by Stefanie Kramer

Created on: October 10, 2010   Last Updated: October 12, 2010

It's quite possible that I might be difficult to live (unlike before), now that I've read a completely fascinating account of the 19th Century women's movement - Ladies of Seneca Falls by Miriam Gurko.  Oh sure, I'd heard of Susan B. Anthony. And knew she had something to do with women's suffrage. (And of course, we banking professionals are all too well-aware of the nifty silver dollar done in her honor.) But just ask me about this amazing Quaker-feminist-speaker-writer who never even lived to see the 19th amendment passed. We all have those people we can't wait to meet in heaven...Jesus (of course), our grandparents, Buddha, John Lennon, and so on. Well, Miss Anthony is in my top five. Elizabeth Cady-Stanton would be there as well; although, I dare say I might be a bit intimidated by her. Simply put, my greatest question to these courageous women would be, "How far do you think we've come?" They might just turn around and tell me, "Grab your notebook. Here are the things you still need to do." I’d be taking some notes.

 Anyway, to encapsulate how this book affected in a short article is impossible, but here are a few thoughts to summarize:

 »It took 72 years from the first organized women's convention to grant legal authority for women to vote. 72 years! Trivia: When was the 19th Amendment passed, allowing women to vote? Hint - it wasn't terribly long ago (in a historical sense). The answer: 1920.  Although, women have been paying taxes since...uh, we landed on Plymouth Rock perhaps?  Interesting. Does anyone recall a little saying that went something like "taxation without representation"? I believe the book points out how a few feminine property owners, such as Susan Anthony's sister, Mary, would pay her taxes along with a sweet note stating "Paying Under Protest." 

»The masculine consensus believed women were too frail or didn't have the capacity to make such decisions. And a populace women's vote could be the detriment of the country. Obviously, this argument is flawed at a few levels. Most women weren't allowed an education. But so what if a woman wasn't educated? If a man wasn't educated or intelligent, was he not allowed to vote? Of course he was.  (I didn't come up with this argument - one of the great minds at the convention at Seneca Falls argued this point.) As for the capability for women to learn?  We must give thanks to our Quaker brothers and sisters for being the

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>