1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Maurinko [17]
3 years ago
15

What would society be like without the 19th Amendment?

History
2 answers:
VARVARA [1.3K]3 years ago
7 0
Many would be unhappy with are presidents(past and present) also blacks(man and woman ) and woman would not have the right to vote leading to even more protests amongst blacks and woman’s
Anika [276]3 years ago
3 0
My answer will be somewhat anecdotal. I have read some things about the role of women in progressive movements (especially during the early 20th century). But I don't recall any succintly useful references.
Women were very active in promoting prohibition, child labor laws, public education, government welfare and other progressive government policies. It has been posited that they were instrumental in providing public support for New Deal programs (of which Social Security is the major descendant). Women leaders believed that the government could be a tool to promote social welfare. A common hypothesis is that they effectively influenced women voters to support progressive government programs.
It might therefore be reasonable to believe that without women votes, the welfare state would be much smaller. There might be no Federal education oversight. Schools would be managed entirely at the state and local level (if not privately). Welfare needs would be handled primarily by families, churches and other voluntary associations. I even wonder whether government would have so aggressively pursued the war on drugs.
To attribute the rise of welfarism in America solely to women would be overly simplistic. However, I think that the votes of women were a major contributing factor.
Some might extol the rise of progressive policies in America as good. I on the other hand, have made no secret of my disdain for those policies. I believe that government-run education is detrimental to liberty and provides poor educations (the majority of success being attributed to involved families and less to public spending). I believe that government managed welfare has unwittingly (though some claim intentionally) damaged families since the need for family reliance has been reduced. At the same time, private provision for welfare needs has reduced (which I believe, while not perfect, tend to be better managed). And the war on drugs has been a disaster. While I am no proponent of illicit drug use, government efforts to eradicate drug use have only spawned a lucrative (and violent) black market while criminalizing non-violent people (who often become violent and more useless than ever in the dysfunctional prison system).
My general critique of progressivism via the strong arm of government is that it almost always results in adverse unintended consequences.
Incident to women's suffrage, the standing of women in our society has improved. I view this as a positive development. The ills that I have described are mostly attributable to problems inherent in politics. Ambitious politicians have taken advantage of the attitudes of voters (leveraging not only gender attitudes, but race, class and so on) to foist upon us ever increasingly progressive government control.
I believe that it would be erroneous to attribute better treatment of women to women's suffrage. It may be true that the same public attitudes that led to their right to vote have led to their better treatment. Indeed, given the general positive attitude to voting, it is hard to imagine that better overall treatment could have been achieved while forbidding women the right to vote. As long as voting is considered a fundamental right, women would have been relegated to second class status if denied that right. However, to assign causality is wrong in my opinion.
In summary, more equal treatment of women has been an improvement to our society. At the same time, the voting rights that came with their equal treatment have unfortunately helped to promote progressive government policies that have been damaging to our society. I applaude equal rights to women but condemn political institutions that took advantage of this major change to voting demographics.
You might be interested in
I need help on category #10 & #11 plz help i’ll give u a brainlest
Katyanochek1 [597]
I really wish I could help you but try to use google and look up the answer key online
3 0
3 years ago
What effects did the movement from a subsistence to a market economy have on American society, including farmers, laborers, and
Elza [17]
Effects on farmers
•Provide for more people
•planted more crops

Effects on laborers
•More inventions = more factories
•more factories = more jobs
•more jobs = more immigrants
•more immigrants = more workers

Effects on Women
•factories meant less need for homemade goods
•made women closer to family
•less children
•single women could work in factories
3 0
3 years ago
Based on the map, why might the Holy Roman Empire have faced challenges in keeping its territory under control?
Alecsey [184]

Answer:

The Holy Roman Empire faced many territorial challenges.

Explanation:

The first challenge was in Italy: the Italian states that were part of the Holy Roman Empire were separated from the German hinterland by the Alps, which imposed a communication barrier that made it very difficult for Emperors to hold control over these lands.

In what is now Germany, there were also territorial issues. The land was divided among countless states: duchies, counties, princedoms, fiefdoms, city-states, and so on, something that made coordination at the imperial level very difficult.

As centuries passed, the Holy Roman Empire lost control over several possessions: it lost most of the Low Countries, and the Italian city-states like the Duchy of Milan and the Republic of Venice became fully independent.

5 0
2 years ago
Please ASAP! The issue of how the Creeks would cast their votes for their new leader caused the tribe to break into two:
steposvetlana [31]

Answer:

1; Factions

2; He was accused of leading the Cherokees into rebellion.

3; The U.S. government limited their sovereignty, and their resources were open to exploration by non-Indians.

4; Tahlequah

5; 1867

6; John Chupco and John Jumper

7; Deciding who would control the government

8; Settled in one of the new towns established along the lines

9; All of these

<em>hope this helps!!! XD</em>

4 0
2 years ago
What happened to President Clinton's plans to overhaul health care in America?
Lynna [10]

The correct answer is letter A

The reform was opposed to Hillary's proposals, Clinton did not get any votes at the conference, besides the plan to go against the big businessmen and companies that are part of the hospital network.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Where did struggles for independence fence in Africa turn violent and why
    11·2 answers
  • Why did the mongols likely attack Japan through the Hakata Bay in the 13th century
    12·2 answers
  • Who did the British Commonwealth government try to prevent from immigrating into Australia?
    12·1 answer
  • What are the challenges of empire and what is the usual result?
    5·1 answer
  • Who was appointed commander-in-chief of the texas army and began retreating in order to prepare soldiers for battle
    10·1 answer
  • Why were the kingdoms of Southeast Asia able to become wealthy and powerful?
    7·1 answer
  • What changes were made to religious laws during the Glorious Revolution?
    5·1 answer
  • Which statement best describes how the Transcontinental Railroad affected
    10·2 answers
  • Marking brainliest
    6·2 answers
  • How did French authorities control their colonial territories in Indochina?
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!