This isn't directed at you specifically, namitynamechange, just wanted to take your observation as a jumping-off point as there were a few questions on the US background (re women's suffrage and racism) on the thread -
In the mid-1800s, various campaigns to extend suffrage in the USA (at the time confined to white male property owners) coalesced. The largest, most organised groups advocated for (1) women, (2) blacks, and (3) working class and lower middle class urban people excluded by the property restriction. Because a change to the franchise USA-wide required a change to the US constitution (which is a huge deal, requiring either a 2/3 majority in both Houses of Congress OR a simple majority in 2/3 of the state legislatures), campaigners thought it made sense to plead the various cases together so a single amendment could be agreed and implemented to make the franchise “fair”.
When the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution took effect in 1870, it said: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Women were still 100% excluded in spite of the organising and work they had done. It took another 50 years, until 1920, for women to be guaranteed the vote via the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution, which said: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
During the intervening fifty years, campaigns also continued for universal suffrage, for removal of the requirement to own property, and to combat laws that various states were introducing to inhibit black men from voting, such as literacy tests. Because the women’s suffrage groups were well-organised and often had the ear of influential men through personal connections, the other groups wanted their help in campaigning. Many women/groups did want to do this, but there was also strong feeling that sharing resources with other groups might have contributed to being excluded from the 1870 Constitutional changes. They decided to sharply target a Constitutional amendment specifically disallowing discrimination based on sex, no distractions. Once this was done, women campaigners could use their new powers to help other groups with their aims.
It’s also complicated by differences by individual state. The earliest woman in Congress were elected before the Constitution was amended in 1920, running in states where the law had already changed and they could count on women's votes. Campaigns took on different tones and focuses to placate and convince the local men, who in spite of a few elected woman still had most of the power to say yes or no. There were arguments that would be recognised as blatantly racist today used on occasion in the southern states, and classist and anti-immigrant examples used in the urban areas of the Northeast (for example)
Individual women may have personally been racist and classist and anti-immigrant. "Society" certainly was. But objectionable tactics and arguments were used, when they were used, mostly because they were effective. Not enough of the men who needed to be won over (remember, 2/3 majority) had been persuaded that arguments about equality, dignity, human rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", etc. (which HAD been decisive in the decision to remove the race restriction) applied to women. But many were persuaded by the idea that women from their own families, social groups, etc. would vote similarly to "their" men in the most important ways, diluting the impact of the expected influx of voters from other demographics (freed slaves and non-Anglo/W Euro/Christian immigrants included). The main arguments along those lines were not so much "give us the vote, not them", but more "giving the vote to everyone BUT women is a missed opportunity". Or something.
It's wrong that these things happened. They do have downstream impact. It certainly should be talked about and analysed, in a feminist context and in a US national context - both the race issues AND the class and nationality/immigration ones (the last sometimes also antisemitic). Individual state voting laws that were clearly discriminatory against black Americans weren't fully prohibited until 1965 - and even now, discrimination still occurs despite the law. But I'm personally wary of a male academic focusing even in a purely and clearly US context on the unique badness of the women involved, as a decisive historical driver, if he's ignoring the actions of contemporary men and the context of the patriarchal power structure. (I'm not sure if Curry does this; I've never heard of him before - but there's plenty of it all over social media and in my experience disproportionately from men.)