Response to DuBois, Sojourner, and The Dec. of Sentiments

In “Feminism Old Wave and New Wave”, DuBois’ notion of the “woman’s sphere” is fascinating to consider because I think that it is applicable to not only the first wave of feminism during the abolitionist movement, but all feminism movements that proceeded.  In her explanation of the first wave of feminism, DuBois suggests that women who were working in the abolitionist movement were confined to a specific sphere of activities that were essentially approved by men.  However, once women tried to involve themselves in the movement outside of their designated sphere, men immediately reprimanded them.  The “woman’s sphere” that existed during abolition may have expanded since, but I think that it is still omnipresent today and arguably even more invisible and dangerous than ever before.  As we have been discussing in class, there is a tendency in today’s world to assume that because women have had a significant amount of gains towards creating equality, the “woman’s sphere”, particularly in the workforce, does not exist.  Furthermore, I think women tend to joke about their roles in the “woman’s sphere”, whether that be domestically, sexually, and so on.  Going back to previous readings, the women who do find a way out of their sphere and start encroaching on the “men’s sphere” are subjected to negative stereotypes and representations that were most likely created by men themselves (i.e. Meryl Streep’s character in The Devil Wears Prada).

Another aspect of these readings that really caught my attention was the focus on religion.  I do not know the religious background behind the women who wrote “The Declaration of Sentiments” and the “Ain’t I A Woman?” but I wonder how men grappled with women demanding that they look to the Bible as proof that they should be treated as equals.  “The Declaration of Sentiments” refers to the “nature’s God”, a “Creator”, “Jehovah himself”, while “Ain’t I Woman” makes references to Christ, suggesting women were meant to be endowed with the same rights as man.  Although these references are relatively brief, they seem to have agency in an attempt to catch the attention of men.  When considering the claims in the Bible about equality, it is ironic that churches have always been based on a patriarchal hierarchy that tends to exclude women from predominate roles.  

Summary of "Ain't I A Woman?", Feminism Old Wave and New Wave, andThe Declaration of Sentiments

In 1851 Sojourner Truth delivered “Ain‘t I A Woman?” at the Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio. In this piece, starts by saying two of the primary issues of the day: the abolitionist movement in the South and the growing unrest of women in the North. Transitioning to the general treatment of women in the day: white women are treated as fair creatures and receive assistance from men. She states that she does work that would be the equivalent of a man but she does not get the treatment different than man even though she does things that men can’t do, such as giving birth to 13 children. The reason given for women to be treated differently from men is that that Jesus Christ was a man. Truth points out that the only way that Christ came into existence was through a woman. She also mentions that Eve was powerful enough to change the world by eating the apple. If one woman could “turn the world upside down all alone” than women as a collective should “be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again!”

Ellen DuBois reflects on the first wave of feminism in the midst of the second wave with “Feminism Old Wave and New Wave.” DuBois compares the first two waves of feminism and highlights that they both arose from other movements, the abolitionist and the Civil Rights movements. During the abolitionist movement, women did a lot of the footwork but did not receive the public recognition or were allowed to make decisions. Sarah and Angelina Grimke were two abolitionists that started to speak out against slavery, to the dismay of many men. The debate on whether women should participate in the movement in the same way as men started, which DuBois credits as the start of the first wave of feminism. Another catalyst of the movement was that Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were not allowed to participate with or even sit near men during an anti-slavery convention in London. Women hoped to be credited for their efforts after the Civil War, but they were not. The 14^th Amendment was a final push towards the start of the movement. The amendment specifically used the term “male,” not extending rights to both men and women. The 15^th Amendment also did not mention anything about sex, allowing them to remain in the relative shadows. Women then organized so that they would then have their voices heard. DuBois highlights that the second wave started in a very similar way. Women “had crept into even the most radical political movements of the day” (p.3). In both cases women started as part of the political movements of the day and branched off after they did not get the recognition that they felt they deserved.

The Declaration of Sentiments was put forth at the Seneca Falls Conference in 1848. It was signed by both men and women. The format was similar to the Declaration of Independence. The purpose of the document is to highlight the difference in the treatment between men and women. In this, the authors list some of the inequities in rights including the lack of suffrage, the loss of property, and loss of children in case of divorce. The signers and the authors want the rights granted to men to be applied to women “which belong to them as citizens of the United States.”

Response to Feminism Old Wave and New Wave and the Declaration of Sentiments

One of the most fascinating aspects of the three readings assigned for tomorrow's class is in the Declaration of Sentiments, when marriage and divorce rights are discussed.  The document states that upon marriage, a woman must be obedient and faithful to her husband.  This type of rhetoric was not as surprising to me, given the time period, as the claim that he becomes her master, "the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement."  This description of a marriage shows stark differences between the woman's role during the first feminist wave and the second.  In the Feminine Mystique, Friedan describes a marriage as a domestic partnership where decision-making processes and power are shared equally. Despite this increase in power during the new wave, women still felt the deprivation, depression, repression, dissatisfaction, and desperation expressed by the authors of the Declaration of Sentiments.  Elevated rank within the marriage cannot enhance a woman's contentment with her status; only federal legislation and societal acceptance has the potential to allow for true changes in equality, respect, and freedom. Additionally, this Declaration points out that marriage makes women morally irresponsible, by allowing her to commit wrongs and be immune to punishment, as long as they are done in the presence and with the approval of her husband. Men are granted their own jurisdiction, with the authority to absolve their wives of wrongdoings for all matters he supports and possible encourages.

Dubois' description of how both feminist waves came to realize the institutional sexism in place was also very though provoking: "First, we began to understand that women were oppressed, throughout our society, and that the oppression of women had crept into even the most radical political movements of the day. Then were started to raise questions about the oppression of women and the "proper spheres" (19th century) or "stereotyped roles" (20th century) of men and women." In both cases, it was the involvement in political movements claiming to advocate citizen equality that highlighted the deep-rooted sexism amongst even the radical, enlightened members. As stated by Echols, the men seemed so eager to do penance for racism, or at least, but insisted on ignoring and fighting women's efforts to address gender inequality.


Sojourner Truth's speech, her insistence that she is just as strong and capable as men, reminded me of Susan Douglas' discussion in the introduction of her book.  Shows like Survivor, the Amazing Race, Fear Factor and even MTV's Real World are all focused on presenting both men and women with an equally disturbing or difficult challenge.  From what I remember, both men and women were required to eat a pig's testicles, face a red ant attack, and conquer physical strength challanges, all for the sake of entertainment and without any gender distinctions. Like Douglas said, the media may be presenting an optimistic view of women's equality, but some of the challenges have proven time and again what Sojourner claimed, and with a much larger audience than she had at the time. Maybe reality/dare/stunt shows specifically have the best chance of demonstrating women's strength to the widest, youngest, most pliable audience.

The Separation of Women from Men

While some of the themes from the readings were repeated from the readings from last class, there were a few new ideas that I found both interesting and helpful.  The article by Ellen DuBois did a particularly good job at explaining why it was so necessary for women to split off from civil rights groups and other groups with male members.  Prior to her article, I had argued that perhaps it would have or at least could have been more beneficial to women to work with men, and to not pursue the route of black power groups.  However, DuBois does an excellent job at spelling out the multiple strikes or reasons that forced the hand of the women involved and made them separate from coed groups.  She begins by addressing how women that were participating in civil rights groups did all of the “shitwork” and that the men did all of the decision-making and received all of the public acknowledgement for their efforts.  DuBois also details the trip of several abolitionist women to London, where they were hidden behind a curtain so as to not upset the men in the convention hall.  These women went on to organize the Seneca Falls Convention, which published the Declaration of Sentiments.  Finally, DuBois gets into how women had expected some praise or reward for their participation in the Civil War, yet never received any.  Instead, women as a sex were left out of both the 14^th and 15^th amendments.  Not only did this infuriate women, but it actually left them in a worse position due to the word “male” appearing in the amendment.  After all of these transgressions against the feminist movement, women were forced to win their rights “without the help of men” because they had learned that “they could not put their faith in male reformers.”

            The second thing from the readings that struck me was the fact that the Seneca Falls Convention based their Declaration of Sentiments on the Declaration of Independence.  While it makes sense in theory, it surprised me because it shows the level of importance they consider their document to hold.  I’m sure that the fact that the document was formed in the image of the Declaration of Independence aided its success greatly. It gives it a greater feeling of importance, and the use of the same language from the Declaration of Independence makes readers recognize its worth.

Response to Echols and Levy

"The truth is that the new conception if raunch culture as a path to liberation rather than oppression is a convenient (and lucrative) fantasy with nothing to back it up" (Levy 82). I found this quote to be interesting. I have frequently heard the discussions back and forth between whether when a woman dresses provocatively and/or she engages in sexual activity if she is doing so because she wants to or that she is doing it for a male audience. On the one hand, it is her choice to wear what she wants and to act however she chooses. On the other hand, it has to be questioned whether she is doing it entirely of her own doing without some implied help from a male audience. Either way, I find it interesting that the issue of sex and the so-called “sexual revolution” is a dividing issue. I would have thought that both sides would be debating something else like wages.

            The other thing that caught my attention was Echols showing the connection between the women’s rights movement to the Civil Rights Movement. Last semester I was in Multicultural Education and we spent a bit talking about social justice advocacy. One of the things that we discussed was how things can be done and voices heard when people join to fight for something. I did not realize before how the two movements were connected. I vaguely knew that the two were around the same time, but did not make the full timing connection. The immense amount of political discussion around the time of the second-wave makes it surprising that there was not support fatigue. As Echols points out, there were at least three other social issues at the time, “struggles of blacks, the working class, or the Vietnamese” (42).

            I wonder if the feminist movement would have stayed closer tied to the other movements or stayed as a single group instead of the various factions if they would have been more successful or less successful. 

Brownmiller and The War Against Women

As a Peace and Conflict major, I spent a great deal of time in one of my classes last semester examining how women’s bodies are political spaces for carrying out war.  When my teacher first presented this idea to the class, I became particularly interested in how women’s bodies were violated in not just one specific case of war, but rather in every case of war our class covered.  In Levy’s “The Future That Never Happened”, Brownmiller takes a very strong stance on how rape and pornography exemplify the political nature of a woman’s body.  According to Brownmiller, “‘rapists were merely the ‘front-line masculine shock troops’ in the war against women, the ‘terrorist guerillas in the longest sustained battle the world has ever known.’ And pornography was the ‘undiluted essence of anti-female propaganda’ that fed them,” (Levy 62).  Brownmiller is a bit extreme in this statement, but I think there is something to be said about the ways in which a violation enacted on a woman’s body can be linked to war, which holds the connotation of being extremely masculine.  

What I discovered in my previous class about gender dynamics and war is that women, despite the lack of their formal involvement in war, are quite crucial on the battlefield.  A woman’s body is actually representative of a political community/nation with its reproductive qualities.  If a woman’s body is violated during war, however, that woman and her community/nation immediately lose their strength and the promise of producing a strong future generation.  Although the act of war rape, for example, is an intimate and personal violation on a woman’s body, it is also seen as a highly political violation.  I think that Brownmiller is right in making the comparison between rape, pornography, and war because what better way to think of the body as political than to think of it existing in the most politicized environments.

An article from CBS News called “War Against Women” that I think is relevant to the personal VS political debate about a woman's body talks about how women’s bodies were systematically being violated in the Congo just a few years ago as a political act.  Although “The Future That Never Happened” does not really directly discuss women and war, I think that this article is useful for thinking in very explicit terms how a woman’s body can be seen as both a symbolic and physical war zone. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-3701249.html?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Response to Levy and Echols Articles

Levy’s The Future That Never Happens gives an interesting view into Susan Brownmiller’s views on the feminist movement, while also giving a fresh commentary on the two different types of “feminist” movements that have occurred in the last ~50 years.  Some of the arguments and ideas of Brownmiller seem to me to be particularly thought provoking.  I felt that many of her arguments are dated, suggesting we have made significant progress as a society since her time.

On the first few pages of the chapter, Levy gives a background on Susan Brownmiller, including several quotes that succinctly sum up her position.  The first idea that I took issue with was that marriage is “an arrangement that usually corralled women back toward the subservient lives their mothers had lived, instead of forward into the glorious futures.”  While I understand the point that Brownmiller tries to take by supporting a statement like that, I completely disagree with her viewpoint.  Brownmiller and feminists like her attempt to spin the conception of marriage into a slave-like relationship between the wife and husband, which could not be further from the truth in my opinion.  I understand the idea that marriages often include a struggle for power within the couple or family, and that typically in the past women have often fallen below men, yet I would like to think that the idea of marriage has changed dramatically since Brownmiller wrote.  Today, I think that a standard marriage is far more balanced, often with women taking control of the finances or power within the family.  Last year, I was in Gender in the Economy, which led me to believe that there are far more women leading lives acting both as the stereotypical mother in the family as well as the stereotypical businesswoman leading a successful career, allowing both the husband and wife to provide financial support.  I would be interested to see what someone like Brownmiller would say today about the new familial relationships that have developed since her time.

The second idea that I found most thought provoking in the reading came from Echols’s article.  I thought that the comparison between the black power movement and the feminist movement was surprising.  Black power groups broke off from negotiating and working with white participants because “integration was nothing more than a ‘subterfuge for the maintenance of white supremacy.’”  Black power groups have gained a negative connotation, mainly due to the violence that characterized them, and especially when contrasted with the peaceful movements of those such as MLK.  I find it odd that women chose a similar route to black power advocates and broke off all negotiations and dialogue with men.  In my opinion, it is moves like these that have given feminists the negative stereotypes that they currently have to contend with in future negotiations.  While the splitting off of women from coed feminist groups may have advanced the speed of their movement, it seems to me that it effectively infected the movement with a negative feel that they have not been able to shake yet.  It is interesting to think about the possibility of what would have happened if they had instead actively pursued coed discussions.

Summary of The Future that Never Happened, Prologue: The Re-emergence of the "Woman Question," The Feminist Mystique

     "The Future That Never Happened," by Susan Brownmiller, follows the feminist movement as it evolved starting from its humble origins of consciousness-raising to its current "new" era, where raunchiness and vulgarity are seen as liberating and progressive methods to advance the movement.  The original National Organization for Women had the goal of overthrowing patriarchy starting with the "minds and bedrooms of Americans as well as the workplace" (p. 50). Some monumental legislation such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the approval of birth control by the FDA in 1960 all enhanced the message of the feminist movement, guaranteeing equal pay and discrimination based on gender, race, etc. However while these advances were being made, feminism was going through a transformation, and two revolutionary movements emerged: women's liberation and the sexual revolution.

     While many of the key efforts of each movements were compatible, many elements proved to be insurmountable discrepancies, eventually causing the movements clear and simple message to be construed in multiple chaotic directions. The Women's Liberation Movement focused on sexual pleasure, attempting to enhance awareness and female sexual satisfaction; in doing so they disproved Freudian beliefs and the general consensus on the optimal methods of achieving the apparently illusive female orgasm. On the other hand, Hugh Hefner and the sexual revolution promoted a "freedom from domesticity...a distaste for conventional family roles and repressive laws." While unfortunately Hefner turned out to support only male promiscuity and sexual maturity and freedom, with his assistance, Roe v. Wade and Birth Control legislation were passed in favor of women's rights. 

     Extreme elements began to emerge following the release of Brownmiller's book, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, which described rape as a "process by which all men keep all women in a state of fear." Anti-pornography campaigns divided women in the movement, with some believing pornography to be the ultimate form of female freedom with others trying to free women from identification with "S/M pictures" (p. 60). Stemming from this, the feminist movement moved in a completely anti-sex direction, vastly different from one of the key messages of the early forms of feminism that promoted connection with and understanding of one's body.  In many circles, heterosexual relationships were rejected in favor of lesbianism. 

     Today, raunch feminism has emerged as both a rebellion of past generations and a "garbled attempt at continuing the women's movement" (p. 75).  We have all forgotten the way culture can belittle women and the representations of the new feminist movement look more like those very messages to which past generations objected. Leaders of the original movement call this new path a "convenient fantasy," where nudity, pornography, stripping, and exerting extreme sexual behavior are seen as admirable efforts, equivalent to anti-rape protests.
------------------
      The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, a group founded by black students advocating racial equality through nonviolent direct action, and the Students for a Democratic Society, an "anti-anti-communist, or new left, youth group, together formed what became known as the Movement.  Dominated by men who were interesting in social and racial equality, rather than sexual/gender inequality, women faced exclusion. Their experiences in the movement, however, were pointless; it gave white women the opportunity to gain organizational knowledge and skills while being involved in something of social importance.  Women had great success organizing welfare mothers during Vietnam, and proved themselves to be better at organizing and more easily organizable.  The new left declared personal concerns to be political concerns, bring personal relationships and sexual fulfillment into the rights debate.
     Women's roles and relationships were not completely unified, as black women "tended to dismiss women's liberation as white women's business" (p. 32).  Because race and class oppression added an extra component to black women's oppression, any gains made by the women's movement for white women could not last for black women.  They also lacked a common history and sense of trust necessary to unite members of a movement.
      Between 1965 and 1967, the civil rights movement shifted and many began advocating black power instead of integration.  The nonviolent tactics were no longer deemed effective/desirable, and black Movement members no longer supported the presence of white radicals in their organizations.  The Movement, once united behind their common goals, was now divided between blacks and whites. The new left responded to this by increasing their involvement in draft resistance, thereby reducing any hope for an increased focus on women's rights.  As African Americans continued to take over the Movement, including voting power and leadership, the SDS made liberation of blacks, the working class, and Vietnamese their priority.  Additionally, the new left embraced a heightened level of sexual promiscuity while de-emphasizing emotional commitment, which caused women to resent men, especially in the wake of the rising sexual revolution amongst women. "White men seemed eager to do penance for racism but resisted women's attempts to raise the issue of sexual inequality" (p. 48).
    Women, fed up with the immature and disrespectful male responses to their oppression, began demanding complete control over their bodies, revamping of marriage laws, an increase in birth control education, and abortion laws.  They were inspired in large part by the black power movements, despite the fact that this movement also "trivialized women in favor of those truly oppressed" (p. 50).  A Chicago women's group published the New Left Notes, which advised women to claim their own fate and define their own issues.
---------------
      The publication of Betty Friedan's work corresponded with an increased involvement of women in the labor force that had been occurring for the15 years prior.  She described the feminine mystique as the efforts to convince women, following World War II, that the only way to happiness is through marriage and childbirth.  This served to excite women's interest in consumer goods as well as shift women's roles back into domestic life following their aid during the war.
     Friedan writes that an irrational belief permeates her society, one that defines truly feminine women as women who don't want careers, an education, or political rights. Woman make efforts to lose weight and alter their appearance to fit the "feminine" mold. They avoid any medicines, actions, decisions that seem "unfeminine," and as leaders of domestic life are seen as parters with their husband in decision-making matters. They are taught that true feminine fulfillment comes from being a wife and a mother.  As a result of this programming, woman were embarrassed to share their feelings, ashamed of their dissatisfaction.  In about 1960, women slowly began to realize they shared many of the same problems: dissatisfaction,  desperation, feelings of being trapped. This new wave of solidarity was reported by news networks, scientists, and doctors, but all symptoms were dismissed for various reasons: too much education, she doesn't realize how lucky she is, no better alternative, the need for a more realistic preparation plan for domestic responsibilities.
    Frustrated and exacerbated by the constant analysis and presentation of idiotic solutions, women got bitter. Friedan writes that "women who suffer have a hunger that food cannot fill" (p. 61). They did not feel this way because of money problems, a loss of femininity, education, etc.  They demonstrated similar symptoms to those from sexual repression; they reported extreme tiredness and desperation from constant demands on their time. Facing "menstrual difficulty, sexual frigidity, promiscuity, pregnancy fears, childbirth depression, [etc.]" what rang true in all of the women was a desire for something beyond motherhood, running a home, and wifehood.