Feminism – Popular Politics in Early America

November 14, 2013

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).

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

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

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

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)