Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
Dzldoc

Women Voters

Recommended Posts

My sister sent this email to me and although I knew about the strugle for womens' right to vote, I didn't read much of this in school history books.

A very compelling reason for women to excersise their right to get out and vote.

Our history defines us, and most of us don't even know it… THIS IS MOVING. HOW QUICKLY WE FORGET.....IF ....WE EVER KNEW......

WHY WOMEN SHOULD VOTE

This is the story of our Grandmothers and Granddaughters; they lived only 90 years ago.

womenvote.jpg

Remember, it was not until 1920 that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.

womenvote2.jpg

The women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed

nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking

for the vote.

womenvote3.jpg

And by the end of the night, they were barely alive.

Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing

went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of

'obstructing sidewalk traffic.

(Lucy Burns)

They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above

her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping

for air.

womenvote4.jpg

(Dora Lewis)

They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her

head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cell mate,

Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack.

Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging,

beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.

Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917,

when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his

guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because

they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right

to vote.

For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their

food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.

womenvote5.jpg

(Alice Paul)

When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks

until word was smuggled out to the press.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/suffrage/nwp/prisoners.pdf

So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because-

-why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work?

Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?

Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new

movie 'Iron Jawed Angels.' It is a graphic depiction of the battle

these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling

booth and have my say. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder.

All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the

actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote.

Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege.

Sometimes it was inconvenient.

My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history,

saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk

about it, she looked angry. She was--with herself. 'One thought

kept coming back to me as I watched that movie,' she said.

'What would those women think of the way I use , or don't use,

my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just

younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn.' The

right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her 'all over again.'

HBO released the movie on video and DVD . I wish all history,

social studies and government teachers would include the movie in

their curriculum I want it shown on Bunco night, too, and anywhere

else women gather. I realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing,

but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think

a little shock therapy is in order.

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy.

The doctor admonished the men: 'Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reminder :) I've only missed one, in one of the first years that I was eligible; it was a minor election (not Presidential) and I think it was a May/June, rather than November, election.

But that's the only one I've missed in 20-some years. My mom usually works the polls in her district, and I've campaigned/volunteered at the local HQ and polls before too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if you listen to that nutjob Ann Coulter, she believes women shouldn't be allowed to vote because then the Republican Party would always win the election. Which, if you take her seriously, is completely stupid because any party who always wins every election is bad for democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:hysterical:

well if you listen to that nutjob Ann Coulter, she believes women shouldn't be allowed to vote because then the Republican Party would always win the election. Which, if you take her seriously, is completely stupid because any party who always wins every election is bad for democracy.

Seems like you listen to Ann Coulter more than anyone else. Her comments were obviously meant to be tounge and cheek... you know... not taken seriously.

Although Coulter has had some very interesting insights this week about the nature of the womans liberation movement. After finally getting a viable female canidate for the office of the vice Presidency the liberal media went after Palin and charged everything from her not being qualified to being a bad mother for leaving her five children (including a special needs child at home). But as Coulter pointed out; WHERE ARE THE WOMANS LIBERS out there complaining that THIS WOMAN (Palin) is just as capable and worthy of running for vice President as any man? And why would her gender be an issue as to whether or not she should "STAY AT HOME" and tend to the nest?

"Having young children didn't prevent JFK, whom I hear is America's most beloved president, from being president" - Ann Coulter

Got to love a woman who "Comes from the land of the ice and snow...."

SarahPalinVikings.jpg

... how soft your fields of green can whisper tales of gore, of how we calmed the tides of war

WE ARE YOUR OVERLORDS

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although Coulter has had some very interesting insights this week about the nature of the womans liberation movement. After finally getting a viable female canidate for the office of the vice Presidency the liberal media went after Palin and charged everything from her not being qualified to being a bad mother for leaving her five children (including a special needs child at home). But as Coulter pointed out; WHERE ARE THE WOMANS LIBERS out there complaining that THIS WOMAN (Palin) is just as capable and worthy of running for vice President as any man? And why would her gender be an issue as to whether or not she should "STAY AT HOME" and tend to the nest?

You see, again, your post is indicative of just how much Republicans have lost touch.

Republicans say "Her gender is not an issue", however, let's be honest, she was picked for the VP because she was a woman, the theory behind it being "she's a woman, the Hillary voters will love her because she's a woman". And the reason the Republicans seem so pleased with themselves over Sarah Palin's selection is because they feel they have pulled some sort of trump card over the Democrats...why? Because of the simple virtue of her character? Or because "Johhny's nabbed himself a woman on the ticket! Hahaha! This'll show the Democrats, half of them wanted a woman".

And now the Republicans are being all smug trying to paint the picture that the formely pro-woman democrats are really hypocrites for picking on poor Sarah. But that just shows how little the Republicans get it, and how sexist they still are. Because Republicans believe the only reason why Hillary got anywhere and had a strong base of supporters is because she's a woman. So the GOP says "alright, if they want a woman, we'll give them a woman" failing miserably to understand that the reason Hillary had that public support was because she was a woman out there off her own bat running for President talking about issues and policies that she believed in and that is what attracted people to her. And it's the same reason why they don't like Sarah Palin, because to the Hillary supporters, it never was about gender. It was about Hillary and what she stood for. Saying that people only supported Hillary because she's a woman is as misguided as people saying Obama is only popular because he's black.

And before the Republicans get too cocky, lets remember that the Democrats were very seriously considering Hillary as their candidate for President, however I don't believe there was a single Republican woman campaigning for president...well not one at least who was in the top 10 nominees...

And let's also remember that when there were cries of sexism because Hillary was being 'picked on', many many republicans said she needed to stand up to criticism, take it on the chin, because what was she going to do if "the mean, nasty boys like Bin Laden started picking on her?"

The Republicans claimed any criticism of Hillary wasn't sexist and merely showed how weak Hillary was...BUT NOW...lo and behold, any criticism of Sarah is considered sexist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You see, again, your post is indicative of just how much Republicans have lost touch.

Republicans say "Her gender is not an issue", however, let's be honest, she was picked for the VP because she was a woman, the theory behind it being "she's a woman, the Hillary voters will love her because she's a woman". And the reason the Republicans seem so pleased with themselves over Sarah Palin's selection is because they feel they have pulled some sort of trump card over the Democrats...why? Because of the simple virtue of her character? Or because "Johhny's nabbed himself a woman on the ticket! Hahaha! This'll show the Democrats, half of them wanted a woman".

But of course you being a liberal "feels like" type when you see the Sarah Palin choice in most simplistic of terms. Does anybody really think that the majority of Democrat Women voters in large numbers are going to switch camps just because McCain picked a woman as his running mate? No of course not. Sarah Palin's ideology is such that it gains support for the Republican base, those Reagan Democrats and many independent voters in middle America. I won't deny that the choice of a woman may play to a very slim number of hard core Hillary feminists who felt disrepected by the Obama campaign. But that is a VERY SLIM number, and election day is still a little less than two months away.

You have once again failed to appreciate the meaning behind McCain choosing a strongly conservative running mate.

And now the Republicans are being all smug trying to paint the picture that the formely pro-woman democrats are really hypocrites for picking on poor Sarah. But that just shows how little the Republicans get it, and how sexist they still are. Because Republicans believe the only reason why Hillary got anywhere and had a strong base of supporters is because she's a woman. So the GOP says "alright, if they want a woman, we'll give them a woman" failing miserably to understand that the reason Hillary had that public support was because she was a woman out there off her own bat running for President talking about issues and policies that she believed in and that is what attracted people to her. And it's the same reason why they don't like Sarah Palin, because to the Hillary supporters, it never was about gender. It was about Hillary and what she stood for. Saying that people only supported Hillary because she's a woman is as misguided as people saying Obama is only popular because he's black.

I don't think the femminst Democrats are picking on Sarah Palin. I think they are very worried about the state of their own party. However, it really doesn't play well with many woman voters of all political leanings to see the media attack Palin for her qualifications to run for office. Especially when those attacks are based on her being a mother of five children. Sarah Palin is the best example of how far a woman go, and how much a woman can contribute no matter what her circumstances are at home (ie - marriage, children, responsiblities). She should be what every femminist sees as a success.

And before the Republicans get too cocky, lets remember that the Democrats were very seriously considering Hillary as their candidate for President, however I don't believe there was a single Republican woman campaigning for president...well not one at least who was in the top 10 nominees...

I don't think there was a single woman politician anywhere in this country who had the same legacy and public standing as Hillary Clinton including Sarah Palin. I don't see that as Republicans glossing over the value of women, as much as I see it as a testament to Hillary Clinton herself.

Once again I see that you have missed the point. And I believe that when it comes to women voters, it is attitudes like yours that diminish Hillary Clinton more than the Republican party could ever have done. Hillary should have been the democratic canidate, she was more qualified. And she would have won.

And let's also remember that when there were cries of sexism because Hillary was being 'picked on', many many republicans said she needed to stand up to criticism, take it on the chin, because what was she going to do if "the mean, nasty boys like Bin Laden started picking on her?"

Even Hillary Clinton's campaign admitted that she was treated very unfairly by the mainstream media. In fact it was FOX News who really gave her the most fair and balanced coverage. Obviously the powers that be in the far left faction of the Democratic Party did not want Hillary Clinton to be the choice. And that wound will probably cause the Democrats to lose this election more than any other.

This is not about Republican sexism or any other problem with Republicans. It is about a very diseased Democratic Party. One that first had no room for Joe Liberman because he supported the war, and then later a party that saw Hilllary Clinton as not being representative of the type or RADICAL CHANGE that the far left wants.

The Republicans claimed any criticism of Hillary wasn't sexist and merely showed how weak Hillary was...BUT NOW...lo and behold, any criticism of Sarah is considered sexist...

I don't know of any Republican canidate or any conservative pundint who critisized Hillary Clinton on the basis of her gender. Show me where anyone said, "Hillary is a bad mother because she is putting her political career above taking care of her husband and daughter."

You can not say the same about the media and other liberal attacks against Sarah Palin. Although in the last few days they have wisely pulled back from that reaction because the backlash has been a huge bump for the McCain campaign. Did you read about the shake up at MSNBC? After the GOP convention coverage by MSNBC turned out to be so partisan and biased, NBC News has taken Olberman and Mathews off of any further anchoring of debates and other political coverage, leaving them to commentary only. It would seem that the liberal attack dogs did more to make Sarah Palin a star than any other factor.

Check out todays polling numbers. McCain seems to have gotten a huge bump in the polls after selecting Sarah Palin. Those numbers have to reflect a lot more voters than just Republicans my friend.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People shouldn't vote just for the sake of voting. That goes for both men and women. The right should be there to have the choice to vote.............or not.

I see no point in voting if you aren't particularly swayed by any political party. If you are then fine. Use your right to vote. If you aren't then use your right not to vote.

I am totally against the idea of people being forced to vote or pressured into voting. People fought and died for 'freedoms'......not to be dictated to and told they 'should' do such and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't vote in elections, you've got no reason to complain about the government.

No matter who wins, Democrats or Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me one good reason to vote for any self serving liar?

..and they are all self serving liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People shouldnt vote just for the sake of voting. That goes for both men and women. The right should be there to have the choice to vote.............or not.

I see no point in voting if you arent particularly swayed by any political party. If you are then fine. Use your right to vote. If you arent then use your right not to vote.

I am totally against the idea of people being forced to vote or pressured into voting. People fought and died for freedoms......not to be dictated to and told they should do such and such.

You see though, the flag-wrapped Americans believe if you dont at least pull the lever for some candidate you have no right to voice disapproval/approval. Your opinions become moot. They would rather you do this meaningless action, even if you dont want either representative elected. Thats another thing, our country doesnt really want more than a right/wrong, democrat/republican, black/white and evil/good choice to make, it confuses many. There can only be ONE correct person to pick and ONE wrong choice. We only have 2 arms to pull that lever, more selections make that difficult.

So yeah, go in and do the eenie-meanie-minee-mo, pick one and you can join in the arguments cause you did your duty. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Give me one good reason to vote for any self serving liar?

..and they are all self serving liars.

Hi 'tyedye'

I am totaly with you on that one.

We in England have only two parties with any chance of being elected, New Labour and Conservitive, both cover the same ground, there is no choice when that happens.

And we are told this is Democracy, until people wake up to the fact that the Rich and Powerful will never give in to Democracy, and we stop voting in these farcical elections then nothing will change. IMHO everyone who votes is a fool, you are playing there game and you will never win or get anything solved.

I propose a No Vote is the answer until they give us a real choice and put candidates up for election who do not look for fame or wealth or look to serve their old paymasters, and put people up thet will serve the people and not themselves. Sounds too easy doesn't it?

As the Who said, "New Boss, same as the old Boss"

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know of any Republican canidate or any conservative pundint who critisized Hillary Clinton on the basis of her gender. Show me where anyone said, "Hillary is a bad mother because she is putting her political career above taking care of her husband and daughter."

Del, there wouldn't be enough bandwidth on this site for me to show you all the examples of the Republican hypocrisy that has been exhibited in regards to Hillary and Sarah, and also Obama's experience versus Sarah's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi 'tyedye'

I am totaly with you on that one.

We in England have only two parties with any chance of being elected, New Labour and Conservitive, both cover the same ground, there is no choice when that happens.

And we are told this is Democracy, until people wake up to the fact that the Rich and Powerful will never give in to Democracy, and we stop voting in these farcical elections then nothing will change. IMHO everyone who votes is a fool, you are playing there game and you will never win or get anything solved.

I propose a No Vote is the answer until they give us a real choice and put candidates up for election who do not look for fame or wealth or look to serve their old paymasters, and put people up thet will serve the people and not themselves. Sounds too easy doesn't it?

As the Who said, "New Boss, same as the old Boss"

Regards, Danny

Yes. Thank you Danny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like another screwup for the BO campaign. Why the heck didn't he pick Hilrod? Maybe she turned him down because she doesn't want to be associated with his sinking ship..

Palin Energizing Women From All Walks of Life

"I wouldn't even call it a Palin movement, I'd call it a sleeping giant that has been awakened,"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...