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 The Radcalism of the Woman Suffrage Movement, Ellen Dubois addresses recent scholarship denying the radicalism of the 19th century woman suffrage movement. These recent scholars assert that the patriarchal family structure has historically been the primary example of female oppression, and that the suffrage movement was not truly radical because it did not address that issue. Dubois argues that the suffrage movement was radical because by demanding for the vote, women were demanding their entry into the traditionally male-dominated public sphere of politics, as opposed to being relegated to the private sphere of maintaining the home and caring for the family. This distinction between the public and private sphere is crucial to Dubois’ argument, as she claims that up to this point in American society there had been no challenge to this separation of the genders into the private and public sphere. According to Dubois, the suffrage movement was therefore radical because it represented an effort by women to take on a role in society (namely that of voter) that had nothing to do with their role in the family.
Dubois concedes that 19th century woman suffragists did not seek to undermine the family structure or the idea that women should inherently take on a domestic role. Again, the mere fact that they were requesting to enter the public sphere was radical enough. Perhaps, as Max pointed out in his post, these women recognized that they had to pick their battles and therefore did not seek to dramatically change the dominant family dynamic. I agree with Dubois’ argument that the foray into the public sphere was the radical part of the woman suffrage movement. However, I am unsure of how radical it really was based on the precise political causes these women hoped to address with their voting rights. According to Dubois, it seems woman suffragists hoped to vote in order to address issues related to their place in the household and family. Dubois claims that woman suffragists thought their voting rights would allow them to address reforms in family law and the marriage contract, as well as improve husband-wife relations by making “democracy the law of the family.” (68) If Dubois is saying the radical element of the suffrage movement was that it thrust women into the public sphere, is her argument undermined by her claim that women planned to use their voting power solely on domestic issues related to the private sphere? It does make sense that women would want to address domestic issues, as those directly affected the most women. However, if the suffrage movement was radical because of suffragists’ desire for women to influence only their domestic role via voting as opposed to other, more public causes (economic policy, foreign affairs, etc.), I believe Dubois’ argument is somewhat weakened. Under Dubois’ argument, women push their way into the public sphere by getting the vote, but that push is not sustained if women then focus their political power solely on domestic issues.