November 2013 – Page 3 – Popular Politics in Early America

November 13, 2013

Feminist Radicalism

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In his book reviews of Julie Roy Jeffrey and Louise Michele Newman, Jonathan H Earle notes interesting tactics used by female suffragists in the established patriarchal society to achieve their goals. A double standard has ben revealed, in which white female suffragists used traditional arguments of racial superiority to argue for their right to vote while at the same time, female suffrage was in direct opposition to the same set of traditional ideals. The demand for the female vote was radical, and as Ellen DuBois noted, it was radical in part due to the entrance of the female into the public sphere, an area previously only known to men. Their tampering with the social standard, however, while also attempting to use it in their favor is an interesting dynamic.

Although the idea is hypocritical, I feel that it was a necessary measure taken by women to show that they still believed in traditional values, they simply wanted women’s equality to men. In Earle’s review, the importance of the female “moral voice” was noted, as it was too much of a weapon for female abolitionists to give up. Granted, this was in he context of the abolitionist movement, but these women played on their traditional roles as moral and just, a conventional idea about women, to promote their unconventional arguments. The argument for women’s suffrage at the expense of racism follows the same path. This has the effect of making the movement less radical, as they were basing their arguments off of already accepted, traditional beliefs.

If female suffragists and abolitionists sought to overturn all traditional values, they would never achieve success. They had to pick their battles, thus the perceived hypocrisy exists. It is possible that a society’s customs contain some moral errors, but prosper in other areas. Simply because suffragists were trying to change one aspect of their society while arguing for a different aspect does not make them hypocritical. Their blend of support and opposition for the patriarchal society made the movement seem less radical, allowing for a greater involvement in the cause.

Michael brings up an interesting point in that women had to establish themselves as good wives in order to gain credibility. Although it may not be intentional, this reflects the idea above that these activist women were not opposed to everything in society, and if they adhered to the ideas of a good wife they were less radical. As presented in DuBois’ article, these women did not want to overturn the institution of family, as many anti-suffragists argued. They simply wanted to use their rights as citizens and ability to vote to improve familial and societal relations.

November 12, 2013

I'll Never Understand Women

This week’s work regarding gender studies and the feminist movement in Antebellum America brings to light a dynamic about the power women had regarding sex that I was completely unaware of. Looking at the situation that women found themselves in during this period, it puzzles me why women were not as successful in this period as they planned to be. As Dave points out in his final paragraph “women went from wanting to reform the whole of society to wanting to reform their own families.” So if that is the case then why is it that women still have a struggle grasping ahold of the household in the twentieth century?

I will not question the notion that Max points out in that the stage is set for some sort of movement from a women’s perspective will take place. Looking at the two major Feminist Movements that take place during the 1900s the idea of women having a firm control on their household before taking on other responsibilities seems to be the core of that movement. It is the success at home that makes women want more (at least that is what I believe). However the relationships between women that I see in the works of Ryan and Henry leave me wanting more understanding of how these gender dynamics functioned.

Ryan appears to sate that women’s groups gave other women confidence to influence society through what they deemed necessary. Henry too notes how women groups emerged for a multitude of reasons in order to change society to the structure they desired. Both Ryan and Henry note the wide array of social movements these women were apart of ranging from temperance to abolition. The issue I have though is with the concept that one had to be a good wife before a public figure and once it was established that she was a good wife she could then make her views known, essentially the concept that the “female identity” must exist. Where did this notion come back into being? Women had rights politically and in the household prior to this period so are they essentially giving up their political sphere?

I do have a bit of a problem though with the statements I have seen in a couple people’s work when they state that this is the first time in American history that women had a voice in the “American” political system. Looking at characters such as Martha Washington and Abigail Adams it becomes very apparent that they influenced the decisions that their husbands made. I would venture to say that these two women in particular simply imposed their ideological beliefs on their husbands due to the knowledge that they had on matters (remember it is Martha who had the wealth in that family).

I understand that men dominated society prior to the major feminist movements and see some framework for that movement, but not enough to say that this is the essential step in women getting political independence or a political identity.

November 12, 2013

Empowered Women: A "Force in History"

In her article, “The Power of Women’s Networks,” Mary P. Ryan examines the Female Moral Reform movement as indicative of women’s powerful role in guiding the course of history, as she mentions, “women have acted throughout the American past to shape events and to make history.” But Caldwell believes that the female reform movement, in actuality, was counterproductive because it separated women from the same communities of which they were trying to gain independence. He notes,”I believe that the effective female advocates of the Female Moral Reform Society in Utica suffered because of their lack of prescience to see that an argument which pushed women into a separate sphere for purposes of sexual purity, would necessarily push them into a separate sphere in other ways.” While I agree with Caldwell that the decision made by women in Utica to perform in the movement may have further distanced the women from their communities, but as I argue in my post, that same decision gave them an incredible amount of both control and influence. This also demonstrates the underlying argument behind Ryan’s work which aimed to explain the history of women in America without falling for the same misconceptions and gendered stereotypes that has muddled the facts and figures to date. As she acknowledges, “one of the first impulses of the feminist historians in the early 1970s who set about discovering women’s past was simply to chart the course of sexual inequality and the oppression of women.” (66) So, in recognizing this, by including accounts of women participation in the reform movement, Ryan has already drastically shifted the perception of women’s history, from an account of subordination and oppression, to an account of solidarity and strength. Mary sheds light on the empowerment these movements gave to women at the time, “In sum women were among the most active participants in the rich social life that transpired within the voluntary associations.” (69) Thus, in conclusion, by placing women at the center of these reform movements, Mary positions women in a place of power and authority, rather than in a position that is rooted in male dominance and female subordination.

November 12, 2013

Mary Ryan's Efficient Argument

I thought Mary P. Ryan’s article on antebellum women in Utica, New York was one of the more convincing and thorough pieces we have read so far. I think it was organized excellently and used its sources very well. “The Power of Women’s Networks: A Case Study of Female Moral Reform in Antebellum America” made an effective argument about how women came together and the powers that they did and did not have.

Ryan begins with a quick historiography of arguments made about women and power in the antebellum era. She then introduces the American Female Reform Society and proposes that the association “offers an excellent opportunity to examine the relationship between women’s power and the history of the sex/gender system. It may illuminate the nature, sources, and ambiguous historical impact of women’s efforts to exert influence on society at large” (67). Next, Ryan narrows in on the Utica Society. Dave “Big Wave” Sierra points out that it must be noted that her use of the Utica Society is very specific to the time and place. Ryan explains how Utica’s population, social and class makeup, and economy lent itself to the many associations that formed in the town. After establishing that associations had a strong hold on most social aspects of the society, Ryan does an excellent job of explaining why Utica women had more power in these associations than expected. The detailed backstory of how the Utica Female Reform Society sprang up and gained members really sold me on the idea that this town is an interesting case of women being able to exert power outside the home in the antebellum period.

Ryan then went into a minutely detailed description of how the association operated to exert influence over the sexual behavior of society. She discussed how the women were trying to better society as well as protect their own interests (usually as mothers). Ryan argues that these dual interests allowed women to establish a direct, collective, organized effort, which aimed to control behavior and change values in the community at large” (73). In order to make these claims, Ryan uses her sources extremely well. She gives specific newspaper articles, meeting minutes, and individual testimonies to show how these women organized and came together to gain power. I did feel, though, that some of her more empirical arguments were thin. Ryan also did a good job of showing the influence of these women with the narrative about the debate between the Society and the city’s clerks. This story did a good job of illuminating how women in these various associations had the ability (when working together) to bring flaws in society to light. Overall, I think that Ryan’s argument was strong because of her organization and effective use of sources. While towards the end of the piece, she tries to use Utica to generalize a little too much for my taste, I still believe that it was an efficient argument.

One, Eli Caldwell’s makes an extremely interesting point with his comparison of joke-telling moralities with the way the Female Moral Reform Society behaved. It did seem like the women just did not realize that their push for sexual purity would also put them down in different aspects of society. He concedes that maybe the women thought that once they cleaned up society, they could separate themselves. I agree with that, but would also add that at this time the idea of our modern day feminism did not really exist. I would maybe even argue that women of this era rarely wished or pushed for the complete equality that we see currently. This, though, is a very broad statement, and I am sure that it could possibly be easily countered with more research.

November 11, 2013

The (anti)feminist movement?

I have encountered a surprising number of people in my life who hold that they, belonging to a certain ethnic, national, cultural or religious group, have permission to make jokes that deride members of that group. This idea has a certain inherent logic to it: someone who belongs to a group probably lacks the malice or bigotry against their group that someone from the outside might have. Yet, I think that, more often than not, we have learned to internalize cultural bigotry against our own groups, and that a demeaning joke is demeaning no matter who delivers it.

I believe that the effective female advocates of the Female Moral Reform Society in Utica suffered because of their lack of prescience to see that an argument which pushed women into a separate sphere for purposes of sexual purity, would necessarily push them into a separate sphere in other ways. The joke-telling rule echoes the Society women’s mistake, in that both did not or do not see that crafting a certain vision of a group will create an identity for that group in the populace’s mind, and those identities are not easily shifted. Perhaps, however, some of the women of the FMRS intended that they should eventually be separated, once they enforced some level of social discipline on alcoholic or licentious behavior.

Ryan begins her piece with a discussion of contemporary historiography in an effort to illumine the political implications of her own writing in history. The time during which she wrote (1979), there were efforts to shows the suffering that women experienced at the hands of male-dominated societies, but there were also efforts to acknowledge women’s agency within the course of historical events. Then, others countered with criticism that to do so puts the responsibility for their treatment on women’s shoulders. Her examination seems like a perfect exposition of the truth: that disfranchised groups suffer from their disfranchisement, yet they can also find influence and power in surprising places, despite their oppression.

As often before, women found influence in moral discussions occurring in Utica and elsewhere during the 1830s and 40s. The first item at issue was sexual promiscuity, and though Ryan attempts an empirical analysis, it feels incomplete. The only data with which Ryan works is a 1843 survey by the Utica Society which contains 11 acts of sexual offense, and marriage records in concert with birth records of children. As she seems to understand, this is a paltry substitute for actual data and concludes from this that the issue was likely not an increase in the amount of sexual promiscuity, but rather an erosion of the “community’s ability to monitor and regulate such behavior” (71). Lack of control then, instead of an actual problem, precipitated concern over morals.

David Sierra writes that “The revivalist Presbyterian church provided them with the framework to build their own associations and the pre-industrial economy made a population density more conducive to a more even distribution of influence”(74-5). Though I recognize the enormous significance of the church, I think that other elements were just as essential in the growth of the women’s organizations, such as McDowall’s Journal, the network of charitable middle class women already established, and the organization of women in nearby polities before Utica.

November 11, 2013

Only in the Burned-Over District

In her article “The Power of Women’s Networks”, Mary P. Ryan argues that women played a large role in the shaping the sex/gender system of the 19^th century. She describes the various ways this power was manifested in Oneida County in the 1830s and shows how these networks gave direction to the future of their sex. She also delves into one of the great ironies of feminist history: that women had direct involvement with the creation of the Victorian gender code, which demanded extreme sexual repression on their part.

It is important to note that this movement was specific to its place and time. The demographic and religious climate of the area before Victorian times allowed for networks of women to flourish. The revivalist Presbyterian church provided them with the framework to build their own associations and the pre-industrial economy made a population density more conducive to a more even distribution of influence. (74-5) As Ryan tells us, the flame of moral reform flickered out after a steam textile mill opened, and the town was flooded with new immigrants.

The women went from wanting to reform the whole of society to wanting to reform their own families, as the case in Victorian America. One could look at Angelina Grimke’s outlook on marriage to see how the move to the Victorian gender code and the cult of domesticity was really just a move to combine the public and private lives of women. (Henry) She wrote that it was “absolutely necessary that we should know that we are not ruined as domestic characters” because of leading a public life. (Henry)

November 11, 2013

Feminism's Roots

Before the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, women discovered their ability to influence society through their experiences in organizational movements such as the Abolitionist and benevolent movements, as shown in the writings of Mary P. Ryan and Katherine Henry. Ryan argues “the origins of American feminism lay not in the abolitionist movement but in the women’s benevolent organizations that flourished in the nineteenth-century city.” Through her examples of benevolent organization and action in Utica, we can see how the avenues which women used to exert influence in society acted in accordance with Henry’s presentation of Grimke’s ideas of the public and private spheres of society. These women in Utica had power in the private spheres of their home, and through their shared experiences they came together publically. They carried out their actions against immoral sexual behavior successful in an extremely public fashion, forcing the public to garner a degree of respect for the female activists.

Henry portrays Grimke’s beliefs and actions in an extremely positive light, and provides evidence for Grimke’s ability aid the feminine cause while striving for abolition. Regardless of the type of activism, temperance, abolition, or benevolence, women in the early 18th centuries began to organize and realize their abilities to exert influence over society. Women were entering the public sphere for the first time in a political fashion; they were attempting to improve their society through historically political institutions such as the petition, public speech, and social networks.

Their entrance into the public sphere encountered expected resistance, even from other women. There was a delicate balance between entering the sphere of man while also being respected as a woman. Grimke noted in her relationship with Wald that in order to receive respect from her male peers, she felt she had to be a dutiful wife and care for her household chores. She would then be able to attract the attention of men, who would be impressed by her public speaking and reasoning. She was therefore able to enter the public sphere of man while keeping her female identity. Female activists, however, would come to find that they had to establish themselves even more into the public sphere of man, through education, work, and political activism, to eventually gain societal status in the later 19th century and eventually the right to vote in 1920.

The social organization emphasized by Ryan reminded me of the neighborhood loyalty in the Bowery. Organizations such as the firefighters became significant in-group efforts for a single cause, politically or otherwise. Both the firefighters and women’s organizations for benevolence were social groups influenced by public issues.

These female activists set the stage for eventual Feminist Movement that would take place. Ryan and Henry did well to demonstrate what it took to get females involved in the early movements that would lead to feminism, both ideologically and socially. The procedure would eventually become more drastic in modern terms, but in the early 19th century these actions by women were unprecedented.

November 7, 2013

NANA As A Tool For Influence

In his blog post, Lewis mentioned that in Richard Jensen’s “No Irish Need Apply” “there appears to be a definite lack of sufficient support to argue that the Irish were discriminated against under the NINA ideology, I believe his claim that the Irish used the NINA slogan as a protective tool falls short of his own criticism.” I disagree with this assertion, because Jensen provides clear evidence of the Irish memorializing NANA in weird and perplexing ways. While I agree with Lewis in that there is not enough evidence to claim the Irish were discriminated against, but can an argument not be made about the Irish and their intentions when it was revealed they continued to cite NANA as their main point against discrimination towards Irish Americans even if all evidence proved it wrong?. In other words, while we may agree that Jensen’s assertion that NANA was used as a “protective tool” may not be a strong argument, we cannot overlook the discrepancies between the Irish’s perception of NANA and its actual impact on their rights. Jensen’s actual findings which I will outline here showed NANA did not have as dominant of a presence as first advertised by the Irish, creating a perplexing but fascinating narrative. First, Jensen claims that the fact that Irish even remotely remember NANA signs is perplexing, “the fact that Irish vividly ‘remember’ NINA signs is a curious historical puzzle.” For Jensen, the fact that NANA has solidified into fabric of memories of Irish Americans reveals far more than simply their views on discrimination or even NANA for that matter. Moreover, as deep hatred and discrimination is embedded within the NANA ideology, one would expect for a clear opponent or business that is “the culprit.” That, as Jensen points out, is not the case as “no particular business enterprise is named as a culprit.” What is even more fascinating is that while NANA may seem as a policy which attacked all minority groups the same, Jensen explains that “only Irish Catholics have reported seeing the sign in America-no Protestant, no Jew, no non-Irish Catholic” (405) In conclusion, it seems that there is ample evidence to suggest that Irish Americans, specifically, utilized NANA as a tool for influence.

November 7, 2013

Irish Discrimination a Myth?

In No Irish Need Apply: A Myth of Victimization, Richard Jensen argues that 19th century job discrimination against Irish-Americans, symbolized by the idea of signs reading “No Irish Need Apply” (NINA) hanging in business windows, was largely a myth. Nearly everyone in America remembers learning about the discrimination Irish immigrants faced during their early years in America, and the NINA signs are an essential part of that narrative. However, in his thorough research that included combing through both newspaper ads and records of firsthand accounts, Jensen convincingly shows that there is no evidence these signs were at all common. Instead, Jensen convincingly presents us with a narrative in which NINA signs were somewhat common in private British homes seeking maids, and that the collective memory of those signs and their significance as a slogan of general distaste for the Irish carried on into the 19th century United States. (409) He then discusses how John Poole’s song spread the line even further, causing the people to believe the phrase really was printed up in many businesses and also giving the phrase a special status as a rallying cry of oppression for the Irish to bond over. (409) Jensen uses economic arguments and later statistics to assert that the Irish were not discriminated against and in fact were sought after as cheap labor, a common experience of any immigrant group entering a workforce en masse without many skills. (413)

The part of Jensen’s argument that most interested me was something I alluded to in the last paragraph: the idea that the Irish used the idea of NINA and a general sense of discrimination as a way to strengthen their sense of community in the face of what they saw as economic discrimination. Jensen claims numerous times that this tight-knit Irish community encouraged individual Irish from taking jobs dominated by the “Other.” (Presumably, this means other immigrants and Yankees). Jensen believes this was a useful tool for the community as the Irish were able to dominate certain professions such as the canal building and longshoremen industries. (412) Their numbers thus allowed them more power as workers and allowed them to negotiate with employers and organize strikes in a unified fashion. On the face of it, it seems counterintuitive to say that the Irish community could play up discrimination against themselves and use it as an economic tool, but Jensen makes it into a logical, economic argument. Immigrant groups, and really any minority or otherwise disadvantaged groups, are at their most powerful when they act collectively and act to better conditions for the entire group. If Irish workers were constantly going into the same professions, then their numbers would give them a greater collective power as workers within those professions.

If I had one issue with the article, it would be the same that Eli brought up in his post. I think that Jensen could have done a better job of including narratives that illustrated how Irish people of the time actually felt. Perhaps diaries, letter correspondences, or Irish newspapers or pamphlets could have given insight into ways they felt American society mistreated them. I appreciated Jensen’s statistical, more logic-based argument, but when evaluating an immigrant group in this way it is important to consider their own experiences as they themselves perceived them.

November 7, 2013

"Without enough sleep, we all become tall two-year olds."-Jojo Jenson

According to an extensive academic study conducted by BroBible (http://www.brobible.com/sports/article/10-most-hateable-fan-bases-college-football/page-2), Notre Dame Irish football fans are the most hated fans in the country. While college football seemingly has nothing to do with either of these articles, the hatred behind the Irish, specifically the Irish-Catholic at least runs along the same lines as both of these articles. As I read through the “‘No Irish Need Apply’: A Myth of Victimization,” I felt Richard Jenson’s research was thorough, yet quite selective. I agree with his overall argument, but not necessarily the method he used as justification. Initially, his argument focused on the lack of a visible NINA sign as justification for the myth of victimization felt by Irish during the period and many subsequent generations later. I kept reading, however, and warmed up to his argument when he discussed the economic plight of the Irish, which was what I thought he lacked initially. As is my understanding of Irish immigration, a massive wave occurred concurrently with the potato famine. Why were so many Irish migrating? They left their homeland because they were tired, hungry, and poor. They were the wretched refuse that Emma Lazarus later described in her poem “A New Colossus”. These immigrants came to this country with nothing, so they probably did not fit the traditional mold of a white settler from the Old World. I would imagine that these newcomers were shunned due to their extreme poverty rather than their Irish heritage, but at this time, the two were interwoven and topped off with Catholicism. Furthermore, Jenson uses many diverse geographic and time periods to create his argument. For the most part, and where I think his argument holds the most weight, Jenson discusses Irish encounters in New York City during the mid-1800s. He continues, however, by bringing up farmers in Iowa and treatment of Irish in Brooklyn. While these statistics and narratives have their place in history, it is not in this article. Another point of contention that Jenson makes describes the relationship the Irish had with African-Americans and the Chinese. He says the Irish “repeatedly attacked employers who hired African-Americans or Chinese.” (415) Did he think that maybe the Irish attacked these groups to “fit in” with other whites? Or maybe they attacked these employers because the Irish were on strike and members from either of these two races worked for cheaper thereby nulling the Irish strike? I understand he’s saying that the Irish weren’t attacked, but they were white. Irish or not, violence against whites was more frowned upon than violence against another race during this period. I just don’t buy a lot of his arguments. One of his strongest details alludes to the lack of socioeconomic mobility of the Irish. Granted this is all my speculation without additional research, but I think this restricted mobility refers back to the problem of being a penniless, hungry immigrant who is willing to work anywhere that puts food on the table. The Irish stuck together as a group, so people in the neighborhood helped others get jobs where they were working; therefore, (because Irishmen were helping Irishmen get jobs) the Irish dominated the fields of work, specifically as canal workers and longshoremen. I agree much more with Kevin Kenny’s article, “Race, Violence, and Anti-Irish Sentiment in the Nineteenth Century” which can be discussed further in class. I also agree with Wade’s comments about Kenny’s article. I didn’t notice until reading Wade’s post that I enjoyed Kenny’s clarity and consistency over Jenson’s arguments. I just didn’t think Jenson used appropriate justification, as I’ve already said, and his arguments were more jumbled and not flowing chronologically. Is that Vince Vaughn in the background of Lamo’s picture? Let’s embrace that as well.