Mass. State Rep. Calls on University VP to Increase Transparency for Allston Multimodal Project
Harvard President Lawrence Bacow Made $1.1 Million in 2020, Financial Disclosures Show
Harvard Executive Vice President Katie Lapp To Step Down
81 Republican Lawmakers File Amicus Brief Supporting SFFA in Harvard Affirmative Action Lawsuit
Duke Senior’s Commencement Speech Appears to Plagiarize 2014 Address by Harvard Student
In their day the American suffragets promised that woman suffrage would prove a panacea for the political situation. Since 1920, however, many have been disillusioned in their expectation of this great revolution of the national machine. Now comes the prediction that the complete enfranchisement of women in England, if carried out, will place the management of the country in their hands, since they outnumber the men, and in conservative quarters this fact naturally outweighs all the psychological and sociological arguments against giving equality to men and women voters.
American suffragists have for a long time ridiculed the action of porliament in withholding the vote from women until they are thirty years of age. But in England the flapper is at a mile stone. In his last campaign Mr. Stanley Baldwin promised suffrage equality to the young women. Bearing the next election in mind, he must choose either the threatened fury of his ultra-conservative supporters or the more terrifying resentment of some millions of women in England who already have the vote by virtue of their being over thirty years of age.
Mr. Baldwin is in a predicament, but it is safe to say that should he take a chance and give Great Britain over to the mercies of the feminine sex no great excitement would be occasioned in the United States where the same experment did not result in an exodus of housewives from the kitchen to the Capitol. Unfortunately, votes for women have brought no millenium to America nor is it likely that they will bring one to England.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.