1. Education
Send to a Friend via Email
Emma Goldman: Woman Suffrage
From the 1917 edition of Emma Goldman's Anarchism and Other Essays

This selection and the essays below are from Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman, originally published as a collection in 1917.

• Table of Contents
• Biographic Sketch
• Preface
• Anarchism: What It Really Stands For
• Minorities Versus Majorities
• 
The Psychology of Political Violence
• Prisons: A Social Crime and Failure
• Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty
• Francisco Ferrer and The Modern School
• The Hypocrisy of Puritanism
• The Traffic in Women
• Woman Suffrage
• The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation
• Marriage and Love
• The Drama: A Powerful Disseminator of Radical Thought

Also on this site:
• Emma Goldman - biography
• Emma Goldman Links
• Emma Goldman & Alexander Berkman, 1917 - photo
• Emma Goldman 1934 - photo
• Emma Goldman Writings Online
• Emma Goldman Quotations
• Emma Goldman: Too Radical for 2003?

<Index to Etexts on Women's History>

We boast of the age of advancement, of science, and progress.  Is it not strange, then, that we still believe in fetich [sic] worship?  True, our fetiches have different form and substance, yet in their power over the human mind they are still as disastrous as were those of old.

Our modern fetich is universal suffrage.  Those who have not yet achieved that goal fight bloody revolutions to obtain it, and those who have enjoyed its reign bring heavy sacrifice to the altar of this omnipotent deity.  Woe to the heretic who dare question that divinity!

Woman, even more than man, is a fetich worshipper, and though her idols may change, she is ever on her knees, ever holding up her hands, ever blind to the fact that her god has feet of clay.  Thus woman has been the greatest supporter of all deities from time immemorial.  Thus, too, she has had to pay the price that only gods can exact,--her freedom, her heart's blood, her very life.

Nietzsche's memorable maxim, "When you go to woman, take the whip along," is considered very brutal, yet Nietzsche expressed in one sentence the attitude of woman towards her gods.

Religion, especially the Christian religion, has condemned woman to the life of an inferior, a slave.  It has thwarted her nature and fettered her soul, yet the Christian religion has no greater supporter, none more devout, than woman.  Indeed, it is safe to say that religion would have long ceased to be a factor in the lives of the people, if it were not for the support it receives from woman. The most ardent churchworkers, the most tireless missionaries the world over, are women, always sacrificing on the altar of the gods that have chained her spirit and enslaved her body.

The insatiable monster, war, robs woman of all that is dear and precious to her.  It exacts her brothers, lovers, sons, and in return gives her a life of loneliness and despair.  Yet the greatest supporter and worshiper of war is woman.  She it is who instills the love of conquest and power into her children; she it is who whispers the glories of war into the ears of her little ones, and who rocks her baby to sleep with the tunes of trumpets and the noise of guns. It is woman, too, who crowns the victor on his return from the battlefield.  Yes, it is woman who pays the highest price to that insatiable monster, war.

Then there is the home.  What a terrible fetich it is!  How it saps the very life-energy of woman,--this modern prison with golden bars. Its shining aspect blinds woman to the price she would have to pay as wife, mother, and housekeeper.  Yet woman clings tenaciously to the home, to the power that holds her in bondage.

It may be said that because woman recognizes the awful toll she is made to pay to the Church, State, and the home, she wants suffrage to set herself free.  That may be true of the few; the majority of suffragists repudiate utterly such blasphemy.  On the contrary, they insist always that it is woman suffrage which will make her a better Christian and homekeeper, a staunch citizen of the State.  Thus suffrage is only a means of strengthening the omnipotence of the very Gods that woman has served from time immemorial.

What wonder, then, that she should be just as devout, just as zealous, just as prostrate before the new idol, woman suffrage.  As of old, she endures persecution, imprisonment, torture, and all forms of condemnation, with a smile on her face.  As of old, the most enlightened, even, hope for a miracle from the twentieth century deity,--suffrage.  Life, happiness, joy, freedom, independence,--all that, and more, is to spring from suffrage.  In her blind devotion woman does not see what people of intellect perceived fifty years ago: that suffrage is an evil, that it has only helped to enslave people, that it has but closed their eyes that they may not see how craftily they were made to submit.

Woman's demand for equal suffrage is based largely on the contention that woman must have the equal right in all affairs of society.  No one could, possibly, refute that, if suffrage were a right.  Alas, for the ignorance of the human mind, which can see a right in an imposition.  Or is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? Yet woman clamors for that "golden opportunity" that has wrought so much misery in the world, and robbed man of his integrity and self-reliance; an imposition which has thoroughly corrupted the people, and made them absolute prey in the hands of unscrupulous politicians.

The poor, stupid, free American citizen!  Free to starve, free to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal suffrage, and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs. The reward that he receives is stringent labor laws prohibiting the right of boycott, of picketing, in fact, of everything, except the right to be robbed of the fruits of his labor.  Yet all these disastrous results of the twentieth century fetich have taught woman nothing.  But, then, woman will purify politics, we are assured.

Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it.  I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man.  But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed.  If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better.  To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers.  Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes.  Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right?  Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena?  The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly.

As a matter of fact, the most advanced students of universal suffrage have come to realize that all existing systems of political power are absurd, and are completely inadequate to meet the pressing issues of life.  This view is also borne out by a statement of one who is herself an ardent believer in woman suffrage, Dr. Helen L. Sumner. In her able work on EQUAL SUFFRAGE, she says: "In Colorado, we find that equal suffrage serves to show in the most striking way the essential rottenness and degrading character of the existing system." Of course, Dr. Sumner has in mind a particular system of voting, but the same applies with equal force to the entire machinery of the representative system.  With such a basis, it is difficult to understand how woman, as a political factor, would benefit either herself or the rest of mankind.

But, say our suffrage devotees, look at the countries and States where female suffrage exists.  See what woman has accomplished--in Australia, New Zealand, Finland, the Scandinavian countries, and in our own four States, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.  Distance lends enchantment--or, to quote a Polish formula--"it is well where we are not."  Thus one would assume that those countries and States are unlike other countries or States, that they have greater freedom, greater social and economic equality, a finer appreciation of human life, deeper understanding of the great social struggle, with all the vital questions it involves for the human race.

The women of Australia and New Zealand can vote, and help make the laws.  Are the labor conditions better there than they are in England, where the suffragettes are making such a heroic struggle? Does there exist a greater motherhood, happier and freer children than in England?  Is woman there no longer considered a mere sex commodity?  Has she emancipated herself from the Puritanical double standard of morality for men and women?  Certainly none but the ordinary female stump politician will dare answer these questions in the affirmative.  If that be so, it seems ridiculous to point to Australia and New Zealand as the Mecca of equal suffrage accomplishments.

On the other hand, it is a fact to those who know the real political conditions in Australia, that politics have gagged labor by enacting the most stringent labor laws, making strikes without the sanction of an arbitration committee a crime equal to treason.

Not for a moment do I mean to imply that woman suffrage is responsible for this state of affairs.  I do mean, however, that there is no reason to point to Australia as a wonder-worker of woman's accomplishment, since her influence has been unable to free labor from the thralldom of political bossism.

Finland has given woman equal suffrage; nay, even the right to sit in Parliament.  Has that helped to develop a greater heroism, an intenser zeal than that of the women of Russia?  Finland, like Russia, smarts under the terrible whip of the bloody Tsar.  Where are the Finnish Perovskaias, Spiridonovas, Figners, Breshkovskaias? Where are the countless numbers of Finnish young girls who cheerfully go to Siberia for their cause?  Finland is sadly in need of heroic liberators.  Why has the ballot not created them?  The only Finnish avenger of his people was a man, not a woman, and he used a more effective weapon than the ballot.

As to our own States where women vote, and which are constantly being pointed out as examples of marvels, what has been accomplished there through the ballot that women do not to a large extent enjoy in other States; or that they could not achieve through energetic efforts without the ballot?

True, in the suffrage States women are guaranteed equal rights to property; but of what avail is that right to the mass of women without property, the thousands of wage workers, who live from hand to mouth?  That equal suffrage did not, and cannot, affect their condition is admitted even by Dr. Sumner, who certainly is in a position to know.  As an ardent suffragist, and having been sent to Colorado by the Collegiate Equal Suffrage League of New York State to collect material in favor of suffrage, she would be the last to say anything derogatory; yet we are informed that "equal suffrage has but slightly affected the economic conditions of women.  That women do not receive equal pay for equal work, and that, though woman in Colorado has enjoyed school suffrage since 1876, women teachers are paid less than in California."  On the other hand, Miss Sumner fails to account for the fact that although women have had school suffrage for thirty-four years, and equal suffrage since 1894, the census in Denver alone a few months ago disclosed the fact of fifteen thousand defective school children.  And that, too, with mostly women in the educational department, and also notwithstanding that women in Colorado have passed the "most stringent laws for child and animal protection."  The women of Colorado "have taken great interest in the State institutions for the care of dependent, defective, and delinquent children."  What a horrible indictment against woman's care and interest, if one city has fifteen thousand defective children.  What about the glory of woman suffrage, since it has failed utterly in the most important social issue, the child?  And where is the superior sense of justice that woman was to bring into the political field?  Where was it in 1903, when the mine owners waged a guerilla war against the Western Miners' Union; when General Bell established a reign of terror, pulling men out of beds at night, kidnapping them across the border line, throwing them into bull pens, declaring "to hell with the Constitution, the club is the Constitution"?  Where were the women politicians then, and why did they not exercise the power of their vote?  But they did.  They helped to defeat the most fair-minded and liberal man, Governor Waite.  The latter had to make way for the tool of the mine kings, Governor Peabody, the enemy of labor, the Tsar of Colorado. "Certainly male suffrage could have done nothing worse."  Granted. Wherein, then, are the advantages to woman and society from woman suffrage?  The oft-repeated assertion that woman will purify politics is also but a myth.  It is not borne out by the people who know the political conditions of Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.

Woman, essentially a purist, is naturally bigotted and relentless in her effort to make others as good as she thinks they ought to be. Thus, in Idaho, she has disfranchised her sister of the street, and declared all women of "lewd character" unfit to vote.  "Lewd" not being interpreted, of course, as prostitution IN marriage.  It goes without saying that illegal prostitution and gambling have been prohibited.  In this regard the law must needs be of feminine nature: it always prohibits.  Therein all laws are wonderful.  They go no further, but their very tendencies open all the floodgates of hell. Prostitution and gambling have never done a more flourishing business than since the law has been set against them.

In Colorado, the Puritanism of woman has expressed itself in a more drastic form.  "Men of notoriously unclean lives, and men connected with saloons, have been dropped from politics since women have the vote."*  Could brother Comstock do more?  Could all the Puritan fathers have done more?  I wonder how many women realize the gravity of this would-be feat.  I wonder if they understand that it is the very thing which, instead of elevating woman, has made her a political spy, a contemptible pry into the private affairs of people, not so much for the good of the cause, but because, as a Colorado woman said, "they like to get into houses they have never been in, and find out all they can, politically and otherwise."**  Yes, and into the human soul and its minutest nooks and corners.  For nothing satisfies the craving of most women so much as scandal.  And when did she ever enjoy such opportunities as are hers, the politician's?

Note: * EQUAL SUFFRAGE.  Dr. Helen Sumner. ** EQUAL SUFFRAGE.

"Notoriously unclean lives, and men connected with the saloons." Certainly, the lady vote gatherers can not be accused of much sense of proportion.  Granting even that these busybodies can decide whose lives are clean enough for that eminently clean atmosphere, politics, must it follow that saloon-keepers belong to the same category? Unless it be American hypocrisy and bigotry, so manifest in the principle of Prohibition, which sanctions the spread of drunkenness among men and women of the rich class, yet keeps vigilant watch on the only place left to the poor man.  If no other reason, woman's narrow and purist attitude toward life makes her a greater danger to liberty wherever she has political power.  Man has long overcome the superstitions that still engulf woman.  In the economic competitive field, man has been compelled to exercise efficiency, judgment, ability, competency.  He therefore had neither time nor inclination to measure everyone's morality with a Puritanic yardstick.  In his political activities, too, he has not gone about blindfolded.  He knows that quantity and not quality is the material for the political grinding mill, and, unless he is a sentimental reformer or an old fossil, he knows that politics can never be anything but a swamp.

Women who are at all conversant with the process of politics, know the nature of the beast, but in their self-sufficiency and egotism they make themselves believe that they have but to pet the beast, and he will become as gentle as a lamb, sweet and pure.  As if women have not sold their votes, as if women politicians can not be bought!  If her body can be bought in return for material consideration, why not her vote?  That it is being done in Colorado and in other States, is not denied even by those in favor of woman suffrage.

As I have said before, woman's narrow view of human affairs is not the only argument against her as a politician superior to man.  There are others.  Her life-long economic parasitism has utterly blurred her conception of the meaning of equality.  She clamors for equal rights with men, yet we learn that "few women care to canvas in undesirable districts."*  How little equality means to them compared with the Russian women, who face hell itself for their ideal!

Note: * Dr. Helen A. Sumner.

Woman demands the same rights as man, yet she is indignant that her presence does not strike him dead: he smokes, keeps his hat on, and does not jump from his seat like a flunkey.  These may be trivial things, but they are nevertheless the key to the nature of American suffragists.  To be sure, their English sisters have outgrown these silly notions.  They have shown themselves equal to the greatest demands on their character and power of endurance.  All honor to the heroism and sturdiness of the English suffragettes.  Thanks to their energetic, aggressive methods, they have proved an inspiration to some of our own lifeless and spineless ladies.  But after all, the suffragettes, too, are still lacking in appreciation of real equality.  Else how is one to account for the tremendous, truly gigantic effort set in motion by those valiant fighters for a wretched little bill which will benefit a handful of propertied ladies, with absolutely no provision for the vast mass of workingwomen?  True, as politicians they must be opportunists, must take half measures if they can not get all.  But as intelligent and liberal women they ought to realize that if the ballot is a weapon, the disinherited need it more than the economically superior class, and that the latter already enjoy too much power by virtue of their economic superiority.

The brilliant leader of the English suffragettes, Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst, herself admitted, when on her American lecture tour, that there can be no equality between political superiors and inferiors. If so, how will the workingwoman of England, already inferior economically to the ladies who are benefited by the Shackleton bill,* be able to work with their political superiors, should the bill pass? Is it not probable that the class of Annie Keeney, so full of zeal, devotion, and martyrdom, will be compelled to carry on their backs their female political bosses, even as they are carrying their economic masters.  They would still have to do it, were universal suffrage for men and women established in England.  No matter what the workers do, they are made to pay, always.  Still, those who believe in the power of the vote show little sense of justice when they concern themselves not at all with those whom, as they claim, it might serve most.

Note: * Mr. Shackleton was a labor leader.  It is therefore self-evident that he should introduce a bill excluding his own constituents.  The English Parliament is full of such Judases.

The American suffrage movement has been, until very recently, altogether a parlor affair, absolutely detached from the economic needs of the people.  Thus Susan B. Anthony, no doubt an exceptional type of woman, was not only indifferent but antagonistic to labor; nor did she hesitate to manifest her antagonism when, in 1869, she advised women to take the places of striking printers in New York.* I do not know whether her attitude had changed before her death.

Note: * EQUAL SUFFRAGE.  Dr. Helen A. Sumner.

There are, of course, some suffragists who are affiliated with workingwomen--the Women's Trade Union League, for instance; but they are a small minority, and their activities are essentially economic. The rest look upon toil as a just provision of Providence.  What would become of the rich, if not for the poor?  What would become of these idle, parasitic ladies, who squander more in a week than their victims earn in a year, if not for the eighty million wage workers? Equality, who ever heard of such a thing?

Few countries have produced such arrogance and snobbishness as America.  Particularly this is true of the American woman of the middle class.  She not only considers herself the equal of man, but his superior, especially in her purity, goodness, and morality. Small wonder that the American suffragist claims for her vote the most miraculous powers.  In her exalted conceit she does not see how truly enslaved she is, not so much by man, as by her own silly notions and traditions.  Suffrage can not ameliorate that sad fact; it can only accentuate it, as indeed it does.

One of the great American women leaders claims that woman is entitled not only to equal pay, but that she ought to be legally entitled even to the pay of her husband.  Failing to support her, he should be put in convict stripes, and his earnings in prison be collected by his equal wife.  Does not another brilliant exponent of the cause claim for woman that her vote will abolish the social evil, which has been fought in vain by the collective efforts of the most illustrious minds the world over?  It is indeed to be regretted that the alleged creator of the universe has already presented us with his wonderful scheme of things, else woman suffrage would surely enable woman to outdo him completely.

Nothing is so dangerous as the dissection of a fetich.  If we have outlived the time when such heresy was punishable at the stake, we have not outlived the narrow spirit of condemnation of those who dare differ with accepted notions.  Therefore I shall probably be put down as an opponent of woman.  But that can not deter me from looking the question squarely in the face.  I repeat what I have said in the beginning: I do not believe that woman will make politics worse; nor can I believe that she could make it better.  If, then, she cannot improve on man's mistakes, why perpetuate the latter?

History may be a compilation of lies; nevertheless, it contains a few truths, and they are the only guide we have for the future.  The history of the political activities of men proves that they have given him absolutely nothing that he could not have achieved in a more direct, less costly, and more lasting manner.  As a matter of fact, every inch of ground he has gained has been through a constant fight, a ceaseless struggle for self-assertion, and not through suffrage.  There is no reason whatever to assume that woman, in her climb to emancipation, has been, or will be, helped by the ballot.

In the darkest of all countries, Russia, with her absolute despotism, woman has become man's equal, not through the ballot, but by her will to be and to do.  Not only has she conquered for herself every avenue of learning and vocation, but she has won man's esteem, his respect, his comradeship; aye, even more than that: she has gained the admiration, the respect of the whole world.  That, too, not through suffrage, but by her wonderful heroism, her fortitude, her ability, will power, and her endurance in the struggle for liberty.  Where are the women in any suffrage country or State that can lay claim to such a victory?  When we consider the accomplishments of woman in America, we find also that something deeper and more powerful than suffrage has helped her in the march to emancipation.

It is just sixty-two years ago since a handful of women at the Seneca Falls Convention set forth a few demands for their right to equal education with men, and access to the various professions, trades, etc.  What wonderful accomplishment, what wonderful triumphs!  Who but the most ignorant dare speak of woman as a mere domestic drudge? Who dare suggest that this or that profession should not be open to her?  For over sixty years she has molded a new atmosphere and a new life for herself.  She has become a world power in every domain of human thought and activity.  And all that without suffrage, without the right to make laws, without the "privilege" of becoming a judge, a jailer, or an executioner.

Yes, I may be considered an enemy of woman; but if I can help her see the light, I shall not complain.

The misfortune of woman is not that she is unable to do the work of man, but that she is wasting her life force to outdo him, with a tradition of centuries which has left her physically incapable of keeping pace with him.  Oh, I know some have succeeded, but at what cost, at what terrific cost!  The import is not the kind of work woman does, but rather the quality of the work she furnishes.  She can give suffrage or the ballot no new quality, nor can she receive anything from it that will enhance her own quality.  Her development, her freedom, her independence, must come from and through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and not as a sex commodity.  Second, by refusing the right to anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them; by refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the family, etc.; by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer.  That is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all its complexities, by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation.  Only that, and not the ballot, will set woman free, will make her a force hitherto unknown in the world, a force for real love, for peace, for harmony; a force of divine fire, of life giving; a creator of free men and women.


 

You can opt-out at any time. Please refer to our privacy policy for contact information.

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.