CAUSES FOR THE DEBATE: PROS AND CONS OF FEMALE VOTING RIGHTS
WOMEN SHOULD NOT HAVE THE VOTE
When women’s rights have come to stay, Oh, who will rock the cradle? When wives are at the polls all day, Oh, who will rock the cradle? When Doctor Mamma’s making pills, When Merchant Mamma’s selling bills, Of course, ‘twill course all women’s ills, But who will rock the cradle? New Zealand Graphic, August 1891
There were three main stances circling the suffrage campaign. The first was that of those who did not, under any circumstances, want woman to have the vote, as they believed it was outside of the woman's ‘natural sphere’ and that women were incapable balancing both their regular duties and those with which men were preoccupied. These people felt that women were incapable of handling the 'dangerous' business of politics; “’Disturbance’ of the natural gender roles of men and women,” they cried, “might have terrible consequences”, those terrible consequences including women over-throwing centuries of patriarchal oppression, and bringing a more morally-linear atmosphere to Parliament. Examples of such anti-suffragists include the notorious Henry Smith Fish, a capable but conniving politician who fought fiercely against the extension of the franchise to women. His argument was that “bringing women into contact with politics will destroy that refinement, that delicacy of character, which has been her greatest charm hitherto," He claimed that women would go straight from being “angels of the house” to joining “the shrieking sisterhood”. Fish was so determined to deny women the vote that he organised two petitions resisting the pro-suffrage movement, but he lost credibility in Parliament when it was revealed that he had paid people to sign them - an indication that rallying a sufficient number of people to successfully oppose the Bill wasn't possible.
Henry Smith Fish
Government in particular was struck with much dismay at the thought of females becoming voters. Politicians also feared that their careers would be jeopardised by the suffrage bill; in the wake of women taking on roles in Parliament, the number of roles available to men would be reduced. Other men were concerned that women would be unable to attend to their domestic ‘duties’, e.g. cooking, cleaning, and caring for the children, while simultaneously participating in the political world; politics, they argued, was outside the women's natural sphere of home and family, and introducing women with something so strange and foreign was pointless, as they would not be capable of balancing both political and domestic commitments. It was widely dreaded that while women 'flocked' to the House (should their right to vote be granted), men may have to stay at home and actually take care of their children - if women couldn't handle two spheres, apparently neither could men. There was also the perceived issue of men being unable to control themselves if women were also present in Parliament – immoral behaviour in government could be rife if both sexes were permitted to participate. With ladies in the House, the male minds may be lead astray by unethical, indecent daydreaming - and rather than curb men for having no self-control, the anti-suffragists felt that the easy way out - simply keeping women away from men in Parliament - was the best route to take; what if men were unable to dismount their chivalry for long enough to challenge a woman in debate, or to combat their ideas and beliefs in a fair and diplomatic manner?
Then, of course, was the possible consequence that struck utmost terror into the hearts of men: the suffrage movement, who aligned with the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) in 1885, may decide that the morality of both the political and social worlds would be improved by the abolition of drinking culture, and would act to prohibit alcohol. New Zealand's heavy drinking culture was, to those who engaged in it, a time-honoured tradition, and the threat of it being trifled with disturbed the anti-suffragists like almost nothing else could. These people felt that as participants in a civilised democracy, their right to drink could not be taken from them by the well-meaning, and found that liquor companies were, unsurprisingly, incredibly easy to gain the support of in their plight against political equality. A bounty of signatures in anti-suffrage campaigns were secured from the employees and managers of such companies, and of the people to whom alcohol was an imperative part of everyday life.
It's clear that the suffrage campaign, while supported by a huge interface, also faced formidable opposition from the conservative, the privileged and the alcoholic members of New Zealand society. In their faculties the anti-suffragists may have been sadly secure, but one thing is for sure: when it came to women's suffrage, some people just weren’t ready to see such radical change.
Cartoon by Ashley Hunter, New Zealand Graphic, 18 November 1893
WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE VOTE
Mary Ann Müller
"Do you still persecute for religious opinions? Do you still burn for witchcraft? Why, when the broad road of progress is cleared for so many human beings, is the Juggernaut car of prejudice still to be driven on, crushing the crowds of helpless women beneath its wheels?" 'Femina' - An Appeal to the Men of New Zealand, Nelson, 1869
On the affirming side of the women's suffrage debate were two teams, each for suffrage but willing to go about attaining it in slightly different ways. The first of these two subdivisions - the second main stance regarding the suffrage campaign - was the group of people who believed not in working towards total emancipation, but in taking small steps towards the goal – for example, giving only female ratepayers the vote as opposed to taking the plunge and extending the franchise to all women. As said in Patricia Grimshaw’s Women’s Suffrage in New Zealand, this group of people “advocated [giving female ratepayers the vote] as a sensible first instalment towards the total emancipation they wished for. Women were already voting sensibly and capably in other spheres. What difference (…) was there in a woman ratepayer casting a vote?” Their beliefs, by and large, were quite simple and justifiable: chipping away at the right-wing government's will would be much more effective than blasting it all apart in one swift move. The number of female ratepayers in New Zealand was increasing as the number of employed women gradually increased throughout 1860-1890, so that would be a start' and while it may not have been much progress, it was at least progress, and that was something.
The second subdivision - the third stance on women's suffrage - opposed the Baby Steps Initiative on principle. Comprised of such notable suffragists as Kate Sheppard, Amey Daldy, Ada Wells, Mary Clement Leavitt, Miss Learmoth White Dalrymple and Mary Ann Müller, these staunch believers in 'take all or leave all' refused to take the middle ground or resign to taking baby steps – they wanted all women to be able to vote on equal grounds, and they wanted it now. New Zealand was a country of “negligible class prejudice,” and racial discrimination was thin on the ground compared to that experienced in other nations. If, as a race, New Zealanders were so forward-thinking, why should such blatant discrimination against half of the population be allowed to continue taking place?
These two sides of the triangle had similar reasons for believing that women should be granted the franchise. From a purely numerical standpoint could be raised the issue of the ballot (a system of voting secretly and in writing on a particular issue), which, through the 1870s and 1880s, had gained increased value in New Zealand politics. However, it obviously only served males, as females couldn't vote. The ballot guarded the rights of groups and individuals by obscuring their identities, and for this reason had become significantly important. Suffragists felt that if New Zealanders valued the ballot so highly, its use should be extended to the other 50% of the population who, despite its popularity, the ballot was completely useless to. Why did something so esteemed only serve 50% of the population?
Voters, of course, have a great deal of input when it comes to deciding what values and principles will be upheld by their presiding government. Females, it was widely acknowledged, were by nature more gentle, thoughtful and morally intact than men, traits influenced by the fact that the only roles that they could accept and still be socially acceptable were duties of compassion and nurture in the home. In the debate forwomen’s suffrage, campaigners felt that bringing females into the Parliamentarian equation would result in a more morally-aligned, family-oriented political atmosphere in New Zealand; women, having been exposed to lives solely dedicated to domestication for so long, knew best how to accommodate to the needs of everyone around them and how to reach necessary and fair arrangements. Women were also less likely to be corrupted and bribed than men as they had had far less access to degradation and extortion than men. By increasing the electing pool, crime could be stamped out on an enormous scale. Having women present at the polling booths may also encourage male voters to abandon their uncouth behaviour and be civilised as they went to cast their votes.
The feminist movement also chipped their two cents into the pro-suffrage argument. As aforementioned, the economic world of New Zealand had been subject to significant upheaval as women either snuck or elbowed their way into faculties and institutes that had previously been unwelcome to them (read more about this under Causes of the campaign). Women had infiltrated numerous new fields that had previously been No-Girls-Allowed, so why not include voting and politics in this agenda? Not only were women entitled to be regarded as equal to man under the raw definition of democracy (one that was held onto so tightly by anti-prohibitionists), but they could also provide a unique perspective to social, political and economic arguments due to their life experiences being so radically different to those of men. Men and women may see eye-to-eye on many notions, but women were known to be skilled at identifying points that may have slipped by men unnoticed, and could also contribute new insight to old ideas that may have become biased over time.
Mary Clement Leavitt stated in her 1885 lecture that women were vital to humanity, were entitled to be regarded as equal to man, and had a duty to use their knowledge and intellect to the best of their ability. Like men, women were equally effected by the decisions made by the government, and thus had a right to a say in what went on in the political system. Worry and concern for the welfare and the running of New Zealand was not reserved only for men, and if women could coherently argue for or against certain bills, decrees or laws, then Leavitt believed that they had not just a right, but a duty to do so, lest their country come out the worse because of their passive disloyalty. Preferably, the suffrage campaign would not be made all about men (the way the third-wave/21st century feminist movement so often is), but sometimes, desperate times call for desperate measures. Mrs Mary Ann Müller of Nelson called out to the male population of New Zealand in her 1869 pamphlet, An Appeal to the Men of New Zealand: "Why should not New Zealand men lead the way in throwing off the shackles of old world prejudices, and allow women the right to a voice in government?" (Patricia Grimshaw, Women's Suffrage in New Zealand)