Nellie McClung (1873-1951) was a Canadian feminist who championed the rights of women particularly, the right to vote and hold political office. She was a vocal activist on social and moral reform issues and played a key role in such movements in the early 1900s (Strong-Boag 278). Her writings captured her political thoughts and articulated positions she strongly believed. In the book, In Times Like These, she raises valid arguments for the enfranchisement of women. By debunking the prevalent reasons that men used to deny women the vote, she adroitly shifts the debate to why the vote should be a preserve of males.
She appears to be addressing the sober minded elements in society and makes various appeals to their sense of reasoning in trying to make her point. Common sense arguments that she advances show that the idea of denying women the vote is baseless. Some of the perceptions held by those opposed to women voting border on male chauvinism and primitive thinking. The idea that enfranchising women will lead to the breakdown of the family as an institution is as misplaced as the belief that the world is flat. This book could also be targeting undecided women and those without a stand on extending the vote. It is thought provoking and challenges the reader to make take a stand on the issue of womens rights to vote.
Commenting on the issue of womens right to vote in the excerpt, A Country Nourished on Self Doubt Nellie attacks the arguments put forward by those opposed to extending the franchise to women (McClung 200). She dissects the views held by men folk and exposes them as mere prejudices. This particular piece is very convincing and leaves the reader with the view that denying women the vote is a travesty of justice. The view that politics is too corrupt for women is challenged by her assertion that womens traditional role includes that of being a house cleaner (McClung 200). She posits that given the chance women are capable of sanitizing politics and making it a respectable career. She adds that the act of marriage joins the wife to her husband making it impossible for one to remain unaffected by social trends and events if politics is too corrupt for women, it follows it is too corrupt for men.
With regard to the perception that extending the right to vote to women will precipitate domestic disturbances, McClung is quick to point out that son and father have accommodated divergent views on political matters and still lived in harmony. She correctly points out that marital issues are more explosive than political matters and that married partners remain together despite their disagreements. She agrees that the likelihood of women voting the same way as their husbands is very high and may increase the vote of married men. However, she views such a development as a good thing as a married man is stable and has the interests of society at heart. Any decision such a man may make will be for the good of society as opposed to self-centered concerns of bachelors.
Another reason forwarded by those opposed to women voting is that experience had shown women had little interest in political affairs. Examples from voting patterns to elect school trustees and council members revealed that women turned out in low numbers (McClung 201). While admitting womenfolk played a passive role in these elections, McClung points out that the male vote was equally unimpressive. She argues that when the issues at stake impact society greatly, women turn out in great numbers to express their will. Using anecdotal evidence about Uncle Henry, she shows how careless and petty men can be while exercising their vote. This dialogue reveals the Canadian society in the early 1900s was largely patriarchal and that the debate about women voting was more about keeping the females under subjection than it was about their abilities to vote wisely.
A paternalistic view about women pervaded the male society in Canada at the time Nellie was writing her books. Most men felt that women would be so absorbed in voting that they would forget about their duty to run their homes (McClung 202). It presupposes that women have childlike qualities and become too engrossed in a novelty. To avoid such a situation, the men folk opined it would be better to deny them the vote. The writer disabuses her audience of this notion by pointing out that voting is normally a quick process that in most cases lasts shorter than a normal Sunday church service. She reminds her readers that the women find time to attend church, sing in the choir, and prepare lunch for her children and spouse. Women are able to multitask and deliver perfect results all the time irrespective of their workloads. Nellie sees this as a positive trait that women posses and believes that extending the vote will enhance their efficiency as opposed to making them incompetent.
Nellie seeks to reverse the thinking that women are too delicate to handle the rough and tumble of politics. She disagrees with the school of thought that a womans place is in the home and advocates that those people professing this to be true conveniently forget the contribution of the women proletariat. Such women venture out early in the morning and late at night to ensure that offices are clean before the bosses report to work. She poses a rhetorical question as to why those opposed to women leaving the safety of their homes see no discrepancy with regard to the travails of female subordinates.
Some of the reasons advanced to deny women the vote include stereotypes about the nature of women. Regarded as nagging and wily, men argued that by pestering and outwitting their male counterparts, women could get anything they want (McClung 203). Consequently, it was meaningless to give them the vote to achieve what they could through cunningness. The writer disagrees with this view arguing that it demeans women by portraying them as Machiavellian in nature. She posits by extending the vote women would articulate their views through a dignified manner instead of resorting to unorthodox means. The perception that sentimentalism is the Achilles heel of women is another reason men denied women the vote in Canada.
Men felt that women voted with their hearts rather than with their minds. This factor could usher in a candidate whose key qualities had nothing to do with pork-barrel politics that dominated the political landscape. McClung considers this a virtue and encourages women to exploit their nature, as it will ensure the election people possessing qualities like honesty, dependability, and resourcefulness.
The writer defends herself from criticisms that since most women are indifferent to the issue of voting, extending the vote to a minority would be a waste of time. She argues that indifference by some is not a valid basis to deny others their right and that a sizeable majority of citizens are indifferent to issues that have a major impact on their lives (McClung 203). She envisions a situation where the enlightened will chart a path for the unenlightened and thus free them from the shackles of ignorance, indifference, and passivity.
In conclusion, Nellie McClung was addressing the Canadian society in the early 1900s. It was a society composed of patriarchal diehards, moderates, reformers and undecided people with divergent views on the subject of enfranchising women. Her role was to convince her audience of the need to extend the vote by advancing eloquent arguments. She makes a very good case for women enfranchisement by debunking a number of perceptions held by the society in which she lived. In addition, she disabuses her readers of the notion that women are childlike, incompetent, emotional creatures without the capability to make rational decisions. At the end of the reading, the audience is puzzled as to why women do not have the vote since the arguments against enfranchising them are very weak.
Nellies campaigns for extending the vote were largely successful because her writings were thought provoking and contained undeniable truths that any rational person would support. Her effectiveness in the campaign to get women enfranchised is testimony to her eloquence and incisive mind that advanced superior reasons why women deserve the right to vote.
She appears to be addressing the sober minded elements in society and makes various appeals to their sense of reasoning in trying to make her point. Common sense arguments that she advances show that the idea of denying women the vote is baseless. Some of the perceptions held by those opposed to women voting border on male chauvinism and primitive thinking. The idea that enfranchising women will lead to the breakdown of the family as an institution is as misplaced as the belief that the world is flat. This book could also be targeting undecided women and those without a stand on extending the vote. It is thought provoking and challenges the reader to make take a stand on the issue of womens rights to vote.
Commenting on the issue of womens right to vote in the excerpt, A Country Nourished on Self Doubt Nellie attacks the arguments put forward by those opposed to extending the franchise to women (McClung 200). She dissects the views held by men folk and exposes them as mere prejudices. This particular piece is very convincing and leaves the reader with the view that denying women the vote is a travesty of justice. The view that politics is too corrupt for women is challenged by her assertion that womens traditional role includes that of being a house cleaner (McClung 200). She posits that given the chance women are capable of sanitizing politics and making it a respectable career. She adds that the act of marriage joins the wife to her husband making it impossible for one to remain unaffected by social trends and events if politics is too corrupt for women, it follows it is too corrupt for men.
With regard to the perception that extending the right to vote to women will precipitate domestic disturbances, McClung is quick to point out that son and father have accommodated divergent views on political matters and still lived in harmony. She correctly points out that marital issues are more explosive than political matters and that married partners remain together despite their disagreements. She agrees that the likelihood of women voting the same way as their husbands is very high and may increase the vote of married men. However, she views such a development as a good thing as a married man is stable and has the interests of society at heart. Any decision such a man may make will be for the good of society as opposed to self-centered concerns of bachelors.
Another reason forwarded by those opposed to women voting is that experience had shown women had little interest in political affairs. Examples from voting patterns to elect school trustees and council members revealed that women turned out in low numbers (McClung 201). While admitting womenfolk played a passive role in these elections, McClung points out that the male vote was equally unimpressive. She argues that when the issues at stake impact society greatly, women turn out in great numbers to express their will. Using anecdotal evidence about Uncle Henry, she shows how careless and petty men can be while exercising their vote. This dialogue reveals the Canadian society in the early 1900s was largely patriarchal and that the debate about women voting was more about keeping the females under subjection than it was about their abilities to vote wisely.
A paternalistic view about women pervaded the male society in Canada at the time Nellie was writing her books. Most men felt that women would be so absorbed in voting that they would forget about their duty to run their homes (McClung 202). It presupposes that women have childlike qualities and become too engrossed in a novelty. To avoid such a situation, the men folk opined it would be better to deny them the vote. The writer disabuses her audience of this notion by pointing out that voting is normally a quick process that in most cases lasts shorter than a normal Sunday church service. She reminds her readers that the women find time to attend church, sing in the choir, and prepare lunch for her children and spouse. Women are able to multitask and deliver perfect results all the time irrespective of their workloads. Nellie sees this as a positive trait that women posses and believes that extending the vote will enhance their efficiency as opposed to making them incompetent.
Nellie seeks to reverse the thinking that women are too delicate to handle the rough and tumble of politics. She disagrees with the school of thought that a womans place is in the home and advocates that those people professing this to be true conveniently forget the contribution of the women proletariat. Such women venture out early in the morning and late at night to ensure that offices are clean before the bosses report to work. She poses a rhetorical question as to why those opposed to women leaving the safety of their homes see no discrepancy with regard to the travails of female subordinates.
Some of the reasons advanced to deny women the vote include stereotypes about the nature of women. Regarded as nagging and wily, men argued that by pestering and outwitting their male counterparts, women could get anything they want (McClung 203). Consequently, it was meaningless to give them the vote to achieve what they could through cunningness. The writer disagrees with this view arguing that it demeans women by portraying them as Machiavellian in nature. She posits by extending the vote women would articulate their views through a dignified manner instead of resorting to unorthodox means. The perception that sentimentalism is the Achilles heel of women is another reason men denied women the vote in Canada.
Men felt that women voted with their hearts rather than with their minds. This factor could usher in a candidate whose key qualities had nothing to do with pork-barrel politics that dominated the political landscape. McClung considers this a virtue and encourages women to exploit their nature, as it will ensure the election people possessing qualities like honesty, dependability, and resourcefulness.
The writer defends herself from criticisms that since most women are indifferent to the issue of voting, extending the vote to a minority would be a waste of time. She argues that indifference by some is not a valid basis to deny others their right and that a sizeable majority of citizens are indifferent to issues that have a major impact on their lives (McClung 203). She envisions a situation where the enlightened will chart a path for the unenlightened and thus free them from the shackles of ignorance, indifference, and passivity.
In conclusion, Nellie McClung was addressing the Canadian society in the early 1900s. It was a society composed of patriarchal diehards, moderates, reformers and undecided people with divergent views on the subject of enfranchising women. Her role was to convince her audience of the need to extend the vote by advancing eloquent arguments. She makes a very good case for women enfranchisement by debunking a number of perceptions held by the society in which she lived. In addition, she disabuses her readers of the notion that women are childlike, incompetent, emotional creatures without the capability to make rational decisions. At the end of the reading, the audience is puzzled as to why women do not have the vote since the arguments against enfranchising them are very weak.
Nellies campaigns for extending the vote were largely successful because her writings were thought provoking and contained undeniable truths that any rational person would support. Her effectiveness in the campaign to get women enfranchised is testimony to her eloquence and incisive mind that advanced superior reasons why women deserve the right to vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment