Popular Politics in Early America – Page 3 – Just another My blog Sites site

November 13, 2013

Public v. Private

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

I was mainly going to analyze and critique Ellen Dubois’ argument in her work, The Radicalism of the Women Suffrage Movement: Notes toward the Reconstruction of Nineteenth-Century Feminism, however; after reading some of these previous blog posts I felt the need to at the least comment on what I read. As someone who does not have much historical knowledge or background of the Feminist movement or really anything revolving Feminism in general, I figured much of the people in class (all boys) would use the blog post to comment on author’s argument’s credibility or even possibly a critique of the more historiographical approach by author Jonathon Earie, yet I was surprisingly mistaken. To keep it brief, I will comment on Mike Lamo’s post and some of the comments he himself makes and others that he disapproves of. I 100% agree with Mike when he argues that women such as Abigail Adams should not go over looked in their earlier efforts to promote the women’s voice. The works we read do not detail the first essential step in the women’s movement but grow the audience and take vital steps for the movement’s advancement. Furthermore, I agree with Mike that the dynamic discussed in Henry where the woman needed to establish herself in the private sphere first before the public sphere needs to be flushed out because I am not sold on that view.

Now to my critique of Ellen Dubois, like I stated earlier, I have no previous background to the Feminist movement and believe this limited knowledge keeps me from appropriately commenting on the points made in either scholarship read, so instead I will analyze the credibility of Dubois’ argument. Her approach revolves around the claim that the demand for the vote was the most radical program for women’s emancipation possible in the nineteenth century. She states, “My hypothesis is that the significance of the woman suffrage movement rested precisely on the fact that it bypassed women’s oppression within the family, or private sphere, and demanded instead her admission to citizenship, and through it admission to the public arena” (63). I believe Dubois’ argument and agree with what she says because she does a nice job at laying out previous contributions to the field as well as effectively explains her points and provides a legitimate outside example with the contrast to the more popular Women’s Christian Temperance Union.

My first concern was why the women’s movement saw a drastic turn to the public sphere. She right on cue, details the emergence of a sharp distinction between the family and society in the nineteenth century. Detailing the new two forms of social organization, Dubois explains the revolutionary possibility of a new way to relate to society not defined by their position within the family (64). She then provides historical background to the familial relations at the time with writing on the subservient household women and then adds that Suffragists accepted this role but refused to concede that it prohibited them from participation in the public sphere. Dubois then brings in previous established authors such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton to add to her argument, only continuing to reinforce her view in my opinion.

After she states that enfranchisement was the key demand of 19^th century feminists, she provides anti-suffrage voices and begins to solidify her argument in my mind. Providing the anti-suffrage voice, Dubois I believe, nicely disproves the family focused view and introduces why the movement remained a minority. By detailing the success of the WCTU and their ability to capture a wider audience of women, Dubois’ argument gained some strength in my opinion and made her view distinct from others previous. She finally solidifies her argument in my mind by concluding with, “Yet, the very fact that the WCTU had to come to terms with suffrage and eventually supported it indicates that the woman suffrage movement had succeeded in becoming the defining focus of 19^th century feminism, with respect to which all organized female protest had to orient itself” (69). In all, after reading Dubois and not having any previous knowledge, I do believe she provides a historically backed claim that shows some different thinking then previous familial heavy authors.

November 13, 2013

Patriarchy's Appeal to Women?

The articles by DuBois and Earle cast important light on the development of the women’s feminist and suffrage movements of the nineteenth century. However, while both articles thoroughly explore unique aspects of these women’s movements, the arguments of these works are undoubtedly strengthened when read together.

Alone, DuBois is very effective in situating her story within the framework of existing historiography. While navigating the routes taken by earlier research into the nineteenth century feminist movement, DuBois crafts her research questions from what previous scholars had left unanswered, ultimately leading her to ask “why” the nineteenth century suffrage movement became the most radical among women. One of DuBois’s strongest arguments in answering this question stems from her interpretations of the public and private spheres; the public sphere emphasized the “individual” while the private sphere centered on “family” (64). Through these understandings – and the illustrations of women’s lives revolving around domestic responsibilities – DuBois is able to demonstrate why women were so often confined to the private sphere.

One topic presented by both DuBois and Earle that is made more lucid through the pairing of these articles is the rhetorical foundation upon which the feminist and suffrage movements began, or perhaps were at least made most effective. An interesting conclusion by Earle states that “the very key to white women’s own racial advancement was patriarchy” (227). In justifying this claim, Earle notes that nineteenth century women used “middle-class gender relations” to place themselves above minority groups like free people of color, immigrants, and slaves (227). While this argument may initially appear to weaken DuBois’s contention that suffragists of the nineteenth century sought to become individuals, separate from their husbands in the public sphere, I think when read in the correct context it bolsters DuBois’s claims. In the last portion of her article, DuBois discusses the strategies used by the suffragists and organizations like the WCTU and why some were more effective. The WCTU was so successful, she argues, because “took as its starting point woman’s position within the home,” a “home-based ideology” (69). If we consider Earle’s argument about patriarchy, it becomes clear that women’s groups like the WCTU had to use the model of patriarchy to convince other women that the foundations of family were being threatened. This led many women to become a part of movements because most women were “limited to the private realities of wifehood and motherhood” (DuBois 68). By initially appealing to problems at home and within the family, women’s movements were able to garner sufficient support for their causes and finally provoke change in the public sphere.

With this in mind I wholeheartedly agree with Max’s claims that failure would have been ineluctable for suffragists and abolitionists had they strived to “overturn all traditional values” (Feminist Radicalism). As Earle remarks, “to embrace abolitionism was an inherently radical act by itself” (226). For women to make sufficient progress in gaining the right to vote and entrance into the public sphere, they needed to, as Max says, “pick their battles.” This give and take between radicalism and appeals to patriarchy definitely developed a strategic paradox, but I believe, along with Earle, that perhaps this manipulation of social understandings was necessary for the success of the feminist and suffrage movements of the nineteenth century (229).

November 13, 2013

Dubois on the Radical Nature of the Suffrage Movement

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.

November 13, 2013

Feminist Radicalism

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.