Skip to content

Women’s restrooms have a long history as an underground network

A week ago, Vote Common Good released an ad narrated by Julia Roberts telling women they could vote for anyone they wanted and their husbands would never know:

Today, the Washington Post reports that the ad was inspired by a grassroots campaign carried out via sticky notes posted in women's restrooms:

In swing states and Republican strongholds, on college campuses and in sports arenas, sticky notes have appeared reminding women that their votes are confidential — kept private even and especially from the men in their lives.

The origins of the trend are unclear, but the co-founder of Women for Harris-Walz, a grassroots group supporting the vice president’s campaign, says her members have been sticking notes in bathrooms and similar spaces for months, encouraging women to vote their own minds and reminding them that their ballot is secret.

But Clara Jeffery tells us that this samizdat network goes back much further:

This is news to me—but it would be, wouldn't it? Maybe this is why it was only men who were surprised or offended by the TV ad. Women already knew it all along.

21 thoughts on “Women’s restrooms have a long history as an underground network

  1. mudwall jackson

    ef 'em if they aren't man enough to accept the idea that their wives/partners/significant others are entitled to their own ideas/opinions and have the right to express them via the vote.

  2. cephalopod

    I don't understand the conservative freak out over this ad. Was it really that shocking to them that women have their own thoughts and preferences? Or did they make a calculation that being outraged over women having their own thoughts and preferences would somehow get Trump more votes?

    1. Art Eclectic

      Conservatives are deeply patriarchal and freak out at any mention that women exist as separate human beings outside of their relationship to a man. The idea of a wife not following her husband's lead is horrific to them.

    2. Yehouda

      The "freaking" has also a purpose: it warns Trumpist men that they cannot take for granted that their wife will vote for Trump, and they need to ensure she does.
      As Golack already mentioned, mail voting make this easier.

      1. zic

        The potential for pressure on how to vote had a lot of reproductive-rights Republican woman voting early; as soon as they could.

        Once it's cast, it's done, and he can't make you change it.

    3. samgamgee

      Suspect it has as much to do with the accusation that conservative men control their wives' votes. Few folks like to be accused of such things publicly, even if it true in some cases.

      This isn't a defense of their outrage, but an acknowledgement of defensive human behavior.

    4. zic

      In the comments section of my local daily, the conservative Trump-trash have taken to 'this is an insult to women.'

      When I ask why, they say women are strong and can decide who to vote for without liberals telling them to lie/hide it from their husbands.

      It most certainly has made them feel uncomfortable; like they're abusers whose wives have to hide their real inner lives from them. They are accustomed to thinking of themselves in the provider/protector roll, and this particular challenge to that (along with the deep seated fear that the ladies are going to run away with this election) disturbed them a great deal.

  3. KenSchulz

    In the comments to the WaPo article, multiple current and former poll workers relate that men regularly attempt to accompany their female partners into the voting booth (not allowed) to ‘make sure they vote the right way’.
    Also, a suggestion was made and assented to that sticky notes be left in men’s rooms reminding men that they don’t have to tell their bros how they voted …

  4. bebopman

    I know a lot of men would not want to hear this, but if you were to ask women, in a safe secret setting, “who are you more afraid of? “Immigrants” or men?” The result would surprise/anger those men.

    (See Saoirse Ronan recent comment after men on the show joke about having to improvise a weapon to pro text them selves. She said something like that’s what women think about all the time)

  5. rick_jones

    Time picked up the story, put on cover.

    Does "picked up the story" mean they published her story, or that they covered the same story?

    1. rick_jones

      A bit of web searching suggests it was them covering the same story. June 3, 1991, page 48 (56th page scanned).

      https://time.com/vault/year/1991/

      https://time.com/vault/issue/1991-06-03/page/56/

      What I assume is the reference to notes comes in the story following Nancy Gibbs' cover story, also by Nancy Gibbs, with a reporting credit to Cathy Booth:

      Only afterward did he tell her, almost definantly, his name. It was near the top of the "castration list" posted on women's bathroom walls around camput to warn other students about college rapists.

      Bottom of left-most column on the 65th scanned page: https://time.com/vault/issue/1991-06-03/page/65/

  6. zic

    I think a lot of you are missing the point; it's not that MAGA men tell their wives how to vote, it's that they presume she will follow their lead since they are the head of the house.

    That she might vote differently, and not tell him, is a surprise to them. It weakens his role, dilutes his vote, and makes him look like he's not firmly in control of his kingdom.

    It's only then, when challenged, that he has to make sure she votes the right way.

    Women married to these men probably already voted so that they could not be pressured to change their vote.

  7. kaleberg

    My favorite story was about women working in cryptography set up a sight with hash codes of known sexual harassers. There were no names published, just hash codes of names. If you suspected someone was a harasser, you could find out if anyone else had a problems with them. It was very cryptographic.

Comments are closed.