By but the briefest of glances, we can confidently recognize that, in its brief sense, “history is told by the winners;” moreover that our history is told by war-loving, woman-loathing, anti-life patriarchs.
Buried beneath this bleak backdrop, disappeared from the curated political fables that are as laughable as they are dangerously infectious among cowards and frauds—the synthetic world has little noted, nor long remembered, the plight of those anti-abortion feminists who opposed the murder-mandate on many grounds, including out of fear that infanticide incitement, if codified, would animate the worst in men:
first, obviously, that men would of course become addicted to crafting morally retarded justifications for murdering women’s children; second, that men would let linger those root causes which frighten and torture women into the desperation of abortion; third, that deviously slothful men would use the climate of death as leverage to shirk their responsibility to support those women whom they impregnated: “If she cannot manage without my money—then it is her duty to take that bloody, soul-stripping escape-route with which we benevolent men have empowered her.”
Moreover, as the serpents of modern society—who are the majority—slither about their day, content with just a rat on which to chew, and a personalized rock on which to sunbathe: never in their years of indoctrination (masked as “education”) did they hear of feminists who opposed voting-rights for women.
“Feminists love women; women love privilege; and voting is a privilege. Thus all feminists, by definition, supported voting-rights for women,” reasoned the half-informed pawns of the modern era.
Meanwhile, in the United States, voting rights originally extended only to land-owning white men (not even to land-owning, slave-owning niggers); and the extending of voting-rights to white men in general only came about as a strategic concession to prevent widespread insurrection amid continual military conscription.
Thus the governmental reasoning by which white men received a right to vote was a quid pro quo for military service; and thus many feminists fought against women’s suffrage—worried that, if women received the “status quid” of voting, then patriarchs might one day inflict, upon women, the “status quo” of conscripting women into military service.
Ultimately, modern mainstream feminism is manifestly a patriarchal front, aimed at terrorizing women (and men) into believing that all right-thinking women think alike–and that they all support abortion, war, and all other such political expediencies into which any woman (or man) has been tortured.
 A brief encyclopedia entry about one of many anti-suffrage movements: National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage.
 An example of what anti-suffragists said of their movement: Declaration of principles of the Southern Women’s League for the Rejection of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment
 A reminder, via the New England Historical Society, of the general tone towards women who opposed the political-bait of “women’s suffrage”: The Antis: Women Who Fought Against the Vote.
 An example of the kind of limp, embarrassing “scholarship” that gets awarded “honors” for echoing the myths about anti-suffragists: Josephine Anderson Pearson: Racism, Class and Gender in the Southern Antisuffrage Movement.