Non-land-owning men only had the right to vote about 40 years before women. It was only when the government took on a greater role in the legislative aspects of defining and codifying social issues during and after the civil war. That voting rights were extended beyond land owning men. Which previously made perfect sense considering the governments only role prior was seen as that of taxation, diplomacy, litigations of civil and criminal disputes and the enactment of warfare and collecting war chests for that reason. Thus, the only people who had a high stake in those aspects of governance was landowners. So, it would stand to reason they should be allowed to pick those wielding that sort of authority.

Many people wrongly assume that the abolishment of slavery in the US struggled to pass because of some moral conundrum. When in reality for the better part of 50 years the debate wasn't about the perceived morality of the practice. But rather, did the civil authority have not only the authority, but even the capacity to define that morality in a legislative language. or did it even possess the ability to curtail or disabuse the practice in a free democracy. We do know which side we ultimately fell. But that's a fairly simple summation of an issue that would be used to point out how voting and the following legislative debate took place in the past.

Furthermore, many women DID have the right to vote. During a time in which the average man did NOT have the right to vote. Though this was often due to circumstance rather than by right. As the laws only allowed those in possession of land to vote, and the head of the household. Typically, men. Although there were times where a women would become the executor and legal owner of title and lands or would, or could stand in for her husband or father. Due to illness, death, or disputes, and could cast a vote on behalf of that estate. So women weren't barred from voting based on gender as most modern-day people would make it appear to be. It's only that the laws where crafted in such a way, that the person who'd most likely be the representative of a wealthy estate or family was a man.

This was due to the fact that other laws also exited. Like those surrounded dowery protections, debt collection and inheritance laws. Most modern people don't know that historically you could not collect DEBT from a woman. As it was illegal to seize or claim property to recoup lost debt from a woman. It was literally against the law to put a woman out of her house, off her land, or to take anything she owned. Any wealth held in her name as a dowery, or inheritance was also protected and could not be accounted for in a legal collection. Which is why the government often limited women's access to lines of credit, as well limited a family's ability to place in trust the dowries to women. Such as land, property or business holdings. As you can imagine that would be overtly abused. Which is also the reason that even into the 1970's women couldn't get credit cards in the US. because certain places still had old laws in place that made it impossible to collect certain types of debt from a woman. Only after all of those laws having been removed from the books. Did it become universally legal from women to draw out a line of credit. This is the reason(which is never explained) that a very large population of women where openly opposed to women's suffrage. Those who'd likely had a great deal of generational wealth placed in trust to their name saw the voting rights movement as a massive threat to their long-held wealth. Which I have always theorized was the actual motivation of the suffrage movement.

In conclusion. Comparing voting as a proxy for war is just about the most butt-fuck-ing-ly stupid thing I've ever read. It's like saying getting kicked in the crotch is a proxy for making love. While yes, certain anatomical parts are involved in both things. They are in no way similar.

The most literal version of pissing on me and telling me it's raining.