The authors of this editorial is against women’s rights to vote. According to the text, the author stated that “Without the counsel and guidance of men, no woman ever ruled a state wisely or well.” This suggests that the author did not think that women can be smart on these topics. The author also stated, “A characteristic they were born with.” “That they lack the genius of politics.” You can tell that the authors strongly believe that women do not have the skill and genius that men do and that they were born with it and it isn't “curable.” (as they said.) In the first paragraph, they also stated that women suffrage would result horribly for the government and weaken it, as well as for society. Throughout the short article, the beliefs the authors had can be summarized as women not being smart enough, unlike men, and the women suffrage is ridiculous and unnecessary.( please mark as brainliest and 5 stars I really tried!)
Well for 1# i think he’s against it because if you read the first paragraph it says “W oman suffrage would result either in a needless political muddle or in a social and political turmoil which would tend to weaken the State,”
Explanation: Tennis Court Oath was a symbolically time that the official representatives of the Third State (the broader social group of the Old Regime, including artisans, traders, and peasants) established an unbreakable alliance in the context of the Assembly of States-General.
