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.