I was mainly going to analyze and critique Ellen Dubois\u2019 argument in her work, The Radicalism of the Women Suffrage Movement: Notes toward the Reconstruction of Nineteenth-Century Feminism<\/i>, 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\u2019s argument\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s voice. The works we read do not detail the first essential step in the women\u2019s movement but grow the audience and take vital steps for the movement\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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\u2019 argument. Her approach revolves around the claim that the demand for the vote was the most radical program for women\u2019s emancipation possible in the nineteenth century. She states, \u201cMy hypothesis is that the significance of the woman suffrage movement rested precisely on the fact that it bypassed women\u2019s oppression within the family, or private sphere, and demanded instead her admission to citizenship, and through it admission to the public arena\u201d (63). I believe Dubois\u2019 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\u2019s Christian Temperance Union.<\/p>\n
My first concern was why the women\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
After she states that enfranchisement was the key demand of 19th<\/sup> 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\u2019 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, \u201cYet, 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 19th<\/sup> century feminism, with respect to which all organized female protest had to orient itself\u201d (69).\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I was mainly going to analyze and critique Ellen Dubois\u2019 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 … <\/p>\n