gender studies – Popular Politics in Early America

November 13, 2013

Patriarchy's Appeal to Women?

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 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 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.

October 17, 2013

An Expansion of Women's History

This past week, we read Theda Perdue’s Cherokee Women. I found it very interesting because I have not read many direct accounts of Native American life and society structure, and unsurprisingly ones I have read tended to focus on men. As Michael Lameroux points out in his post, this book fits into what I have seen from a few other books in my history classes in the past year or so. For example, last year I read Woody Holton’s Abigail Adams, which focused on how John Adams’ wife Abigail took an active and often equal role in their marriage. I also read Maya Jasanoff’s Liberty’s Exiles, which spent a good deal of time on Molly Brant, a woman of the Mohawk tribe who wielded great power in her community during the Revolutionary era, in great part due to her romantic relationship with the British Superintendent of Indian Affairs. However, those books focused on women of the upper echelons of their respective societies, and also ones who likely would not have had as much power were it not for their husbands’ positions. Perdue’s book, on the other hand, exposes the importance of the roles of a wider swath of Cherokee women.

Perdue begins by establishing that the Cherokee did have defined gender roles, which she describes as “theoretically rigid” but in reality not so, due to men’s propensity to help. Women’s duties included agricultural chores, which seems to have been typical of native societies who depended heavily on crops. (18) Another example of a similarly structured society is that of many western African cultures, where agricultural tasks were similarly seen as women’s work to the point that men who participated were lesser than their peers. However, Perdue makes it clear that things were much more fluid among the Cherokee, pointing out that men were often expected to help in these agricultural duties rather than discouraged. Perdue also points out the important role of the menstrual cycle in Cherokee society. Cherokee women derived power from the menstrual cycle as it was so tied to pregnancy and childbirth. Perdue’s account of the myth of the “stone man” shows that this reverence for women’s menstruation was a deep-rooted part of Cherokee culture.

If I had one issue with the book, it is that I am a bit worried about the primary source material Perdue uses to make these claims. In the introduction, Perdue outlines the difficulties of finding reliable primary source material on Native American women, noting that many of the early accounts of Native American life come from Europeans who lacked context for what they saw and likely misinterpreted a lot. That, combined with the fact that historians have neglected women in general until relatively recently, makes this a difficult subject to research. However, after the introduction, Perdue does not remark much on those concerns. I think that it is difficult to make definitive claims with such limited source material, and believe Perdue should have done more to justify why her sources were worthwhile and good enough to back up her claims.