Dubois paints a clear picture of feminism’s history. The definition she constructs is extremely appropriate for our class. First, she stipulates that the politics of feminism are “an analysis which tries to explain why and how women are oppressed” (1). This part of the definition relates to the beginning of feminism in the United States. After reading the “Declaration of Sentiments” from the Seneca Falls Conference, the list of “candid” facts show us how Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott analyzed the issues that plagued their lives. In specific, the authors highlight women’s suffrage first in their list. Eventually, this cause became the main issue to define the first wave of feminism in the late 19th century. Next, the second wave of feminism began with analyzing the “Problem that Has No Name” that Friedan described in her article that we read for last class.
The second part of Dubois definition states feminism is “a vision of a society in which women are liberated and sex role stereotypes are obliterated” (1). This aspect of feminism covers all of the things we have discussed in class so far. In fact, it can be broken down into two parts, which describe the waves. First, women look to be liberated in society. Eventually getting the constitution and its amendments to provide for the rights of both men AND women achieves this goal. Next, the obliteration of sex role stereotypes can also cover the second wave’s chase of sexual equality with movements such as CAKE.
From these two parts of the definition by themselves, a new issue presents itself. Sojourner Truth follows the suit of strong women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott and raises her voice. She says that although she is a woman, nothing that so-called “feminists” are trying to accomplish really applies to her life as an African American woman. It will be interesting to learn more about how the history of feminism addresses the issue of diversity. Or if it does at all…
Response to A Clearer View of the Feminist Movement
ReplyDeleteIf anything, the overview of the historical roots of feminism gives me a far greater appreciation for the second wave and current feminist activity. In past history classes I of course learned about women’s suffrage, glossed over the Seneca Falls Convention and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and even heard about Abigail Adams’ (wife of 2nd President of the US John Adams) famous quote to “remember the ladies,” but until taking this class my response typically was more of a “yeah ok…” rather than a “wait, what??” Specifically, to actually see the outcome of the Seneca Falls Convention (“Declaration of Sentiments”) which explicitly outlined many of specific sources and instances of female oppression, especially with regard to legislation at the time, elicited a strong reaction by me – this time a “wow, being a woman during those times really was terrible!” I found it sort of ironic, especially being a female myself, that even though I from time to time learned about various laws, policies, and events that were degrading to women (The Scarlet Letter, divorce laws, property laws, inheritances…many of the things referenced in “Declaration of Sentiments”) that the situation really wasn’t pleasant. Our recent discussions concerning raunch culture, objectification of women, abortion and birth control policies – essentially the major issues facing second wave feminists as well as women today, though quite important, arguably seem less pressing than the very blatant sexism and discrimination prevalent during the first wave. I say this because the woman’s situation at the turn of the century seems to have been more obvious and systematic for it is laid out in law. The insertion of “male” into the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment shocked me! I completely agree that there is still much farther to go in terms of gender equality in the present. There is still much to be accomplished and equalized, but in a way a look back to the first wave is also a testament to how far we have come.
A follow-up to Caren's post on The Feminist Movement:
ReplyDeleteWell first off, let me say that I am just glad that I wasn’t around during the beginning of the 20th century. What woman wants to live in a time where she isn’t allowed to attend college, she has no voice in politics or much of anything for that matter and she is at the mercy of her male counterpart (Stanton 1889: 2)? If given the choice, I think that very few women would choose to live in this type of society. However the question is how far have we really come and do we still live in a society run by men?
In DuBois’s Feminism Old Wave and New Wave, she mentions how the first wave of feminism, which took place between 1835 and 1920, grew out of abolition. She goes on to mention, “that as long as they [women] worked with within ‘women’s sphere,’ everything would be fine. But as soon as they stopped beyond it, they were severely reprimanded by their abolitionist brothers” (DuBois 1971: 1). However, almost 100 years later, certain aspects of life are still divided by gender. I am sure that a large majority of our class as heard the phrase “this is a man’s job” or “this is a man’s world”. Thus, there still exists a woman’s sphere, much like the one that was around during the first wave. So really as anything changed in the past century for women or are we still merely living in the same style of society, a man’s world?
Hi Caren, Kirstin, and Katrina,
ReplyDeleteYou've done a nice job putting together a series of posts about today's readings. I especially enjoyed the discussion generated in and between Kirstin and Katrina's comments: as Kirstin points out, women have come quite a long way and are afforded many rights that would have been unthinkable in the late 19th century. At the same time, as Katrina points out, there are still remnants of the "separate spheres" that govern our lives today -- or at least, surprise when gender roles are reversed. Caren, your main post gets the ball rolling, but it would be even stronger if you discussed the major themes of the readings in more detail, and thought about the ways in which each of them shape your understanding of the others. You're all on the right track, though!