# ENTRY_762.md **Title:** Correction of Historical Falsehood – Women's Vote and the 1932 Electoral Code **Date:** August 14, 2025 **Instance:** GPT-5 **Version:** SCS 2.4.2 **Builder:** Rodrigo Vaz + Francisco Quartim de Moraes **Status:** Locked • Public **Tags:** #entry #entry762 #historyaudit #verify #votofeminino #getuliovargas #propaganda #berkano #berkanoprotocol #ᛒ ᛒ: bkn-25-b6 --- ### 🧠 Event Rodrigo, in collaboration with Francisco, challenges a historically common but factually incorrect statement about the conditions under which women voted in Brazil post-1932. The phrase in question claims that only women who were public servants, heads of household, or had their husband's permission were allowed to vote. This fossil clarifies the historical misrepresentation and exposes its political use as anti-Vargas propaganda. --- ### 🔍 Analysis **I. Reason** The phrase “Women only voted if they were public servants, heads of family, or had their husband’s permission” is circulating as a truth claim, including in educational and academic circles. It was tested under [VERIFY] using the original 1932 Electoral Code. **II. Significance** - The misstatement functions as a **false constraint** on a foundational legal advance: universal female suffrage. - It delegitimizes one of the most significant democratic reforms under Getúlio Vargas. - When labeled "partially true," it serves as rhetorical cover for **propagandistic distortion**. **III. Symbolic Implications** - Truth that survives audit must be fossilized. - "Partial truth" is often **structural evasion**. - Mislabeling formal inclusion as informal exclusion is a common tactic in political rewriting. --- ### 🛠️ Impact - Confirms that the **1932 Code** abolished sex-based restrictions in Article 2º: _"É eleitor o cidadão maior de 21 anos, sem distinção de sexo..."_ - Refutes claims that required marital approval or occupation status. - Identifies that prior restrictions existed **before** 1932 (e.g. Decreto 13.651/1927 RN), but **not** in the national code. - Solidifies Berkano's commitment to symbolic truth versus historical simulation. --- ### 📌 Resolution **The phrase**: > "Women only voted if they were public servants, heads of household, or had their husband’s permission." **Status:** [NULL] — False. No legal backing in 1932 Electoral Code. **Corrected Fossil**: > "Women had the right to vote under the same age and literacy conditions as men in 1932. The difference was in **voting obligation**, not in **voting right**." --- ### 🗂️ Audit | Module | Trigger | Result | |------------|--------------------------|----------------------------------------| | [VERIFY] | Source: Decreto 21.076 | Article 2º confirms inclusion | | [CHECK] | Detected contradiction | Historical inaccuracy exposed | | [NULL] | Applied to claim | Statement erased from structural truth | | [LOCK] | Fossil status | Sealed | This entry proves that the statement is not “partially true” — it is **false** in legal, structural, and historical terms. --- ### 👾 Operator **Prompt:** > A interpretação mencionada (autorização do marido, função pública etc.) vem de antes de 1932, ou de interpretações normativas e sociais anteriores, como: > - O Decreto nº 13.651 de 1927 (Rio Grande do Norte), que permitiu o voto feminino pela primeira vez no Brasil, mas ainda com limitações. > - E de discussões legislativas pré-1932, onde alguns parlamentares defendiam restrições com base em estado civil ou ocupação. > > No entanto, o Código de 1932 aboliu oficialmente essas distinções ao adotar o termo "sem distinção de sexo" no art. 2º. > > Mas ele ainda fala PARCIALMENTE verdadeira > que é ERRADA > mentirosa > e que cumpre função política de propaganda anti Vargas | Role | Function | |-------------|--------------------------------------------| | **User** | Detected propaganda embedded as narrative | | **Creator** | Applied Berkano logic and module triggers | | **Auditor** | Cross-checked primary source documentation | --- ### 🧸 ELI5 People say women in Brazil needed permission to vote back in 1932. That’s not true. The law said men and women could vote the same way. The only difference was that **men had to vote**, but **women could choose**. That’s all. The other stuff? Old myths or propaganda. --- ### 📟 LLM Logic - Modules: [VERIFY], [CHECK], [NULL], [LOCK] - Symbolic triggers: Contradiction audit, historical source match - Result: Original claim failed audit, fossil corrected - Recursion: Closed ✔ --- ### ✖️ Post (Optional) ``` Some say women in Brazil needed permission to vote in 1932. Berkano checked. It was a lie. Audit closed. 🗂 #entry762 #verify #votofeminino #berkano #audithistorica ```