Private/Public Sphere – Popular Politics in Early America

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.

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.

Tag: Private/Public Sphere

Public v. Private

Feminist Radicalism