A Century of Suppression
Family, Femininity the Fight for Women’s Rights
The 2024 election is upon us and Republicans have doubled down on anti-feminist rhetoric, undermining women’s rights and autonomy through both words and policy. From dismissing reproductive rights to ridiculing women who pursue careers over traditional roles, their actions and policies seek to reinforce a rigid gender hierarchy.
This contemporary backlash against women’s political power echoes a long history of efforts to control women’s political power by framing it as a threat to the family. Over a century ago, anti-suffrage cartoons played on these same fears, suggesting that a woman’s pursuit of voting rights would unravel not just her own femininity but the very fabric of domestic life.
These attitudes aren’t isolated. They’re part of a long tradition of shaming women who dare to step outside traditional roles. Back in the early 1900s, it wasn’t just speeches or editorials attacking the suffragettes—it was visual media.
Much like the anti-female memes that now fill right-wing social media, historical cartoons, postcards, and posters mocked their appearances and personalities, twisting their fight for equality into something grotesque and unnatural.
This divide, between the idealized, passive housewife and the rebellious suffragette, wasn’t just about promoting one over the other. It was about forcing women to choose between political engagement and a fulfilling home life—an argument that echoes in debates over work-life balance and motherhood today.
Let’s look back at political cartoons from the turn of the twentieth century and see how American and British suffragettes were demonized, and how these tactics echo in today’s political battles.
Cartoons and Caricatures – The Power of the Ugly Woman
One of the most powerful tools anti-suffrage forces used was visual mockery. Suffragettes were often depicted as ugly, mannish, and unkempt. Postcards and cartoons exaggerated their features to make them appear less feminine, as if political ambition drained their beauty.
This strategy wasn’t just about being cruel—it was about linking a woman’s appearance to her worth. If suffragettes were seen as unattractive, the implication was that their cause was equally unappealing.
These images weren’t meant to amuse—they were designed to erode public sympathy for the women’s movement by associating ugliness with activism. They sent a clear message: no “respectable” woman would want to be a suffragette.
Characterizing Suffragettes as Bitter and Angry
Another common tactic was to paint suffragettes as angry, shrill, and bitter. Cartoons often depicted them as nagging or yelling, with furrowed brows and stern expressions, far from the ideal of soft, smiling femininity. This portrayal made the suffragettes’ quest for equality seem like the rantings of unhappy women who didn’t know their place.
But this wasn’t just about discrediting their cause. It was about invoking a fear that women who sought independence or political power were inherently repulsive.
These caricatures still resonate today in the “angry feminist” trope, a stereotype designed to shut down women who advocate for themselves or others. The message then, as now, was clear: women’s anger is unnatural and unfeminine.
The Contrast – Domestic Bliss vs. Political Activism
Not only were suffragettes portrayed as abandoning their own roles, but they were also accused of disrupting the roles of their husbands. Propaganda suggested that politically active women “feminized” their husbands, robbing them of their authority and masculinity.
This emasculation trope was visually depicted in cartoons where suffragettes were seen ordering their husbands around or forcing them to take on traditionally feminine tasks. In the eyes of anti-suffrage forces, a woman who sought political power at the ballot box upset the entire balance of the home.
This binary between the idealized housewife and the “unruly” suffragette wasn’t just about promoting domesticity—it was about creating a stark divide that suggested women had to choose: a political voice or a fulfilling home life.
The suggestion was—and in many ways still is—that a woman seeking equality would not only lose her femininity but would also unbalance the household, a consequence too costly for society to bear.
Masculinity as a Weapon
Anti-suffrage propaganda attacked women by portraying suffragettes as rejecting their femininity. Many cartoons showed suffragettes wearing pants—an explicit symbol of masculinity—or engaging in behaviors deemed unladylike, such as smoking or speaking loudly in public.
By depicting them in male attire or roles, the goal was to suggest that suffragettes were no longer women—they had become something unnatural.
This visual assault was meant to play on deep societal fears about gender roles. If women could vote, the propaganda suggested, they might start dressing like men, acting like men, and abandoning their “natural” feminine qualities.
This tactic has echoes in today’s political landscape, where women in power are often criticized for being “too masculine” or “not likable enough,” an extension of the same fear of women stepping out of their assigned roles.
Violence and Silencing
Some anti-suffrage imagery crossed the line into overt threats of violence. Cartoons depicted suffragettes being bound, gagged, or silenced—literal representations of how society wished to deal with them. This wasn’t just about disagreeing with women’s right to vote; it was about silencing their voices altogether.
These images reflect a broader societal fear of women who refuse to conform. The suffragettes weren’t just demanding the right to vote—they were demanding the right to be heard, to take up space, to exist as equal members of society.
A Century of Marginalization, and Still Counting
As we look ahead to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, one statistic stands out: the widening gender gap in voter preferences. Polls suggest that women, particularly young women and women of color, are poised to overwhelmingly support candidates who champion reproductive rights, gender equality, and social justice. Meanwhile, male voters are showing a strong preference for candidates aligned with conservative values, reminiscent of the same patriarchal structures suffragettes fought against over a century ago.
This stark division isn’t a fluke—it’s a reflection of long-standing efforts to marginalize women’s political power. From the suffragettes who were mocked, belittled, and even physically threatened to women today who face targeted political rhetoric aimed at undermining their autonomy, the strategies have evolved but the goal remains: to keep women out of the political arena.
The anti-suffrage propaganda of the early 20th century sought to portray women’s political engagement as dangerous and unnatural, and while the imagery has changed, the message still lingers in today’s headlines. Whether it’s through attempts to roll back reproductive rights or dismissing women’s voices in policy discussions, the fight to maintain control over women’s political agency continues.
Bonus post: Surpressing Women’s Reproductive Freedom via the Comstock Act
Comstock Resurrected (1873)
Anthony Comstock had been largely been forgotten. But then he was resurrected by Texas federal judge grasping for a justification to limit women's reproductive rights. Here’s a brief Comstock primer.
Me too. In fact, unless they're a paid participant, as some apparently are, why any female or person of color would attend one is baffling.
Is it just me, or could many of those postcards be depictions of women at a Trump rally?