Tag: Abolition

Posted on

One Cause to Rule Them All


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

The notion of women having to pick their battles might be the most accurate statement when reviewing certain elements of history with minority groups (yes I am viewing women as a minority group in this instance due to their lack of “power”).  My current History 480 thesis draws heavily upon feminist perspectives and ideals and it is worth noting even in the 1960s (maybe even today) women still struggle to be seen as equal.  Because of that women do “radical” actions such as visit North Vietnam and visit NVA military camp sites while declaring U.S. troops are “baby killers,” or demand the right to vote.  Now in 2013 these actions appear drastically different but during their timeframe these were the most obscene claims a woman could make.  Now what does my thesis have to do with this idea of suffrage and abolition? Well the answer to that lies in the reaction of feminists across the country.  If feminists did not support an issue whole heartedly (for the most part) that issue would not see any chance of success.

Wade’s notion of DuBois and Earle supporting each other’s work is an interesting claim to make because I do not see women as a collective unit achieving success with the two movements being associated.  Using Wade’s notion of two movements strengthening each other I get the impression that women really knew what they wanted (suffrage) but had no idea how to get it.  It is this narrative that leads into a multitude of different directions of thought.  Do women really see themselves superior to African Americans or are they just appealing to the powers that be?  I honestly do think at this time some women do in fact see themselves as superior (women being white women of course).  Do some women think that slavery is wrong even if they are “above” blacks? Absolutely.  Given the choice between the ability to vote or the end of slavery though, I think a feminist is going to want to see women achieve some form of social success before a black man every time that decision is presented. That is just the nature of feminism from the work I have done on the topic.  Because of this notion a battle is picked by women in regards to what they would rather see come into fruition first.

Traditionally (up to the second or third feminist movement depending on what feminist scholar you study) women’s role in the household ensured them some level of security.  Why would these women want to escape this security net the home gave them? It is this idea that I agree with DuBois in that the household is what held women back from the success they desired.  While some women wanted a public voice where they could be heard many other women were content individuals proud to be simply Mrs. John Doe.  How are the women who want the public life to get the content women at home to get behind their cause? Well if you tell these women that their home/private life will be adversely affected they will get behind someone’s movement immediately.  I believe that is why women’s groups appealed to the “domestic nature” of women at this time.  Perhaps it is hear that Wade makes his notion of two movements for one cause (which is a bit more understandable).

Posted on

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.