American Academic Male Economists and Women's Suffrage: Another Look at Progressive-Era (Il)Liberalism

During the Progressive Era (1890-1920) in the U.S., the debate on women's enfranchisement involved two opposite sides: detractors (Antis) and supporters. Detractors converged on the idea that women's enfranchisement might have harmed the natural harmony of society, based on a strict division of roles between sexes. Supporters developed three different arguments: women's suffrage would have reinforced the democratic system; it would have strengthened social cohesion; it would have led to several economic advantages of the society as a whole. Major American economists of the time joined the debate. The aim of this paper is to describe the position of the foremost male academic economists of the time by digging the lesser-known propaganda literature of the period. By showing the position of those who were against women's suffrage, we point out their illiberalism which, in some cases, was actual chauvinism. By showing the arguments of those who supported women's suffrage, we point out different nuances of endorsement: while some were in favor in the name of gender equality, others did not give up forms of biologically determinism and gender-biased stereotypes.