The articles by DuBois and Earle cast important light on the development of the women\u2019s feminist and suffrage movements of the nineteenth century. However, while both articles thoroughly explore unique aspects of these women\u2019s movements, the arguments of these works are undoubtedly strengthened when read together.<\/p>\n
\tAlone, 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 \u201cwhy\u201d the nineteenth century suffrage movement became the most radical among women. One of DuBois\u2019s strongest arguments in answering this question stems from her interpretations of the public and private spheres; the public sphere emphasized the \u201cindividual\u201d while the private sphere centered on \u201cfamily\u201d (64). Through these understandings \u2013 and the illustrations of women\u2019s lives revolving around domestic responsibilities \u2013 DuBois is able to demonstrate why women were so often confined to the private sphere.<\/p>\n
\tOne 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 \u201cthe very key to white women\u2019s own racial advancement was patriarchy\u201d (227). In justifying this claim, Earle notes that nineteenth century women used \u201cmiddle-class gender relations\u201d to place themselves above minority groups like free people of color, immigrants, and slaves (227). While this argument may initially appear to weaken DuBois\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201ctook as its starting point woman\u2019s position within the home,\u201d a \u201chome-based ideology\u201d (69). If we consider Earle\u2019s argument about patriarchy, it becomes clear that women\u2019s 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 \u201climited to the private realities of wifehood and motherhood\u201d (DuBois 68). By initially appealing to problems at home and within the family, women\u2019s movements were able to garner sufficient support for their causes and finally provoke change in the public sphere.<\/p>\n
\tWith this in mind I wholeheartedly agree with Max\u2019s claims that failure would have been ineluctable for suffragists and abolitionists had they strived to \u201coverturn all traditional values\u201d (Feminist Radicalism). As Earle remarks, \u201cto embrace abolitionism was an inherently radical act by itself\u201d (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, \u201cpick their battles.\u201d 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).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The articles by DuBois and Earle cast important light on the development of the women\u2019s feminist and suffrage movements of the nineteenth century. However, while both articles thoroughly explore unique aspects of these women\u2019s movements, the arguments of these works are undoubtedly strengthened when read together. Alone, DuBois is very effective in situating her story … <\/p>\n