Direct Link to Latest News


Feminist Claim to Female Suffrage is Bogus

September 11, 2014


Half the British men who went to the trenches in France in 1914 didn't have a vote either. Women finally got the vote in the context of both sexes getting it for the war effort.

"Women were not really disenfranchised. They had the right to vote in local politics as much as most men, and they were able to take part in civic affairs too. They could even stand for local political office such as mayors. The suffragettes were not the heroines up at the cutting edge of social change as feminists would have us believe today. They were a group of middle-class activists, widely regarded at the time as trouble-makers.

by Herbert Purdy
Did Feminists Really Win the Vote for Women?
(Abridged by

At the beginning of the 20th century, women were neither oppressed nor disenfranchised as claimed by the feminists.

The truth is, women got the vote as part of the development of the universal franchise. The Representation of the People Act in 1832, (better known as 'The Great Reform Act') instigated the process of reform. Even then, however, only about one-in-six adult males were given the vote... The vast majority of men were just as much the victims as women.

It is true that the Great Reform Act only enfranchised, 'male persons', although John Stuart Mill MP, attempted to replace the term 'male persons' with just 'person' in a second reform bill of 1867 but was defeated... because at the time, women's interests were considered to be synonymous with those of their menfolk.

edwardianwomen.jpgNot only that, but women were elevated by men, society, by the law and even in the application of the law. Put simply, women were on a pedestal and accorded enormous rights over property as well as being protected legally from civil law in terms of that property, far more than men. The crusade by the suffragettes took place in the context of women being highly privileged already, and there was little stomach for the fight being stirred up by these extremists.

Married women were insulated from legal liability in a wide range of civil matters. Indeed, they were even protected from the consequences of certain breaches of the criminal law. A woman's husband stood between her and the world, protecting her as men had always done for women under the ancient system of couverture that placed enormous burdens on men: burdens, they often could not sustain.

That is just the way things were. Society was seeking the best it could given the prevailing circumstances, and that meant women were highly privileged, and men held highly responsible for that privilege.

Another factor in the resistance to Mill's reform was that, by then, feminism was rearing its head on the back of the emerging Marxist/Socialist movement. This was known as 'The Woman Question' in socialism, and it was feared as a force that could radically change society.


However, the First Word War had changed everything. As the soldiers returned, millions of them did not have the vote. It had been said 'If they are fit to fight they are fit to vote', to which the Prime Minister at the time, Herbert Asquith, responded 'My hon. Friend puts it in a nutshell', and this is the primary reason why the Representation of the People Act of 1918 was passed.

This Act widened the franchise enormously and it fairly included women. It increased the overall electorate from about 7.7 million to 21.4 million, and women became 43% of those eligible to vote . To all intents and purposes, they had achieved near parity. However, the age restrictions for voting were different. For men it was 21 years and for women, it was 30 years of age provided some minimal property criteria were met in both cases. I will explain the reason for this in a moment.

Then, in the same year, the Qualification of Women Act 1918 was passed, largely in recognition of women's effort during the war. This provided the right for women to be elected to parliament even if they hadn't reached the age where they could vote. Women were being recognized. They were not being excluded.

But everything had changed. To put it bluntly, there were too few men left in society to allow women exactly the same voting rights as men. Even before the war, in 1911, females outnumbered males in England and Wales by 1.2 million. By 1921 the difference was 1.7 million. A whole generation of men, young men in the flower of their youth, had been wiped out in the trenches of France and Belgium.

To have granted women the vote then would have meant totally unbalancing politics, and society, and that was the main reason why there was resistance to the suffragettes' claims. Discrimination against women had nothing to do with it.

In fact, the suffragettes were a spent force on the fringe of society by then. Most women wanted nothing to do with them. The truth is, the suffragettes were actually a hindrance to the advancement of women's suffrage, not a help. Nevertheless, the Equal Suffrage/Franchise Act was passed in 1928 finally granting universal suffrage to all citizens. Needless to say, it was passed by men.


The Suffragettes did not achieve votes for women: the victory was achieved by men. The fight for women's votes and equality has not and never has been the sole prerogative of women. The suffragettes only rode on the back of a trend toward equalizing society as a whole - and all driven by men of conscience who were adapting to changing times.


Thanks to Mike B for sending this. 

Makow Comment:  Our democracy is a sham because of private campaign financing. Essentially all the politicians are for sale.  For the price of a couple of fighter jets, we could have public campaign financing and genuine democracy. But we need those two jets to defend "freedom" elsewhere when we don't have freedom here. 

First Comment from Anthony Migchels:

A very interesting article, confirming what should be apparent by now: that Feminism unrighteously claimed victimhood, while both men and women suffered equally, both from oppression by Capital and calcified social roles. Amazing to hear the myth of the suffragettes busted in such a convincing manner.

The article does not deal, however, with the question of desirability of the female vote.

For instance: young women are well known to be the most gullible members of society. What is the use of them voting? They are easily swayed by propaganda and marketing and since propaganda always aims at the 20% dumbest of the population, it's not very likely that society benefits from young women voting. To a lesser extent, this also applies for young men.

Also: women tend to be far more inclined to collectivism. The growth of Big Government undoubtedly was caused to at least some extent the female vote.

Today women account for 55% of the vote, while men pay more than 100% of taxation: women gain more from State hand outs than they pay in tax. Clearly this is a huge imbalance in society: those best equipped, contributing most, are disenfranchised.

Interestingly, the Protocols claim they want everybody to vote. It lessens the quality and makes the unfit co-responsible. Sounds like the Government as usual 'grudgingly' acquiesced to the changes they were already planning.

Voting should not be considered a right, but a responsibility. It should be left to those fit to vote. For instance: heads of the household, where both spouses can decide together who this head might be.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Feminist Claim to Female Suffrage is Bogus "

Doug Plumb said (September 12, 2014):

What we need are knowledgeable voters, voters that can end this Agenda 21 and cultural Marxism nightmare at the local levels before the Greenies make us too poor to afford the power needed to run computers. They are coming, with their Green solar energy and its going to be very very expensive and most of us will be completely disempowered for it. Most of us think solar energy is "clean" energy. Nothing could be further from the truth - its the dirtiest most expensive energy source available which is why the Liberals love it.

We must start learning the language and learning about the science that is becoming more politically relevant before we vote on it. Back before suffrage women could learn and talk to each other and figure all this stuff out. Now they are too busy, just like men. It took me several years to learn this stuff, I lived off copyrights and studied almost full time for many years.

Joe said (September 12, 2014):

There's a saying, "If voting actually worked, it would be outlawed."

In addition to proving citizenship, a short test on the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be given along with a quiz about current events before allowing someone to cast their vote.

Detractors (SPLC, ACLU, et al) will decry "descrimination!" which perfectly describes such policy. However, such descrimination seems necessary given how our current government is best described as an "idiocracy."

For those who have given up on voting, congratulations you figured it out. On the other hand, local elections can and do have some relevance. Never vote for bond issues regardless of the cause, always vote "no" when it comes to judges coming up for electoral approval, and always vote FOR veteran benefits (unless it is a bond issue).

Furthermore, writing in a candidate allows us to have some fun with the electoral process knowing full well voting just doesn't work. If more people wrote in Bugs Bunny, Elmore Fudd or Moses Horowitz as their candidate of choice, real choices may become forthcoming.

Anyone saying this makes a mockery of the electoral process hasn't realized how the electoral process as it exists is a mockery in itself. Hold your nose and vote, vote your conscience or vote your funny bone, either way your vote just does not amount to anything either way.

Lisa said (September 12, 2014):

In the days after the War Between the States, many women who did not want the vote were urged by their men to seek the right to vote to offset the huge, newly created black block vote, according to the memoirs of the daughter of a former plantation owner. Problems had arisen when those who did not bear the tax responsibility (in this case, newly freed slaves) were allowed to determine how others' money would be taken and spent.

Robert M said (September 12, 2014):

I almost always get one of two reactions when people learn that I don't vote. Most, especially the males- their faces clouded over with disapproval-,will say, "Well, I"M not going to give up my right to vote!" Another variation of this, or maybe a third reaction, is, "I'm going to hold my nose and vote." The other reaction, I get from females, especially younger ones. This reaction is a measure of the self-importance this media culture can puff a group up with-in this case, females. "Too many women have made too many sacrifices for me to give up my vote." Such heroic sacrifice by the suffragettes! Maybe some spent a night in jail, poor dears. I am not unmindful, ladies, as I stay away from the polls on election day, of the young men of many generations who sacrificed their LIVES believing they were fighting for such rights. (Youth of either sex can be gullible!)

Jim said (September 12, 2014):

While reading this article I was reminded of a video I saw where a young college man was gathering signatures from young college women for a petition "to end women's suffrage". After watching the video again, I've come to the conclusion that we probably should end women's suffrage.


Tony B said (September 11, 2014):

Further, the vote is much less than the big deal made of it. Mostly ignorance votes anyway. Especially today when the wisest people understand that the vote is stolen by the 1% if it is not already going the way they wish, so why vote? Democracy itself is a bogus concept. It is described as rule by majority vote, not by law. In other words, a form of anarchy, the worse, most radical, thing that can happen to a people on one end of the political spectrum as is the tyrannical police state of the very few on the opposite end.

I am old enough to remember when, in the state where I was raised, only property owners could vote on property issues. Made sense to a larger degree than allowing renters to tell property owners how they could use their property through their vote which is largely ignorant of the issues involved.

Moreover, as touched on only by Anthony, there is excellent reason for denying the vote to women. First, their vote is basically a built in nullification of their man's vote. Women are not men, do not think like men, are generally unequal to anything larger than family, children nurturing and home - all very worthwhile, very necessary to proper human life and happiness, their true role on earth. Because of this, women will vote, first, last and always, for protecting the nest with no thought of how nor of unforeseen outcomes, even when it is self destructive.

Too, gullibility is built into the female psychic. It is a necessity for her purpose in life, which is NOT to run the world and never will be, so-called "education" be damned.

Robert K said (September 10, 2014):

So now we ALL have a right to vote for candidate A, promising 'fiscal responsibility" while genuflecting before Zionism; candidate B, promising "more jobs" while genuflecting before Zionism; or candidate C, promising freedom from corporate domination while genuflecting before Zionism. Lucky us!

Wade said (September 10, 2014):

Our founding fathers set up voting in the correct manner. It would fix a multitude of problems if this nation should go back to what was originally set up. However, that seems totally impossible.

I see two things we could do to help the situation.

1...No one should be allowed to vote that does not pay either property taxes, income taxes, or social security / self employment taxes. Those who are on the public dole should not have the vote. They don't help to pay the bills...they should not get the same voting rights as those that do. (Should be just common sense). Also U.S. citizenship should be clearly established and verifiable by those who wish to vote.

2...We must go back to paper ballots that are hand counted. Strict secure custody of those ballots before and after the vote has been counted is essential to secure the possibility of an accurate recount. It will take a week to find out who won and the news media will not like that, but it is a small price to pay to insure honest verifiable elections. What we have now is handled, in the end, by computers and is a farce where the outcome of elections is easily manipulated and impossible to recount and verify.

We currently have many areas of our nation where a 15% voter turnout is an ordinary number. Obviously a great many of our citizens are apathetic and possibly even have a sense that voting does not matter. Voting can and should matter, but the current system is broken and corrupt. The two steps I suggest would be a good start.

Will either of the two solutions I offer ever be enacted. I seriously doubt it. We seem to be living in an insane asylum where the inmates run everything. The inmates of our American asylum are inexorably entrenched in political correctness and conventional wisdom. Proverbs tells us that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. We see very little fear of God these days. Therefore we see very little wisdom.

President Teddy Roosevelt once said "When a person is educated intellectually and not educated spiritually, you create a monster".

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at