women’s rights – Popular Politics in Early America

November 14, 2013

Similarities Amongst Women and Other Minority Groups in the U.S.

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 post, Lamoureux states that “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.” While I agree with Lamoureux that the feminist cause for gender equality must be understood in different terms than African American’s fight for racial equality, but can these two movements truly be seen as completely separate? After all, weren’t both of these groups denied citizenship, and the right to vote? Weren’t they both discriminated when it came to their occupation? Dubois highlights the similarities between the two group when she states “Citizenship represented a relation-ship to the larger society that was entirely and explicitly outside the boundaries of women’s familial relations. As citizens and voters, women would participate directly in society as individuals, not indirectly through their subordinate positions as wives and mothers.” It seems that in this sentence “women” can easily be interchanged with nearly any other minority group that has encountered discrimination and not given the right to vote or citizenship. That is not to say, of course, that the movement for women suffrage was identical to the Civil Rights movement and other minority moments, but simply that these movements cannot be looked at individually because common elements are shared amongst the various movements. While African Americans and other minority groups were discriminated on the color of their skin, women were discriminated through the manipulation of the public and private sphere, but yet, both acts of discrimination held the white man as more “able” while also denying work to these groups on the basis of their race or their gender. So while Lamoureux was right to say that some women at the time may have wished to attain freedom before Africans Americans, because they believed being white made them superior, I also think a good number of women felt that their movement was intertwined with other movements for rights and freedoms. Only these minority groups (African Americans, Jews, Indian American) could truly understand the white male dominated world in which these women lived, with all rights stripped away exhibited in their inability to attain citizenship or even the right to vote.

November 13, 2013

Public v. Private

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 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

My Kind of Women

This week’s reading was centered on Cherokee Women and their role within Native American society. Theda Purdue’s “Cherokee Women” is the first piece regarding Native Americans (specifically the Cherokee Tribe) I have ever seen that serves as a gender study, truly making this piece one of a kind. Echoing the statements made by both AJ and Ian, this book presents an often ignored aspect of American history as it not only tells the story of a group of women but women who make up one of the “minority” groups of the United States at this time. Now when I say minority group I mean a group of people that to this day continues to be treated as second class citizens that throughout American history has constantly received the short end of the stick. Having a small bit of knowledge regarding Cherokee tribal life (not necessarily women in the Cherokee tribe) I found myself constantly intrigued by the accounts demonstrating the power of women and the respect that they garnered within the tribe. This account more specifically shows that women were the backbone of tribes as they controlled property and dictated how family life would take place, meaning they in many ways decided where the family lived.

“Women in the United States” (regardless of where or how they lived) is a category of history that I believe men in particular today pay little attention to due to false information being presented due to the state of women in Europe. AJ and Ian’s comments regarding their thoughts of women in early America doing what their husbands told them and raising the children prove this point (I think at least). So often we forget the significant roles women such as Abigail Adams and Martha Washington played in influencing their husband’s policy or putting their minds at ease regarding an issue. David McCullough’s book John Adams provides more insight to the role of Mrs. Adams in her husband’s life; but that is a blog for another day. Ultimately, what I am trying to show by this little tangent is that this view of women simply remaining quiet and doing as they were told is not true that many men have is simply untrue. This is not to say though that all women with European origin were outspoken voices.

Cherokee women simply are “persistent” according to Purdue and I cannot think of a better world to describe these women she focuses her work on. Despite the numerous changes the Cherokee tribe has experienced over the years due to white people expansion out west women have always remained a force in the community. Even when it appears that whites desire to lessen the role of the Cherokee Women, these women find a way to hold on to some sort of power/control. Ian comments on this specifically in his blog but the way in which women ran family life simply is fascinating I feel. Their ability to call the shots regarding if a sick child should be abandoned or if they wanted a divorce from a husband (a power men and women in the Cherokee tribe shared) was unheard of in many cultures across the world. Today, seeing the power women in the tribe had back in the 18^th, 19^th, and even early 20^th Century it becomes obvious to me why white men tried to lessen the role of the Cherokee Woman as soon as they possibly could; if white men removed Cherokee women from tribal roles, their own wives would not get ideas of amassing some degree of power. Also by removing women (the backbone of tribal life) from dealings with the white men it becomes simpler I feel to take advantage of the Cherokee due to the men not knowing how to trade like the woman could. Simply put these woman, who weren’t afraid to take charge, ran the show in Cherokee tribes.

October 10, 2013

A non-thinker having rethought

As many in this class can attest, I possess borderline ignorant qualities regarding my stubbornness and argumentativeness (that’s a word). I like to be right. And I like to argue…just to argue. When in the course of human events, however, it becomes necessary for one to readjust his thinking for truthiness and justice. This I have done.
In class Tuesday, I defended the point that Rochester, New York was a relatively appropriate location for Paul Johnson’s book, but I would have preferred a comparative model with another city going through similar changes. Maybe Pittsburgh, PA? Or Wheeling, VA (West Virginia after the Civil War)? Or a southern city like Nashville, TN? I change my mind. I now believe, along with many of my esteemed colleagues, that Mr. Johnson nailed it. While I cannot bring myself to proclaim Rochester as “The Heart and Soul of the United States”, I will acknowledge its “melting pot” atmosphere that supposedly makes America, America. Rochester was an American microcosm. Although the city grew rapidly, Johnson alludes his readers to a strong and dignified (albeit brief) history of the area by describing the first land owners, their prominence, and the reform of government. Additionally, as we stated in class, Rochester was a sufficient blend of country folk and city dwellers. The farmers and shopkeepers combined to give Rochester the beliefs and interests of both kinds of people. Furthermore, “Clinton’s Big Ditch”, enabled the city to stay connected with major sea ports and the areas west of the Appalachian Mountains. Rochester was a byproduct of the Erie Canal (Since Ian gets to talk about hometowns, my hometown’s creation and usefulness is similar to that of Rochester. The Virginia and Tennessee railroads linked at Roanoke, and the “Star City” was born). Charles Finney accrued a mass following to believe his teachings of revised Christianity. The white collar increase amongst grocers, lawyers, and boatsmen is an incredible jump from the number of religious men in these professions merely seven years earlier. I also like Johnson’s claim that wealthier men went to church as a political move. I imagine that these men saw a rising interest in religion and wanted to show their constituents that they were part of this good behavior as well. Furthermore, women were given unintentional rights as they were allowed to pray with the men. Finney does mention some of the more traditional church goers were against this practice of intermingling men and women, but as they came to find out, men and women can pray together without satan breathing a fiery wrath upon them. Yet, this step allowed women to gain more respect and “helped to transform [their husbands] into nineteenth century husbands.” (108) The nineteenth century husband swore off alcohol, did not abuse his family members, and continued to work hard. Most of these husbandry social norms continue to this day. his, I have done.

My disagreement with Johnson is that he rarely mentions blacks. He mentions them briefly when describing the barrel making process, a violent encounter with a police officer over gambling, and the African Methodist Church. Johnson does not make a claim (unless I missed it) about an increase or decrease in black religion revival. Maybe this is due to a lack of surviving sources. I think to truly capture an American city, Johnson should have studied the reaction of blacks if possible. This would have been especially interesting because all slaves were freed in New York in 1827 with a majority of them having been freed with the gradual abolition Act of 1817 in the wake of the War of 1812. This new emancipation was an experiment in and of itself, much like Charles Finney’s sermons on initially radical religious teachings.