Early 1900s Posters Warning Men About The Dangers Of Women’s Rights

210579

Early 1900s Posters Warning Men About The Dangers Of Women’s Rights

Early 1900s Posters Warning Men About The Dangers Of Women's Rights
Early 1900s Posters Warning Men About The Dangers Of Women’s Rights




These early 1900s propaganda posters warning men about the dangers of women’s rights are extremely absurd but all the more funny in modern day times. Considering the politically correct period we’re living in today, such posters would be completely unimaginable these days. Well, at least not without a severe lawsuit.

Throughout history, women had to fight for every right they have today. They had to fight for the world to acknowledge them as men’s equals. Although this is a given today, no more than 100 years ago women were not even allowed to vote in most countries on Earth.

‘The Suffragettes’ were women who thought for equal rights and especially for the right to vote. Their movement started in the late 19th century and went all the way up till the mid 20th century. While this term usually refers to activists from the United Kingdom, members of this movement were present all over the world, from the US to Australia, from New Zealand to Canada.

Early 1900s Posters Warning Men About The Dangers Of Women's Rights
Early 1900s Posters Warning Men About The Dangers Of Women’s Rights

The Isle of Man was one of the first places were women who owned property were allowed to vote in parliamentary (Tynwald) elections in 1881. The first self-governing country to grant all women the right to vote was New Zealand in 1893.

In 1895, South Australia also allowed women to vote and from 1869, women over the age of 21 were granted voting power in Wyoming. Utah shortly followed in 1870 and so did all the American states outside the South by 1919. Women all over the US were allowed to vote in 1920, marking a huge milestone for all women’s rights movements.

Early 1900s Posters Warning Men About The Dangers Of Women's Rights
Early 1900s Posters Warning Men About The Dangers Of Women’s Rights

In 1919, women over the age of 21 were also allowed to vote in Canada (without Quebec) and in Great Britain, women over 30, with certain property qualifications, were given the right to vote in 1918. In 1928, suffrage was granted to all women over the age of 21.

Now, over 100 years let’s take a look at this incredibly absurd propaganda posters from 1900-1914. Which one do you find to be the most ridiculous?

sdfsdfsdfsdfsdfvsintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(12)_465_731_int sdfsdfsdfvintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(6)_465_715_int sdfsdfsdfvintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(9)_465_724_int sdfsfsdfsdfsvintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(2)_465_735_int sfsfsdfsdfsvintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(5)_465_710_int vintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(3)_465_579_int vintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(4)_465_595_int vintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(5)_465_309_int vintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(6)_465_292_int vintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(10)_465_299_int vintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(10)_465_312_int vintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(15)_465_286_int vsdfsdfsdfsdfsdfintage_woman_suffragette_poster_(14)_465_699_int

If you think this is appalling, be sure to take a look at these 40 Vintage Offensive Ads Directed At Women! Trust us, society has learned nothing…




  • Merida Kiley

    Well as far as this girl is concerned a woman’s place is in the home. As for voting the fact that I have the right to vote means that my man has two votes instead of one.

    • Betsy Warren

      And if that’s the way you feel there’s nothing wrong with that. Most women are different. By the blood, sweat, and tears of the women who fought for us they earned our right to vote. I will not void that sacrifice by letting someone else tell me what to think, nor how to feel, or that I am worth less because I have female parts instead of male. Men are only half this planet, and they do not now and will not ever rule me.

      • Reni Esho

        We are all individuals
        and we will only eva rule and govern
        ourselves for eternity.. dont blame the other gender or use the other
        gender as your empowerment. Women
        who allow men to “rule” them.. allow such things.. the way in
        which this society is run doesn’t always aid the confidence of a
        women.. but if the media was different, the stereotypes were changed
        and even the upbringing of our children would result in there
        personality, experiences and decisions being very different. Society
        is constantly changing for both sexes with the help of the LGBT
        shedding light on feminine men who do drag and embrace the strength
        and beauty of women. I think your states ‘Men are only half this
        planet and think they know’ what stereotypical facade are you
        focusing on? Men & women have shaped history into making other
        men, children and sons ignorant towards women with social pressures,
        “norms” that this society has brain washed us into. Dont pin
        point one gender when most women of today unfortunately like “Men
        to me men, taller so they can feel safer” I get frustrated with
        women who are aiding the confidence of men by masculine,
        stereotypical bull shit only based on sexual presences. Its 2016 and
        I think both genders should be working together better since we teach
        our children the history of women and the struggles of gender, race
        and culture.

        • lisaspups

          You are entitled to your thoughts but they are from a man’s point of view and, thereby, flawed. To suggest that the oppression of women is because they “allow” it, ignores the era and the rule of law, which was, an still is in many regards in the hand of men.

        • Drgulla

          Some women do “allow” men to rule them- Merida seems to be one example of a woman who makes that choice. I have total respect for a woman (or a man for that matter) who chooses to stay at home and raise children. I have zero respect for a woman saying “the fact that I have the right to vote means that my man has two votes.” Being a home maker does not mean you give up your brain and your opinions. On the other hand, Reni, there are power dynamics in many relationships and in many cultures in which women really do not have rights. Countries where the law prevents women from driving or hold her responsible for being raped. Sure, get frustrated with women who aid masculine stereotypes, but don’t blame women for being oppressed by men. Men need to take responsibility for their own behavior.

    • Sneakymaus

      Nobody cares what you think. Now, get back in the kitchen and make us some sandwiches. Tell your man to keep a tighter hold on your leash. Does he know you’re making a fool of yourself on the internet? It reflects badly on him.

      • Merida Kiley

        He is the one who allowed me to make that statement.

        • Laura Palmer

          are you serious?

        • stubbikins

          And if you did not have his permission he would do what? Hit you? Tie you up? Lock you in the house?

      • Phil B.

        Pretty weak troll attempt there friend.

    • BahlSanchin

      Clearly, some of you with serious mental problems actually prefer your chains. Most however, do not.

    • not brainwashed much are you ?

      • Merida Kiley

        Nope. I was raised being told I can do anything I wanted. How does my being submissive to my guy mean I am brainwashed? But then again this being the 21st century means that I have to be some women’s libber and be equal to men. What if it’s my choice to allow men to be the head of the house? How is that a mental issue?

        • Brent Keathley

          As long as you entered into it of free will, and don’t expect anyone else to live by it, follow your dreams. These posts are vile however, nothing free will about this ignorant shit.

        • celeste1234

          I’m sorry you’re being put down and judged. I have to say, though, it is sad to hear that you think of “women’s libbers” as being a negative thing. Because of them, you have the right to choose to stay at home, or not. You can choose to be submissive to a man, or you can choose to find a man you can be 100% equal with, with the same rights, freedoms, choices, and a voice, if that is what you prefer. To be a “women’s libber” you don’t have to work outside of the home, not have kids, hate men, or whatever else you’ve been told. To be a “women’s libber” means that you are proud to have the choice, a choice that should matter only to you and your family, no one else. There are no rules that women “must” follow any longer. You chose the life you want, not the life that society has decided you must live. That is what feminism, and women’s libbers have given you, your “man”, any children you may have, and all of us, men and women. The idea of feminism also relates to men, and should/can/will help men to be able to pursue their own lives, instead of the kind of lives society has decided for them. Men should be able to be emotional, expressive, quiet, artistic, strong, weak, manly, less manly, rugged, polished, or work in whatever field they choose, without judgements.

        • stubbikins

          No one has used the phrase women’s libber in 50 years.

          You seem to have some sort of extreme sub fetish based on bizarre fantasy. Being a housewife does not imply complete throwing away of your individual humanity. The only people that do that are abused people.

    • WildCelticRose

      And you have that RIGHT and the CHOICE because women before you FOUGHT and DIED for it.

      • Merida Kiley

        To me it is not so much a right as a privilege. But that’s just me. Different strokes for different folks

        • stubbikins

          Voting is a right. Making your own decisions is a right. You can pretend to be a slave to your man, but you still have the right to create your own life because the laws give you thise rights.

          Play your master/slave fetish games, but dont pretend it is more than a game you are choosing to play

      • Quinn E Darrow

        Can you name one women that DIED for it? I’m not aware of any, unless you include the one that accidentally threw herself under a moving horse.

        • Drgulla

          Frankly I don’t know of women who died for the right to vote (not saying that there weren’t any- I wouldn’t be surprised if there were) but many women were beaten and imprisoned. Since we have the Interwebs it is not hard to find such accounts. Here is one story http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage1900/a/suffrage_brutal.htm

          • Quinn E Darrow

            I’m well aware that women were imprisoned (by their own choice, as a political protest), and were treated the way prisoners were treated in those days as a result. My point was that claiming that women actually died for the right to vote is a huge rewriting of history.

          • You think the Occoquan Workhouse’s “Night of Terror,” was typical for prisoners?

          • Quinn E Darrow

            Crime committed or not, it was very much their choice to go to prison because they were given many opportunities to avoid that fate, and turned them down, in order to make a political statement.

            Yes, back then I think the “Night of Terror” was typical for prisoners. Even the first-hand accounts of suffragettes in prison gives credence to this. One of them describes a night where a couple of unarmed male prisoners tried to escape. They were hunted down by guards and dogs, and then shot to death after surrendering, even though they were only in prison for bad debts.

          • No. Given the choice between cowardice and injustice, that is no choice at all. Blaming people for choosing justice and righteousness and being brutalized for that is abhorrent. I assume the Selma Marchers also choose to get beaten bloody with batons? That it was their choice. That’s what they wanted to happen?

          • Quinn E Darrow

            The Selma Marchers did NOT have a choice as to whether they were beaten. The suffragettes DID have a choice as to whether they would be imprisoned. They deliberately chose to go to prison to make a political statement, which was actually quite effective, specifically because society at the time was appalled at the very idea that upper class privileged white women could be thrown in jail to mingle with the common prostitutes and other low-class offenders that nobody gave a crap about. There were probably many other “Nights of Terror” that took place in that prison, but the only one you’re aware of is the one that affected those privileged women–that alone should tell you something.

          • chomps

            I don’t know of many activists who would abandon their cause simply to avoid jail time. Technically, they had a choice, but yeah, by the same logic the Selma marchers could have stayed homee instead too.

          • stubbikins

            It was not their choice to be second class citizens.

          • Also, it’s pretty obvious as it was to the judges that heard the case that they committed no fucking crime at all. That their arrests, sham trials, and imprisonment for protesting was and obviously is completely unconstitutional. The insinuation that they were treated as criminals because they crimed or something is beyond stupid. It wasn’t their choice. It never is when you commit no crime and are thrown into prison illegally.

        • stubbikins

          The right to vote was not a sudden fight after 1900. Before then many women fought for rights of all kinds, many were locked up, jailed, beaten and killed from all those things. They will always remain unnamed because they were considered insane and worthless for centuries before there were magazines and newspapers to make them famous.

          Stop trying minimize the centuries of torture, slavery and abuse women auffered just to get the most basic human rights that men already had just for having a dangle on their crotch

          • Quinn E Darrow

            The most basic human rights that men already had? You mean like the right to vote? Oh wait that’s right–the great majority of men only gained the right to vote a few short decades before all women did (and only one decade in Britain). And they didn’t get that right because they had a “dangle”, they got it because it became impossible to justify forcing them to die by the millions in wars without giving them some say in their own governance. In contrast, all women got the right to vote because a vocal minority of them said “we want the right to vote”, and the vast oppressive patriarchal overlords that be then responded with a tyrannical “okay”.

            Stop rewriting history. You do a great disservice to it by pretending that all women were treated like dirt and all men were treated like kings.

          • Tony Anzalone

            Non-property owning white men were granted the right to vote starting in 1792. The15th amendment allowed men of color to vote in 1870. Although you could argue that 50 years is “a few short decades”, you cannot argue that 128 years is a short time. Your depiction of suffragettes as being “a vocal minority of them said “we want the right to vote”” and then it was just handed to them, is insufferably shallow and factually incorrect. To be so flippantly ignorant is inexcusable, unless you are trolling which, upon retrospect, I see you probably are.

          • Quinn E Darrow

            Wrong. In the United States voting restrictions based on religion were gone by 1790, but the requirement to be a property owner and/or taxpayer changed much more gradually. Even at late as 1860, there were still five states that limited the right to vote to taxpayers, and two states that still imposed property qualifications. The movement towards universal suffrage has been slow but ongoing, and universal suffrage for women was only one focus of that process. Contrary to popular belief, 15 states already allowed women to fully vote before 1920, and all but 21 states allowed women to vote at some level of government. So the idea that no women could vote before 1920 is as ludicrous as the idea that all men could vote before then.

            In the UK most men did not gain the right to vote until 1918 (and only did then as a direct result of push-back from WWI conscription), and 40% of women gained the right to vote at exactly the same time (but with no conscription required). Universal suffrage for women was granted in 1928, merely 10 years later.

            It’s absolutely true that the majority of anti-suffragists were women, and it’s quite likely that the majority of women did not (at least originally) want the right to vote. So no–referring to the suffragettes as a vocal minority is not factually incorrect:

            http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/05/did-most-women-want-the-vote/

            If you’re going to call someone a “troll” and “flippantly ignorant”, at least try to ensure the facts are on your side.

          • stubbikins

            Oh, so now you pretend that state and federal law are the same thing?

          • Quinn E Darrow

            “Oh, so now you pretend that state and federal law are the same thing?”

            I’m not sure what your point is…are you implying that state laws are less important somehow? That would be an odd opinion, because it was the state laws that were preventing women from voting in the first place–there was never any Federal law prohibiting voting to anyone. Universal suffrage was a ongoing process akin to the legalization of gay marriage. Change took place on the state level first, then after enough states supported it got enshrined into Federal law (e.g., the 15th & 19th amendments), and any hold-out states then had to follow suit.

          • stubbikins

            State laws are less important when federal laws override them for the denial of basic rights. You should try taking a 3rd grade Civics class sometime.

            States that allowed women to vote only allowed women to vote in local elections, they could not vote for federal offices.

          • Quinn E Darrow

            Wrong again! As I’ve already stated, women could vote in many states–including voting for federal offices and for the president, before the 19th amendment was passed.

            http://constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw08_12159.html

            Please stop rewriting history! I think your problem might be your 3rd grade Civics class–maybe you should try taking a more adult Civics class, where they’ll (hopefully) cover history in a more nuanced way.

          • stubbikins

            A few short decades? SO you justify the abuse of women by claiming they only had to wait a few short decades? So hey, why bother with having rights… just sit down and wait for your great grandchildren to have them after you’re dead.

            Women were screaming for the right to vote before 1919. In face it was a huge part of the debate in 1865.

            I am curious where I ever once said “that all women were treated like dirt and all men were treated like kings.”

            Quote where I said that.

          • Quinn E Darrow

            “SO you justify the abuse of women by claiming they only had to wait a few short decades?”

            Begging the Question for ten points! By the way, have you stopped beating your spouse yet?

            “Women were screaming for the right to vote before 1919”

            Some women certainly were, but you haven’t established how many. Other women were too busy actually voting before 1919 to waste their time screaming, and many women were screaming that they didn’t even want the right to vote (that’s how horribly abused they felt they were).

            “Quote where I said that.”

            Red Herring for five points! I didn’t claim you actually said it (if I had, I would have surrounded your words with quotation marks, as I did above). What I did was essentially accuse you of believing it, which is supported by your statement of:

            “Stop trying minimize the centuries of torture, slavery and abuse women
            auffered just to get the most basic human rights that men already had
            just for having a dangle on their crotch.”

            Note my use of quotation marks there again. So your words reasonably imply that you think women were treated like dirt (torture, slavery, etc.), and men were treated like kings (everything given to them simply for having a “dangle”). Any other questions?

          • stubbikins

            So accused me of believing something I never once even remotely hinted at or implied.

            In other words YOU LIED. You just made shit up

          • Quinn E Darrow

            I’ll up your score to 20 points for Red Herring. Thanks for playing!

          • stubbikins

            Red herring would be you making shit up that I never said nor implied

          • Quinn E Darrow

            No, that isn’t a Red Herring. A Red Herring is you accusing me of being a liar and acting all butthurt about it, in an attempt to distract from the fact that you have no valid counter-arguments. 30 points and counting…

          • stubbikins

            You lied. That makes you a liar. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Why don’t you take personal responsibility for your own actions?

          • stubbikins

            Thanks for quoting my sentence, now try actually reading it. “most basic human rights” being the key phrase that you ignore. “most basic human rights” does not imply men were treated like kings not even remotely. Nor does my sentence say ALL women were tortured (they were, however, denied basic human rights by law.)

    • rachiti

      Interesting how this the ONLY comment this individual has ever made. This leads me to believe that this is a troll account…or at least the account of someone with a feeble mind.

      • Merida Kiley

        Sorry, but not a troll. I don’t live under a bridge. How about maybe, just maybe I only joined a couple days ago.

        • Bob Bell in hell

          during the Festival of Knowing Trolling

    • Phil B.

      If you prefer to be barefoot and pregnant, thats certainly your right. But don’t try to inflict that on every other woman.

    • Nicole O’Connor Yesko

      Lol, definitely trolling. I mean its pretty easy to find you on facebook. Clearly you were born male. How can a male to female trans person not believe that a women’s vote is her own? I’ll tell you that the people who made all of these postcards would not be very kind to you. Be submissive if you want, but ‘women libbers’ would accept you the way you are sooner than -most- men who think women belong under their thumb would..

    • Debo Rah

      Merida, I have two questions for you:
      1: may i ask you why? Why do you feel so not worthy of voting that your husband takes over the right that you as individual have?
      2: Even if you think the place for a woman is the home, do you not find those postcards highly humiliating for women? Depicting women as object? I am very very shocked that you are in this old-fashioned and very sad mindset.

    • Renee T.

      LOL! You win funny remark!

    • tabaqui

      That’s really too bad.

    • Laura Palmer

      ew. Really? You have no opinion of your own? I find that so sad.

    • celeste1234

      I suppose that so long as you are truly happy with being in the home, and giving up your vote and opinions to your husband, that’s your thing. I couldn’t be that way, nor would my husband or any man I dated before him have ever wanted that from me. Most women i know want something more, or if they do choose to be a stay at home mom/wife, they choose it themselves, not because it’s expected of them by society or anyone. These women, though, still want equal say, and rights within the home. Just because the man makes the money does not mean the woman loses her rights. It should be a joint union by choice. If you give up your autonomy, or have it taken away from you, well, that’s kind of sad. You run the risk of becoming less of a human being, and more of just a servant with no rights, no voice, and no reason. It’s a thin line to be walking on, I think.

    • JonathanNathan

      Oh my God please don’t reproduce

    • Pagan

      You are welcome to feel that way but don’t force it on those who have a brain and would like to use it independent of what some man tells them to do.

    • stubbikins

      Merida Kiley, I am curious, is that your opinion or your husbands? Do you ever have an opinion of your own that you stand by? Why would you give your husband 2 votes instead of voting how you want? You do know the vpte is confidential, he would never know if you voted differently

      • Merida Kiley

        This is my opinion.

        • stubbikins

          But you have said repeatedly that you live by your husband’s opinion, not your own.

          • Merida Kiley

            It was my choice to live this way.

          • stubbikins

            Yes, it is your fetish. we get that. Stop pretending it is in any way normal or healthy for women to throw away their opinions and brains.

          • Merida Kiley

            When did I say it was healthy or normal. This is how I love my life.

          • stubbikins

            Thank You for admitting it is unhealthy.

  • Denis Kitchen

    I enjoyed the crazy period graphics, but I have one important question: why does the headline and the text refer to these as POSTERS? They are POSTCARDS. Big difference. I happen to know because I collect postcards from this era, but I suspect many (most?) of your readers will not know. Something you can hopefully still fix?

    • Drgulla

      That is your big takeaway from this imagery? Talk about missing the forest for the trees!

      • Denis Kitchen

        Duh! The total wrongness of the century-old political commentary is self-evident by any rational modern person. What I pointed out gets to the credibility of the piece itself— it’s tainted by the headline and text calling the images “posters” when they are in fact “postcards.” We can’t discuss the forest AND the trees and get the facts straight??

        • The imagery and message is what’s important, not the format. That these are postcards not posters is irrelevant except to pedantic individuals such as yourself.

    • stubbikins

      Provide proof that these were not also printed as posters, or printed first as posters then copied onto postcards.

      • Denis Kitchen

        Good Lord! I pointed out that these are postcards, not “propaganda posters,” not to question in any way the vileness of the imagery and political message, but to show that the person who posted these images was sloppy, and that facts and credibility are important. Now you expect me to “prove” that they were postcards? Anyone who knows anything about postcards or posters, or who does a few minutes research can determine the truth, but a few clues on the images are self-evident. First, all are images are of equal proportion. Postcards a hundred years ago measured 3.5 x 5.5 inches uniformly, whereas posters were not identical in proportion. The image of a man on his knees wearing an apron was published by Bamforth, a leading publisher of postcards, not posters. The fine print above the head of the man doing dishes says, “Suffragette Series No. 11,” when series of related images were common to postcards, assiduously collected during the era. Posters, as a practical matter, weren’t issued in “series.” The most obvious proof is the “Masculine Woman,” where the fine print in the lower left says quite clearly “Illustrated Post Card.” Postcards, which cost a penny to buy and a penny to mail, were enormously popular during this period and effectively the email of the era. The creators, publishers, and purveyors of postcards were overwhelmingly male and thus it is no surprise that these examples, intended to be humorous, in hindsight display only ignorance. But modern writers discussing history must get their facts right. The author of this article should correct the labeling error so that the misogyny of the period is the focus. Otherwise ignorance of another kind enters the discussion.

        • stubbikins

          You CLAIMED that these were only postcards, anyone on the internet can CLAIM anything.

          You actually have no idea if they were posters. Postcards were frequently made from designs and prints from other sources, like posters. Even if they scanned a postcard for the image that does not mean it was only ever printed as a postcard.

          Postcards were NOT all the same size 100 years ago. They simply weren’t. I have a collection of 5000. Images on the internet are scanned and cropped, there is no real measurement attached to it so claiming they are all the correct size is ludicrous.

          But hey, good job focusing on literally the least important part of the article.

          • Denis Kitchen

            Yes, any fool can claim anything, just as you are challenging facts easily ascertained with a little research. You ignore the fine print cited on two of the images themselves. You say you have a digital collection of 5,000 postcard “images.” I have an actual collection of suffragette postcards from a century ago. I know historic postcards: they were of uniform size. As to focusing on the least important part of the article, I have not in any manner disparaged the author’s points about the misogyny in the images; I have simply said the author’s credibility is tainted by failing to acknowledge the factual error in calling these images posters when none of them are.

          • stubbikins

            No, I have a collection of 500 POSTCARDS. I never said only images.

            The images are NOT all postcards, and you have yet to prove the postcards are the ONLY manifestation of the images. For instance, one is from the Library of Congress, not a postcard. i will let you figure out which.

          • Denis Kitchen

            Last word from me and I’m moving on here. The images shown here are published in “American Woman Suffrage Postcards: A Study and Catalog” by Kenneth Florey (McFarland & Co., 2015). Aside from first-hand knowledge as a collector, there is your “proof” they are postcards. Look ’em up. Now show me any of these images in a poster catalog or poster reference book. You can’t. The author T.B.V. obviously did not scan these images but took them from another source and was sloppy and lazy in calling them “Posters” in the headline and text. End of dust-up.

          • stubbikins

            LOL, You just figured out that clickbait articles copy and paste from each other?
            And for the tenth time, something being a postcard eventually does not mean it was only ever printed as a postcard

          • Denis Kitchen

            Yeah, laugh, but this Disqus newbie doesn’t know the term clickbait. A friend who knows my interest in this area simply thought I’d be interested and i was naive enough to try to correct an obvious error. And dumb enough to use my actual name instead of a pseudonym like some. But savvy enough to prove with cited reference that these are all postcards and you still think they were only “eventual” postcards? Repeating a theory ten times without an iota of proof is not smart, though thanks for explaining that “clickbait articles” don’t play by normal rules of fact-checking.

          • stubbikins

            I am very sorry that you are so new and too fragile to read the internet. Go cry to mommy.

          • Denis Kitchen

            And you can go fuck yourself, you gratuitously nasty and anonymous asshole.

          • stubbikins

            Hey! Thanks for proving my point!

  • Tim Patten

    That was fun. In those days – families had KIDS! And between a man and a women responsible to raise those brats, I’m sure it was hard to understand who was going to do what.

    • Drgulla

      Families don’t have kids now? Really?

    • celeste1234

      Any adult who calls children “brats” are not to be respected in the least.

    • stubbikins

      Families have kids now. Are you under some delusion they don’t?

  • Athena Brown

    Summa dat some kinky shit!

  • Drgulla

    I am actually amazed after reading all of these comments that no one has mentioned the utter brutality of some of these images. Aside from the lying propaganda (that women voting means men will be abused and bullied and children neglected) but the gleeful depictions of physical torture of women, the suggestion that only mean, masculine (i.e. ugly an crazy) old women would want to vote.

    • Debo Rah

      i am shocked by that too…depicting women as objects to restrain or animals to tame with cages and locks! aweful!

    • Ali

      My first thoughts also. And the actual brutality real women went through was worse.

    • celeste1234

      That was what I was first shocked by! And this idea is still going on- men (and women) who verbally bully and put down strong women, women who want to be themselves, or try to live their own lives are often attacked by others (not just by men), as people try to force these women into the corner. I know I’ve been called many horrible names, and tried to be put down by both sexes, treated as an object, etc just because I’ve always been a strong, opinionated woman who isn’t afraid to stand up and state opinions, or to stand up for others including non human animals, our planet, etc. It’s amazing that, in 2016, women still have to deal with versions of what these images show.

    • Susan

      I know that the police could get very rough with Suffragettes right here in California. My Grandmother was a small bird boned woman and twice they broke a rib or two on her. It didn’t stop her demonstrating though

    • LiaS

      The force feeding, in that one poster, was no mere imagining. That went on both in the UK and the US. Ironically, the US adopted “Suffragists” because they didn’t want to be associated with what they viewed as the more “militant” Suffragette movement in the UK … but ended up with many similar types of events happening here. A very long and hard won battle!

    • Preston Venzant

      there were laws on the books to actually beat your wife back in those days, it was a very different place, slavery was legal, child abuse was legal, and lynchings were legal, it was a different world in the United States and all around the world

    • noandra

      My thoughts too.

  • What doesn’t stop to shock me is how slow, and oftentimes backwards-oriented the evolution on this sad planet is…

  • Preston Venzant

    Women got the vote and the country has been going down ever since. Go and see the first president that women voted for. They voted for Clinton, Obama and they are going to vote for Hillary too. I have learned all my sincerity and love from women. I have learned most of my toughness in a hard situation from men. I learned to take care of my wife and children from women. However, I watched women countless times fall for a fool. I know I sound hard but if you read your Bible you will see it is the women who fell for foolishness from the beginning. They followed Christ also. But to ignore the truth is a man’s worst decision.

    • Ali

      “if you read your Bible you will see it is the women who fell for foolishness from the beginning”

      No one pointed a gun at Adam’s head. He fell for the same foolishness of his own free will.

      • Preston Venzant

        That’s the point. Adam knew what he was doing. Eve was deceived.

        • Ali

          So Adam knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway. Sounds just as foolish so I’m not seeing the distinction. Men and women both make mistakes and they both do the right thing. And if you think only women are voting for Clinton or only women voted for Obama or only women fall for the fool you’re sadly mistaken.

          • Preston Venzant

            Did you get the point or are you really saying it is better to be fooled into something or to know going in of the ramifications of your actions? Being fooled makes you someone’s puppet. That is the point. And please be civil.

          • TheLizardfolk

            I’ve known plenty of men who were foolish and plenty of men who voted for both Clinton and Obama. Foolishness is not a feminine trait. Nor is reckless abandon a masculine trait.

          • Preston Venzant

            When the men begin to act like women then you have that argument but men who act like men think like men. Which one are you?

          • TheLizardfolk

            If men can act like women and women can act like men, then what’s the problem?

          • stubbikins

            Real men do not treat women as lesser beings and real men do not fear strong women. Real men do not care if some dude on the internet makes pathetic attempts to demean their manhood.

          • Preston Venzant

            and even more stubbikins, what a pathetic life you have. You follow Christians around a discussion only to be pathetic. You are pathetic. What a pathetic life you have. Pathetic. LOL.

          • stubbikins

            Sorry about that brain damage you suffer

    • celeste1234

      I’ve seen plenty of men fall for fools, as well. The bible tells you diddly squat other than a bunch of stories that only serve to show a bit of history, and how people thought and lived.

      And what’s wrong with voting for Clinton, Obama or anyone else? We don’t sit here and tell you what a douchebag you are for voting for Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr, and now probably Trump!

      • Preston Venzant

        You assume I am a Republican. I am not. There is a long history in the Bible of women giving very emotional ideas to men. There are exceptions as in anything but the general is quite real. From Eve to Sarah to the wife of Job and the wife of Lot. All these women were the wives of very wise men. All of them either influenced there husbands to do extreme things or hid their foolish thoughts from them. The perfect example, for your edification, though you are quite perturbed with my statement, is this, “The adulterous woman wipes her mouth and says I have done no wrong.” You understand the Word of God does not go away. Kingdoms and nations come and go but these words will always remain. Heaven and Earth will pass away but His Words shall never pass away. Though you may think otherwise.

        • kwilson

          You can keep your misogynist “god” Preston. If your laws regarding bodily autonomy don’t include me, then they don’t apply to me, either.
          You, sir, can ingest a sack of richards.
          Have a lonely day.

          • Preston Venzant

            My God teaches me to respect those I come into contact with. After 30 years of marriage, I think I am allowed an opinion without be disrespected. But yeah, He obviously does not include you.

          • stubbikins

            When you post your opinion on the internet other people can be as disrespectful as they damn well please.

            No one cares what you think your sky fairy told some man 2000 years ago

          • Preston Venzant

            More stubbikins, if you had believed then you would not act like a fool to someone you don’t know.

          • stubbikins

            LOL, you really do not comprehend that preaching about your sky fairy is YOU making an idiot of yourself

          • Preston Venzant

            Your unbelief is as old as the world. It will bring you the exact same results. How can you hope to confuse those He speaks to? Your madness is far greater than you know. And you have perfect understanding of your madness.

          • stubbikins

            LOL, He who? Thor? Zeus?

            The world existed for millions of years before a bunch of old men made up stories about your “god”

          • Preston Venzant

            kwilson, I don’t know how you could fool anyone into loving you. Very nasty indeed. Almost funny, if it wasn’t so sick. How did you become so angry and disgusting all at the same time? Are you a closet sicky or do you act sicky around everyone? I really don’t know how you could fool anyone into loving you. You must be in solitary confinement of the soul. That is a shame.

        • stubbikins

          The Bible has no mention of toilets, does that mean you shit in your back yard?

          A 2000 year old book has nothing to do with anything.

          • Preston Venzant

            Hey stubbikins, there be Jews here there and everywhere. Explain that.

          • stubbikins

            WTF do Jews have to do with you using the Bible to insist that women are worthless?

          • Preston Venzant

            You do argue like an atheist. Go away angry person. You don’t care about the subject you just hate God.

          • stubbikins

            No one is angry, just trying to figure out WTF you are saying with your nonsense. You realize you are completely insane don’t you?

      • kwilson

        Pretty sure Friend Preston is more of a Libertarian.
        They prefer interpretation of the Constitution to be “literal”
        and in their case that can be translated as “Women are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, therefore, women are not to be considered Citizens of the US.”

        Which is why Gary Johnson plans to nominate Andrew Napolitano to the SCOTUS as his first act in office. Napolitano is one of the most vocal anti-women’s rights Federal Justices in the country.

        Libertarians are all about keeping the “government” our of private business, unless one is fertile and female. Their stance is that only men have reproductive rights — and that women have reproductive obligations.

        • chomps

          Just wanted to pop in to clarify that Napolitano supports Johnson, not the other way around. I am a lifelong Democrat who supported Bernie, so I don’t have a motive to convince you otherwise. Peace out.

    • stubbikins

      Going down ever since? So you are upset that we no longer have most of the country working in sweat shops? Dying in childhood? You want more crime? Lynchings? Women beaten to death? Raped? With no where to get help?

      Women fell for fools 100 years ago too, except they were forced to be married to them for decades and have babies every year.

      The world is far better today.

      • Preston Venzant

        You can’t put a diatribe of words in my mouth. You should ask what I mean.

  • Tony Thompson

    It should be pointed out that not all women in the US were granted the right to vote in 1919. Black women and Native women had to wait decades more for that right.

    • Matthew Scott

      “The 19th Amendment gave voting rights to women, including African-American women, in 1920. In 1964, the 24th Amendment outlawed poll taxes, removing another major barrier to African-American voting. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law.”

      Just going to leave that there.

      • Paula Woods

        You’re kidding, right?

        • Matthew Scott

          Welp. If you don’t like historical fact, that’s your fault. It said the removal of tax was what lifted a lot of regulations against African American voters. But thanks for telling me what i already knew and stated. 🙂

      • Kerry Miller

        “As the women’s suffrage movement gained popularity, African-American women were increasingly marginalized. African-American women dealt not only with the sexism of being withheld the vote but also the racism of white suffragists. The struggle for the vote did not end with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. In some Southern states, African American women were unable to freely exercise their right to vote up until the 1960s”

        Just going to leave that there.

        • Matthew Scott

          Welp. If you don’t like historical fact, that’s your fault. It said the removal of tax was what lifted a lot of regulations against African American voters. But thanks for telling me what i already knew and stated. 🙂 Your dates are off btw.

          • Kerry Miller

            The comment you posted suggested that you were of the opinion that there were no restrictions to Black women voting after their “right” was granted by the 19th Amendment. However everyone knows that’s simply not true. Black men and women were consistently and legally denied their right to vote for decades after the 19th, and even recently we’ve seen local authorities employ loopholes in the law to deny POC their vote in closely contested electoral races.

            What I was trying to point out to you was that simply because a piece of paper says something does not mean that it is a reality for the people it affects.

            Also, my dates are off? The only date I included was 1960s which is correct. Unless I’ve lost the plot 1964 is still counted in the 1960s, right?

          • Vincent Jason Coleman II

            Oh. Matt S., Only reading the law but not reviewing what was actually going on… The same that “All men are created equal.” Except that before the constitution was created, one of the first laws of this Rich land Owner country was that blacks/Moors were not human. So the laws thereafter was not meant for them. Black man and woman. I’ll just leave that here.

    • Pagan

      But black men did get the vote before white women so I would call that one a wash.

      • Pabs W

        On paper they got the vote. In reality, they were unable to exercise their right to vote. You need to read the rest of the history book to see how it ends.

    • stubbikins

      All women were granted the federal right to vote. In some areas there were local barriers that made it impossible. The right existed even though some states blocked it.

      • dacaria

        Just like what they’re doing with woman’s reproductive rights today.

  • 8DX

    “Throughout history, women had to fight for every right they have today. They had to fight for the world to acknowledge them as men’s equals.”

    The world (including the West) still doesn’t acknowledge women as equal to men. You should use the past tense there.

  • Cvrc

    Damn it! They were right about everything!

  • Saoirse O’Dwyer (栗原美雪)

    The telling thing is that the main complaint of men from this era is that they would be treated the way they treat women.

    • celeste1234

      Absolutely! It really shows how the oppressor always fears being treated the same as the oppressed. THat’s why the oppressor will always, always fight tooth and nail to never give up power.

  • Joanna

    Gruesome!

  • Pagan

    I would be shocked if it weren’t for the fact that there are many modern day a$$hats who still believe womens shouldn’t be allowed to vote or hold dominion over males. It is interesting how violent many of these images are. It’s as if men believed they owned women – oh wait, they still do and the violence against women hasn’t gotten any better.

  • Chris

    If you think these feelings only existed in the early 1900s and not today you are kidding yourself! Just as there are many amongst us that wish the south had won the civil war and will never change their core beliefs because they are taught values from their parents so do those that have been taught misogyny by their parents still hold these core values. Do not confuse political correctness for core values. While the majority of men will not openly agree with this there is a large contingent of men that still identify with the “he-man woman haters club” because they never grew up and never will. This also explains why so many uneducated men hate Hillary Clinton and believe her to be a liar because of what has been told to them by their parents and if you think that is unfair than I guess you must also believe that Obama has never had to deal with the underlying racism that still persists to this day in our country.

  • dacaria

    So, basically women wanting equal rights either couldn’t get a man, or wanted to be a man, and that to be a good woman, she had to be in the house taking care of her husband and children, b/c the poor man felt abused if she wanted more, and the only way to stop one’s wife or any woman for fighting for her rights, was to brutally put her back in her place, her home? Wow, I know these were 100 year old, but this is how some GOP men think today.

  • TessDC

    My god, men driven to such ugliness and violence just because others want to be treated as they are – men’s equals.

  • kritikosman

    Dayum! Somewhere and sometime in the future,… these present days will be seen the same way–sadly.

  • Shermbie

    Is there anyway to provide where the original images where sourced from? The archive, library, or special collection? This would be really helpful for anyone who is doing research or interested in looking at the primary artifacts.

  • Pingback: Early 1900s Posters Warning Men About The Dangers Of Women’s Rights – online! « Salon 21()

  • Pingback: Ethics - Theory of Knowledge | Pearltrees()

  • Pingback: 9 Iconic Photos Of The Most Badass Women In History()

  • Pingback: Comic Book 'Superheroes' Were Sexist Women Beaters()