[lumos]

@ThisDudeHere plenty of men did have the right to vote based on ethnicity and religion, though (in the US it was white, property-owning Protestant men once the declaration of independence was signed). No women did though, regardless of their social standing, and even lost their right to vote in 1807 for 13 years. So it definitely is worth mentioning and talking about.

[lumos]

@ThisDudeHere also I don't really believe your youtuber there, considering that no source I've looked up thus far has said anything about women being the head of the household, quite frankly the opposite.
"The Roman family was male-dominated, typically headed by the most senior male figure (paterfamilias). Women were subordinate and this is reflected in Roman naming practice."
https://www.ancient.eu/article/659/

[ThisDudeHere]

@lumos I never implied that it is not worth mentioning for those to whom this subject still matters.

[ThisDudeHere]

If you hadn't found the video, he mentioned that although men were in charge of the family and making the big decisions, women were in charge of the physical domicile in particular. Inviting guests, furnishing, keeping the keys, finances - those were women's fields. Yes, men were patriarch in general but the point I should have specified was that women were in charge of the homes in and of themselves.

[lumos]

@ThisDudeHere soz but all I could see was FakeName trying to brush it under the rug by saying "but... some men... couldn't vote... for a while... so you know... s'irrelevant" and you agreeing with it soooo. Whoop-dee-doo women had the keys and the right to decorate and throw parties. Amazing.

[ThisDudeHere]

@lumos I fail to see how he invalidated women not having the right to vote by stating that men didn't have it either. He merely added in the fact that men couldn't vote either throughout most of history, with rich aristocracy that made up a fraction of society barely counting in this case.

What exactly do you want to achieve with all of this, if I may ask? Should men bow down and continuously apologize for what their ancestors did centuries ago? Should we continuously bring up this whole issue and never let it rest in the past where it belongs?

[lumos]

@ThisDudeHere because by bringing up the fact that some men also couldn't vote (usually based on race or religion tho) he's making it seem like the fact that women couldn't vote *because they were women*, isn't as important. He's (and you are) deflecting the actual issue at hand. And in a way it's like trying to diminish what happened. Like trying to talk about the issues in Syria but then having someone step in and be like "welllllll... what about the rain forests?" Both being important topics but one not excluding the other, and one issue shouldn't be used as a way to diminish or detract from the other issue.
Saying that some men couldn't vote is of course a factor but I don't see how that changes the fact that women couldn't vote *because they were women*, regardless of race, social standing, religion etc. And even lost the right to vote in the US for over a decade, after they had gained it. It's a moot point to make that some men couldn't vote. NO women could vote.

[lumos]

@ThisDudeHere as for the last paragraph, I'm just here to voice my opinion and I'm not really expecting anything.

[ThisDudeHere]

@lumos "usually based on race or religion tho"
-No, usually and almost entirely based on class.

"the actual issue at hand"
-Excuse me, but what actual issue? Last time I checked, women can vote aaand there's nothing wrong with providing additional facts (as he did).

[lumos]

@ThisDudeHere like I said most men who could vote were white, land-owning Protestants. I see nothing about class there except for land-owning, but even a random farmer could pass that test.
The actual issue at hand which was the fact that women couldn't vote simply because they were women and considered beneath men (which is why saying "the head of the household had the right to vote" is a moot point because it was almost exclusively men). Try not to misunderstand what I'm saying lol

[ThisDudeHere]

@lumos it's not that I misunderstand, I just don't fully agree.

[lumos]

@ThisDudeHere then why make it seem like me saying "the issue at hand" is somehow me saying that women *still* don't have the right to vote -_-

[ThisDudeHere]

@lumos because it came off as that to me.

[FakeName123]

"all I could see was FakeName trying to brush it under the rug by saying "but... some men... couldn't vote... for a while... so you know... s'irrelevant""

That's not what I am saying. My point was that context is relevant. People lose their shit about "hurr women didn't have the right to vote until 100 years ago" and forgot that it mostly was the case for men until 150 years ago.

Additionally people forget that until a few hundred years ago all countries were monarchies, then parliaments came to it and just in the last 300-400 years voting for your ruler developed slowly.

So saying "women didn't have the right to vote" rips those factors out of context and presents only a part of the entire picture. That is at best naive or lackluster communication - at worst intellectually dishonest.

[lumos]

@ThisDudeHere and that's what I meant by misunderstanding.

Ok but like... so? Still meant that women couldn't vote for about 50 years *because they were women*. Really don't see how the context you've provided makes it less serious.

[FakeName123]

@lumos

So you can't see the difference between:

- "men and wouldn't both couldnt vote for hundreds of yours and then eventually men got the right to vote and 50 years after women"
or
- "Women couldn't vote until 100 years ago while men had the right to vote already."
?

I can see it. And as I said - it is naive and lackkluster communication at best. At worst it is manipulative and intellectually dishonest.

[lumos]

Uh. Where exactly in this take was that second paragraph stated? That's kind of the whole point.

[lumos]

And by "point" I mean the point I'm trying to make. That your comment was kinda pointless. This take made a lot of sense and reflected on what Kate Sheppard did. I don't see why men not being able to vote was necessary to mention?

[kickme]

clearly, women should not be allowed to vote. Their "different" hormones drive emotion based decision making vs. factual reasoning. they don't possess the mentality for this kind of thing.

[Dog19]

A woman is too weak and childlike to vote!

[RedRobin]

Haha

[coolbreeze]

Nice mytake

[RedRobin]

Thanks :)

[coolbreeze]

Your very welcome.😀

[KINGNIGGA123]

sorry but i couldnt care any less

[ProjectBaby1K]

Women's History Month? Lol.