The fabulous Courtney recently unearthed two excellent historical political cartoons from the early 1900s (here and here). These cartoons probably give a generally more realistic portrayal of the issue of women voters as it was seen by countless men in America in the 1800s and 1900s. We really need to be rid of this pernicious notion of "brutal men oppressing women" that's in so many people's heads.
In fact, those great cartoons reminded me that it would probably be good to note some of the hugely influential anti-suffragettes of history. The closet misogynists who typify so many "feminists" today will probably instinctively think of such women as meek, oppressed little namby-pambies who were only acting as mouthpieces for their brutish husbands. Some Christian-bashers will probably also assume that they were slobbering fundamentalists mouthing biblical platitudes. Which just goes to show how abysmally low our education system has sunk in matters of history.
No, the tremendously powerful and fascinating women who made up the huge Anti-Suffragette movement really should be hailed as feminist icons--and probably would be if feminism hadn't been hijacked by illiberal extremists. Because these were tough, thoughtful, well-educated, tremendously strong women who argued with vigor, sharp logic, and deep passion. Many of them later went on to help found the League of Women Voters after the 19th amendment passed. They reasoned that, once they lost their cause, it was important that women become educated and responsible voters. So they embraced the new reality with vigor.
It's really rather remarkable--in fact, could we say it was sexist? I mean, not just a majority of men had to ignore these women's objections, but a huge supermajority of them had to do so. And a huge supermajority of them did just that. Despite the fact that so many of their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters thought they shouldn't do it, or were at least deeply uncertain about it.
Worthwhile anti-sufragettes to examine include Annie Nathan Meyer and Ida Tarbell and Mary Humphry Ward and Helen Kendrick Johnson, but there were countless others. If you start researching those names, you'll start to discover still more names. There were literally millions of middle- and upper-class women of the 19th and early 20th centuries who fought passionately against giving women the vote. These were intelligent people who basically argued that the world should be divided into two spheres: the sphere of children, morality, and the future of the human race, where woman's influence was most important, and the sphere of politics, which was far less important and would only degrade the position of women.
Oh, and don't even try to suggest that they were all "conservative right-wingers," either. Many were, but many others were socialists, anti-poverty activists, and supporters of groups like Planned Parenthood.
Among the hidden treasures of the internet, I just found this amazing book: Woman and the Republic by Helen Kendrick Johnson. It's all right there online, since it's now in the public domain. I've browsed through it, and it's really rather remarkable. I defy anyone to go look through it and then come tell me that this was written some mousy little hausfrau or raving fundamentalist repeating platitudes put in her mouth by her big brute husband. Go on, try it.
Now let me repeat something I have said several times in the comments to my earlier articles on this subject: it is profoundly misogynist to suggest that women were brutally denied their basic rights by oppressive men prior to the passage of the 19th amendment. It's also profoundly misandrist--and if you don't know what "misandrist" means, I suggest that you start to learn.
In closing, I'll note that Mrs. du Toit has, in her typically riveting fashion, provided us with a little more history. She also notes where real women's power has always resided, and where it still resides to this day.
Oh, and by the way, Meryl: I never--and I do mean never--post an opinion just to "link whore," and am usually surprised by what gets linked and what doesn't . I do confess to tweaking you, but only to make a larger point. Which I still stand by. On behalf of your fathers, your grandfathers, and your great-grandfathers: you're welcome, my dears.
Dean,
Your links to mysandry are well taken, but hardly represent the mainstream of female thought. The abundance of Andrea Dworkin quotes is proof: the woman is a certified loon.
Most women don't view consensual intercourse as rape. Interestingly, Dworkin doesn't even seem aware that this theory of hers infantalizes women and says they are incapable of reason and consent. I guess that just leaves all the decision making to the men-folk.
I especially liked the quote from the one woman who claims that a woman who climaxes during intercourse contributes to our patriarchical society. That's a keeper.
My favorite quote was the completely fabricated one that I spotted just skimming through. I'm not interested enough to look up all the others to find out how many of those were fiction too.
More to the point, what's the big deal? Of course loads of women opposed emancipation (as did loads of men). And of course loads of men were in favor of emancipation (as were loads of women). This is because women and men's opinions are determined by their individual brains and personalities, not by what's between their legs. Far from being a rebuke of feminism, the fact that people's sex doesn't determine their opinions is exactly what feminism leads one to expect.
I don't agree with the implication that the suffragettes (not all of whom were women, by the way) weren't relevant. Sure, eventually enough male voters supported emancipation to make it a political reality - but that didn't happen in a vaccuum. It happened in the context of decades of intellectual and activist efforts to gain women the vote. The intellectual and social atmosphere of the country didn't change itself - it was changed through the concerted efforts of countless pro-suffrage activists, both female and male.
I love how you argue from the outset that "X viewpoint is PROFOUNDLY MISOGYNIST" without even considering the merits of X viewpoint of explaining exactly why it's PROFOUNDLY MISOGYNIST. I mean, you'd have to have an airtight case to make such a bold assertion, and frankly, you don't.
The legally-sanctioned brutality and oppression that women have endured historically -- both in American and abroad -- neither started with nor ended with nor had anything to do with the 19th Amendment. Voting rights have nothing to do with the phenomenon of domestic violence and the manner in which it was kept a private "family matter" which kept women in harm's way and kept men out of jail. Your historical viewpoint on the strong, outspoken women who argue both for and against women's voting rights completely ignores the fact that those women were of a certain social and economic class at a specific point in history that made it possible for them to be so outspoken and politically active, while at many other times women have been without a voice in many social and political matters.
I mean, you're setting up voting rights as your lynchpin for disproving once and forever feminist claims of historical oppression and brutality against women by men, when the entire phenomenon of voting rights has, in fact, very little to do with the overall state of women's rights at that time. Was it a doorway to increased political involvement on the part of women? Yes. Was it an "Emancipation Proclamation" for women? No. Did it address gender bias and violence against women? No.
You can neither prove nor disprove the historic view of feminism by focusing on a short-lived, highly-concentrated piece of specifically-American history. It lacks the broad view -- both geographically and historically -- required to even begin to address feminism.
This is hardly a new rationale, Dean. "If you're for Affirmative Action, you're a racist." Remember that?
How about acknowledging the possibility that some people who do support Affirmative Action aren't in fact racists -- that in fact they really do want to see racial minorities get a fair shake, and they think this is the way to do it. Misguided? Maybe? Ill-intentioned? No.
Same with feminism and women's rights issues. Do I have to be a misandrist and a misogynist (in short: someone who just hates people) simply because I acknowledge the documented fact that women, based on their gender, have enjoyed less social and political freedom than men, and that we're only starting to see something even resembling parity in our society between the genders?
Jesus Christ, Dean, if you keep painting with such a broad brush, no one will be able to escape it -- including yourself.
I mean, you'd have to have an airtight case to make such a bold assertion, and frankly, you don't.
I think I make this case quite well. To suggest that the strong and independent women who opposed the 19th amendment were actually weak ninnies who allowed themselves to be oppressed by their overbearing husbands, brothers, and sons is utter nonsense. It paints a picture of the women of earlier generations that is profoundly disrespectful of who they were and what they were all about. It turns them into powerless victims, when they were, clearly, anything but.
John,
The 19th amendment wasn't an "Emancipation Proclamation" for women regarding domestic violence because domestic violence is a criminal matter. It being overlooked as a "family matter" is a social issue and can be addressed by the federal government via the 14th amendment -- equal protection under the law.
I think you're mixing issues here: one where rights were being denied by the government and another where the criminal law wasn't being enforced.
And exactly where am I, personally, making that argument? It seems like you've got some serious blinders on in terms of what the social strata of the time were like. I'm not arguing that any of the women who worked either for or against Women's Sufferage were weak ninnies or anything of the kind -- in fact, I'm giving them more credit for their activism than I am to the men who were convinced by it, since if they'd never tried to change things, change would very likely never have happened. Yet, at the same time, the lot of women in that time or in the years that came before and after is not necessarily analogous to the lot of those specific women who campaigned so hard for and against Women's Sufferage.
What I'm gleaning from your entire train of thought is that to acknowledge that a person has been victimized is to fundamentally weaken that person. In short, to admit you've been hurt is to admit that you're vulnerable, which is to admit that you're, what? Unworthy?
I think it's possible to simultaneously acknowledge that 1) the women who worked for Women's Sufferage and voting rights were strong, courageous, tireless, and all those good things that effective sociopolitical advocates are; yet that 2) women of that time and many other times were subject to unfair treatment, social and economic oppression, and violence, based purely on their gender. I have a hard time understanding how holding those two non-contradictory ideas at the same time makes me a woman-hater, or a man-hater, for that matter.
Can't you dislike the bad in a person without disliking their entire class? Can't I dislike the victimization of women without hating all men or all women?
You make a strong argument that a very specific brand of hypocritical feminism is, well, hypocritical. Congratulations. What you make no argument for, however, is how the rest of us who are more moderate in our support of gender equality and an end to domestic violence, are somehow misogynistic man-hating hypocritical Marxist frauds.
Which is basically what you're calling me.
If your goal is to persuade, best not open up with, "Unless you believe X, you are scum." Ineffective rhetoric, there.
I neither hate women as a class nor men as a class. I feel qualified to have ideas about gender. I'd appreciate it if, in the interest of diologue, you'd extend a little respect for that.
John, I don't think you're a misogynist. But I do think you've bought into a misogynistic world view--as have many other self-proclaimed feminists. I also think this is the main reason why so many women--the vast majority of American women at this point--are uncomfortable being called feminists.
Christina Hoff Sommers, a lifelong Democrat and proud lifelong feminist, argues in her excellent book Who Stole Feminism? that neither she nor the majority of women in American history have ever felt oppressed or victimized. That in fact most women resent such characterizations of themselves, their mothers and grandmothers. She suggests--correctly, I think--that the whole reason the overwhelming majority of women now refuse to call themselves feminists is because they are repelled by these assertions about oppression and powerlessness--either having themselves portrayed that way, or having their female ancestors portrayed in such a pathetic way.
By the way, Sommers is regularly pilloried as a "right winger," smeared, and even lied about by critics who despise her for saying that. Why? I'd suggest that it's because they can't handle having their preconceptions challenged, and are seduced by the melodramatic dream of women universally in chains until brave feminists fought for their freedom--a fight that continues to this day, as the forces of oppression are ever-present!
It makes such good theater.
Certainly, individual women have been victimized by bad laws or bad relationships or violence against them. Sometimes the state has been abusive in that regard. On the other hand, we also have this remarkable system where such rights can be addressed and sometimes even fixed. Where when enough people realize that there's a problem, it can be addressed. And does get addressed, because the overwhelming majority of American men are decent people who support women in whatever they ask for--as the majority of American men always have.
You don't have to tell me about violence toward women because I've seen it firsthand, in the most painful ways possible. But the notion that the entire sex was enslaved? It robs women of their rightful place in American history as pivotally important shapers, molders, contributors, and participants in a complex society from day one. It reduces and diminishes their lives and accomplishments over the 225 or so years of this country's existence. How can that not be a misogynist notion--even if the people who propound it mean well?
I'd like to know which quote you think was fabricated, Ampersand, and why.
It is probably a losing battle Dean. There is simply too much at stake for feminists to ever admit your point - there is *power* in victimhood in an open and compassionate society.
If a million decent couples live lives of mutual respect they are simply the fabric of society. If, within this million, one hundred women live under searing oppression, they rightfully have claim upon our efforts at relief. But for the one whose fight is with the fabric itself, these one hundred will always be held up as examplars of that society. The million will quietly go about attempting to make things better for the hundred. The one will loudly go about exploiting them for personal gain. Is this not the way of the world?
John,
I hope that tirade wasn't aimed at me. I simply claimed you mixed, or clouded, to sets of issues. I wouldn't expect that much hostility from that mild assertion.
Dean says: "it is profoundly misogynist to suggest that women were brutally denied their basic rights by oppressive men prior to the passage of the 19th amendment."
Big NOPE. If you said specifically "voting rights" and not "basic rights" I would agree. Or if you said "suggest that ALL women...", I could see that too. But the fact is that many women were denied basic human rights in this country for 200+ years. Husbands were legally allowed to rape their wives. Women were not allowed access to birth control without permission of their husband, and were frequently denied access to higher education. Women who had children out of wedlock were frequently scorned, if not actually driven from town. Was this a violent conquest of women by men? Of course not, it was a cultural heritage that evolved over time due primarily to our physical differences, but it was not (and in many places is still not) a situation that many men were happy to give up without a fight. The fact that many women were complicit doesn't change this, either. Cultural heritage can be very difficult to overcome, even when it is wrong (some blacks opposed abolition, too, you know). And I don't think it is misogynistic to acknowledge this history. Do some people buy into the myth of extremist feminists? Sure. But I would argue that they are a small minority. Smaller even than your 'non-existant' religious right, I'd argue. :)
Dean,
Here's where your argument breaks down for me:
You say, "To suggest that the strong and independent women who opposed the 19th amendment were actually weak ninnies who allowed themselves to be oppressed by their overbearing husbands, brothers, and sons is utter nonsense."
Of course it is. I don't see feminists saying that women *allowed themselves to be oppressed.* That would, indeed, be nonsense. People don't allow themselves to be oppressed. They find themselves in a situation in which oppression is the norm and they find a way to live anyway. To survive. To make sense of their lives.
Some women, some people of color, some poor people fight their hearts out to end the oppression. They give their lives. They risk everything. Others survive by getting along as best they can--by believing that women are most important and powerful in the domestic sphere and not wanting to risk that by giving women the franchise, for example. Are they weak ninnies? No. They are strong, smart, and fully human.
I have to agree that your brush is too broad. So what if women don't say "thank you" to men for giving them something that was theirs to begin with?! Men may have given women the vote, but they did not give them the RIGHT to vote. That was inherent. Not saying "thank you" doesn't make anyone misandrist. Men finally did the right thing. They can be proud of that. To ask for a "thank you" is patronizing and dehumanizing. It seems a troll-like tactic to me.
it is profoundly misogynist to suggest that women were brutally denied their basic rights by oppressive men prior to the passage of the 19th amendment. It's also profoundly misandrist
Is it profoundly racist to suggest that blacks were brutally denied their basic rights by oppressive whites prior to the passage of the 14th amendment?
If not, why not?
John Kusch: I forgot to mention earlier, I never said that anyone who supports Affirmative Action is a racist. I did say that some of the reasoning used to defend some AA programs was clearly racist. I stand by that.
Revsparker: Where your argument breaks down for me is that I never said women had to thank men--but I did try, humorously, to suggest that a little gratitude for the men of the past for doing the right thing was preferable to lamenting the so-called "oppression" of women simply because they couldn't exercise a "right" that no one was sure they had, or needed.
I mean, really, of all the people arguing with me, not one has openly acknowledged yet that most women never had the right to vote, and that when the question was first put to them, millions of women thought the idea was damn foolishness. Or acknowledged that those women exercised their rights of free speech and a free press to oppose the idea--which belies the ridiculous notion that they were powerless slaves to an oppressive patriarchy. No, they were powerful and respected citizens enjoying the rights of a free people, and saying, "NO, THIS IS NOT RIGHT FOR US," in many cases. So men took some time to figure out that giving them the vote was a good idea anyway, and did it.
Turning this into a story about victimhood and oppression isn't just historically inaccurate. It's a slander against both the men and women of history.
Furthermore, women didn't just "find themselves" in the situation they were in: they were an integral part in creating the situation they were in.
To say otherwise, again, denies the existence of the incredible power and respect that women had, and always have had, in America.
Finally, your argument breaks down further to me because I suspect that if I had simply stated, as people so often do, that "Women didn't even have the right to vote in this country until 1918!" no one would have objected at all. In fact I'll bet you a dollar that if I searched her archives I could find a statement to that effect coming from Meryl somewhere in the past.
So who's kidding who here? Do they have the right to free speech in Cuba today? Is this really an argument about whether rights exist within or outside the law? Somehow, I suspect not.
It seems to me that what a lot of folks are doing is trying to change the subject--about whether or not I'm "trolling" or have "issues with powerful women" or "rights exist whether they're acknowledged or not" to slap me down for my real offense: that I am questioning the notion that women were powerless victims to an oppressive patriarchy in America.
Especially because no one's bothered denying any of the historical evidence I've brought up, or that anything I've said is true.
So, given that everyone keeps wanting to go back to oppression and victimhood as the subject, it's hard for me not to think that that's the real beef: that I have the audacity to suggest that women were free and powerful creatures before the 19th amendment passed, and that men were not brutal oppressors.
Armchair psych-analysis is cheap, I know, but it's hard for me not to think that's all this is really about.
Cub4bear: Of course it's not. Because blacks were sold into slavery by their black brethren, put into chains, and sent against their will to white slave traders who brought them to this country. And they were kept in chains and denied any Constitutional rights--no free speech, no free press, no right to property, could be beaten or imprisoned or killed without due process, and so on.
Women, on the other hand, by and large came here of their own free will. They enjoyed the right of free speech, free press, ownership of property, trial by jury, the right to an attorney, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable search and seizure by the authorities, and so on, just like other Americans were.
Unlike slaves, they were allowed to be educated, and were allowed to speak up and ask for certain other rights to be granted to them. And, since they were in a free country in which women were respected and revered, the overwhelming majority of men gave them what they asked for, willingly, fully knowing it was an irreversible choice. Although it took a while, primarily because so many women were bewildered, or outright hostile, to the idea.
The men--the decent, caring, loving, respectful men of America--gave women the right to vote, even over the loud objection of very strong and intelligent AND FREE women. To suggest that these women were not free and did not enjoy rights is simply historically inaccurate--and it paints a picture of the women of history as weaker and more helpless than they ever really were.
Women did not enjoy many of the rights you have mentioned above, Dean. They didn't have full and equal property rights under law until at least the latter half of the 1800s. Not all women came here of free will, as according to common law in many places, wives and daughters were property, and not entitled to make that decision. For the most part, they didn't have any right to divorce, and when their husband left, he always got the kids and the house. For the most part, they were barred from higher education, public office, and most workplaces. And frequently, they could not lodge a criminal complaint on behalf of themselves (a male family member was frequently required to make the complaint). So ease up a little on the rhetoric, ok?
Patrick: You are misinformed. Badly.
There's no rhetoric for me to ease up on. Women did, in fact, enjoy all the rights in the Bill of Rights from day one in this country. They have also always had property rights, although how those were expressed did vary from state to state.
Simply put, my good man, you are badly mistaken. I suggest you spend some time researching some of the links I've provided, and some of the data that Mrs. du Toit has provided. Women have always been very powerful in this country--always. They have also always--always--enjoyed a huge number of rights as individuals. And a huge amount of political power and influence.
To say otherwise is, quite simply, sexist, and perpetrates misogynist misinformation about the real status and power of women.
Hey Dean: maybe the difficulty we're having understanding each other here is a matter of shades of gray. While I accept your assertion that the women fighting for *and* against women's voting rights were all strong, outspoken, educated, articulate women -- hardly powerless victims. They had freedom of speech, and used it to further their cause, and they had the courage to use it in the face of significant opposition.
Yet does this mean that women at that time, and at any other time in history, were in any way denied freedoms? Does this mean that women enjoyed the same social status, economic status, and legal rights at the time the 19th Amendment was passed as they do today?
Are you arguing that, because groups of women successfully advocated for and against women's sufferage in the early twentieth century, that the notion of gender bias, economic inequities and violence against women is a fairy tale?
The fact that women have suffered abuse and injustice based on their gender does not mean that all women are powerless victims. On the other hand, the fact that women fought for and won their right to vote more than one hundred years ago does not mean that they have never been victimized.
Are you somehow arguing here that women are either powerful and independent or weak and enslaved? Are you arguing that feminists don't know how far women have come in the past 200 years in American culture? Or are you arguing that women have never suffered gender-based injustice, ever?
I'm just really confused by your reasoning -- on the one hand, you seem to be asking us to thank men for helping women, and at the same time, you're demanding that we stop mentioning that women ever need help.
Makes me think of a parable:
A man is trudging down the street with a large canvas bag of rocks on his back. Each step is an effort; his face is streaked with sweat and grime, and his blistered feet are bleeding.
A second man walks up to him and takes a large stone -- one of many -- out of the first man's canvas bag. Without a word, the first man keeps trudging down the street with his bag of rocks, his burden somewhat lessened.
"Aren't you going to thank me?" cries the second man, clearly hurt.
A third man sees the first man trudging down the street with his bag of rocks. Moved by his suffering, he offers to take the bag of rocks from the first man's back. Immediately, the second man runs up from behind and takes the third man's arm.
"What are you doing?" he cries. "How insulting! Are you trying to imply that he's unable to carry those rocks? Are you calling him weak?"
The moral of the story? Someone should have asked the first man why he was carrying the rocks in the first place.
"
In his essay, A Word To Women, written in the 1930s, Albert Jay Nock relates the story of the difference between American women of the 1920 and 1930s and European women at that time. European women were closer to the American women of the previous century.
An American woman was married to a wealthy man. On his death, she discovered a note that he had a mistress and he intended to leave all his money to her, instead of his wife.
The American woman became enraged and started in on a tirade about women’s rights, about how the law penalizes the woman, and how it was an outrage that her husband would do this to her.
A French woman heard the story and shrugged. When asked why she didn’t think it was a big deal and suggested that French women were in no need of the types of legal protections the American woman claimed to need, she responded, “tear up the note.”
And that, I think, summarizes the difference between the 21th Century interpretation of American woman and illustrates how different women once were. If women did not make the state their master, if they did not conform to its rules and code, they were completely unaffected by it. Women were powerful in the personal realm, and as the great anti-suffragettes believed, operated and functioned in a realm totally independent of the state.
They were more free and more powerful than any woman who decided that her power came from the law rather than herself.
John: I'm tempted to just let Mrs. du Toit's comments stand as my own response. ;-)
But (oh there's always a but, I just can't shut up can I?), we do agree on most of this. Which is probably what makes the debate so furious--people will go to enormous arguments over things they mostly agree on, won't they?
Where I think it breaks down is where you say this:
Are you arguing that, because groups of women successfully advocated for and against women's sufferage in the early twentieth century, that the notion of gender bias, economic inequities and violence against women is a fairy tale?
No, but I don't think they were oppressed, and I don't think they were powerless, and I think that comparing them to slaves, or to blacks living under Jim Crow, is simply horrible. It lacks respect for both them and for the men of that era.
I think that a more fair view of history is that men had certain rights, priviledges, and responsibilities that came with their sex, and some which were universal to all people (like everything in the Bill of Rights). I further think that women had certain rights, priviledges, and responsibilities that came with their sex, and some which were universal to all people (like everything in the Bill of Rights).
And by the way, men always have, and still do, suffer under gender-based injustices in this society. Some of it will probably never go away because it's just the nature of the species. Some might be addressed, if we could start talking more openly about it, and get past the ridiculous dominance/submissive, oppressor/oppressed dialectic.
....on the one hand, you seem to be asking us to thank men for helping women, and at the same time, you're demanding that we stop mentioning that women ever need help.
Okay, look: the "you're welcome" was to tweak noses, but also to make a point. It's one I'm going to keep making:
The men of American history, from 1776 until this very day, have always been honorable, decent, caring, and respectful toward women, and have always ceded them enormous power and authority. It is a terrible, nasty stereotype to suggest that it was ever otherwise.
And that's what "you're welcome" is meant to get across: men didn't have to give women the vote--in fact, if only 40% of them had said "no," it wouldn't have happened. But it did happen, despite the widespread uncertainty of the women in their lives. Why not appreciate that, rather than work under this "women were oppressed becuase they couldn't vote" stuff?
Old Woman: "I wasn't oppressed."
Young Woman: "Yes you were, you just didn't know it!"
Old Woman: "Whatever you say, dear."
To me, the debate over women's suffrage did not highlight women's status as members of an oppressed subgroup. Nor was it about who would have power, men or women. What it actually highlighted was just how powerful and influential women were from the git-go. And it was a long conversation about the best way to run a government.
Indeed, the enormously influential Anti-Suffragettes were fascinating, and their arguments quite thoughtful--why don't we know as much about them as we know about the Suffragettes? Why do we assume they were "in favor of oppressing themselves" when in fact their views were far more interesting and nuanced?
Finally, as to your parable: It's a great parable, but my point is, women were never carrying any enormous bag of rocks in this country. Or rather, we were all carrying enormous bags of rocks, depending on how you want to look at it.
Things were different. There were injustices. There were also fascinating debates. The system worked as it was supposed to, and changes were made when complaints became widespread.
When we talk about oppression, we need to be a bit more careful I think.
Oh, it occurs to me: the other reason it's so horrible to continually compare "women not having the vote" with slavery is one that I thought was so obvious I shouldn't have to say it, but apparently I do.
It suggests that millions of blacks who lived under slavery would gladly have stayed slaves had they been given a voice.
So please, please, please: can we stop comparing the women of 19th century America to slaves and blacks living under Jim Crow? That is really, truly, an odious, odious line of comparison, one that's insulting to blacks and to women.
By the way, let's flip this around: I've heard it proposed a few places that society might be better off if only women were allowed to vote.
I've heard it suggested quite seriously. Not that it's ever going to happen, but it's an interesting thought-experiment. So let's pretend we did that. Would that make men oppressed? Or would it merely restructure their relationship to women, and the expectations they had of them?
Would women do a better job if they were given all the reins of political power? Would men be oppressed by such a system? It's not clear to me that we would be.
---
People also keep bringing up violence toward women. But it was always illegal in this country: always. Yes, including wife-beating. Don't ever let anyone tell you different. It has. ALWAYS. been illegal.
The problem is that the courts and law-enforcement authorities have been frustrated for centuries on how to best deal with it. Yes, sometimes the courts, in some states, took the stance that it was a "private matter" and could not be dealt with by the law, leaving it instead to private charities and families to deal with it. Now we've got laws in some states so drastic that a man can be jailed just for being accused of it--yet there's not a smidge of evidence that it's gotten to be less of a problem.
The KKK used to lynch men for beating their wives, and take out ads in local newspapers warning drunkards and wife-beaters to mend their ways. Carrie Nation's entire Women's Christian Temperance Union was not about stopping people from having fun, either--their main objective was to cut down on battered and neglected women and children, because they believed alcohol was the chief cause of those social ills. (Which, by the way, it may well be.)
And by the way, battered women's shelters did NOT start with feminists--don't let anyone fool you into believing that one, either. It started with Christian charity groups early in the 19th century, many of which are still in business today. Most of them still are Christian-run, come to think of it.
All this, when only men had the franchise. How could such a thing have happened? Could it be because (gasp! hold your breath!) women weren't actually particularly oppressed?
We know that when men only had the franchise, wife-beating was still something against the law and still something that happened and still something that the authorities were at wit's end to know what to do about--just exactly like today. Sometimes it got better, sometimes it got worse, but it never really changed.
We know that when only men had the franchise, rape was still a serious crime--and for all the blather about it, women who accuse men of rape still face the same exact problem they had 100 years ago; there has literally been no substantive change on that at all, except that the evidence standards have been lowered somewhat and the penalties raised somewhat.
I'm sorry, but, "the vote" and "power" are not the same thing, nor can the political movement we call "feminism" be credited with stopping violence toward women or making that situation particularly better.
Mind you, I'm fine with women voting. But let's not confuse our history. While some things are obviously better for women in 2003 than they were in 1803, it's not at all clear to me that "feminism" is the root cause of those improvements. It's not as if femininity was an unending series of usurpations and abuses until the brave Suffragettes gave them the vote and Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique.
"But it was always illegal in this country: always. Yes, including wife-beating. Don't ever let anyone tell you different. It has. ALWAYS. been illegal."
Is it Ok if Chrisina Hoff Sommers, well-known conservative pundit tells me different?
"By 1870, it was illegal in ALMOST every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery." (emphasis mine).
Sorry...I left out the link:
http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html
CHS is a Democrat, as Dean has noted above.
And, just because wife-beating per se isn't overtly illegal doesn't mean it doesn't fall under assault and battery, as it should regardless of whether the law makes any special bones about wife-beating.
This begs the question then...why was it necessary to make spousal abuse explicitly illegal in the first place? The answer: because at the time, many people felt beating one's wife did not qualify as "assault-and-battery".
(PS I made no mention of CHS's party affiliation)
Once again, we see how Christina Hoff Sommers is pigeonholed--in a typically patronizing way--as a "well-known conservative pundit." As if her perspective, and her information, is to be dismissed because of her political orientation. Even if her orientation isn't even particularly "conservative." (She being a lifelong Democrat and proud Feminist and all.)
But let's leave that aside. Patrick asks the most bizarre question I have ever heard asked in my lifetime: "why was it necessary to make spousal abuse explicitly illegal in the first place?"
Uh, because it's occurred in all times, in all places, in all societies, without exception, to this very day?
What is the point of such a question? To assert that somehow, at some point in history, no spouse ever struck a spouse until some kind of "let's beat our wives" ideology took hold? If so, when and where was this?
Spousal abuse occurs to this very day, despite women having the vote. So should I conclude that women's suffrage has done nothing to fix the problem?
What exactly is your point Patrick? And by the way, when a woman hits her boyfriend with a baseball bat, shoots him, throws a pot of boiling water on him while he sleeps, or simply cuts off his penis with a knife, what would you call that?
Dean, the quote page you linked includes this one:
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
quoted in Professing Feminism:
Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies - Catherine MacKinnon
That quote's a fake.
I dunno, Patrick, why is it necessary to pass "Hate Crimes" acts when the hate crimes are already covered by other laws?
First, I only mention CHS's 'conservativeness' to show that I wasn't quoting a 'feminazi cunt', but a respected authority on the subject at hand. I don't discount her at all (and I like most of her work), since she refutes your statement that wife-beating was "ALWAYS ILLEGAL".
Second, the point of my (rhetorical) question (and answer) is to refute David Perron's implication above that spousal abuse was already delt with by existing assualt laws. I don't understand why this should be confusing...it isn't a complex argument. Can you posit some other reason for passing explicit wife-beating laws if wife-beating was already illegal based on existing assault laws?
You also mention that spousal abuse has always occurred, and clearly this is true. The difference is that wife-beating was NOT always illegal, as you state above.
Now, of course, David Perron follows up with a very good point. (It seems he's done your homework for you, Dean.) The reason for hate-crimes laws is to increase the sanctions over-and-above penalties for 'normal' crime. And indeed, there could be a similar reason for instituting explicit wife-beating laws (ie wife-beating is not only illegal, but WORSE than regular assault). But this would only be true if the penalties for wife-beating were universally more harsh than for simple assualt. I don't believe this is the case, but I could certainly be wrong. Care to offer any evidence? (You can consider this a request for links and/or quotes, if you like.)
Wife-beating has always been illegal in the United States of America so far as I know, and I have yet to see you provide me with a reference that states otherwise, Patrick. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.
There have been times in our history when the courts have taken the position that it's a "private affair" beyond the law. That's been a controversial issue that's gone back and forth for a very long time in this society--long before there was any such word as "feminist" in our vocabulary. As I've noted, movements to address the problem have existed for, literally, centuries.
Feminists did not invent the concept of outlawing spousal abuse, nor the concept of the battered woman's shelter. This cause has existed for a long, long, long time, and both the law in general and the courts in specific have gone through various phases in finding ways to deal with it. We seem to swing back and forth on it: make it an entirely private affair, or try to get government involved. Both approaches have huge drawbacks and there's little evidence (that I've seen) that one works better than the other overall.
In Oregon, for example, the laws are so strict, that any accusation of spousal abuse immediately gets both parties arrested. Has this led to less violence? I'm not sure, but it's sure led to a lot of people getting locked up.
I don't pretend to have the answer. I do dispute the notion that, somehow, feminists have done something particularly innovative on this issue over the last few decades. I don't see much evidence that anything's really changed that fixes the problem.
Ampersand: Seriously, thank you. I appreciate knowing that.
Misinformation is always bad, isn't it?
one footnote from:
25. For American cases recognizing the right of chastisement during the nineteenth century, see Bradley v. State, 1 Miss. (1 Walker) 156, 158 (1824) (permitting husband "to exercise the right of moderate chastisement, in cases of great emergency, and use salutary restraints in every case of misbehaviour, without being subjected to vexatious prosecutions, resulting in the mutual discredit and shame of all parties concerned"); State v. Black, 60 N.C. (Win.) 262, 262 (1864) (permitting husband "to use towards his wife such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and make her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum or go behind the curtain"). State v. Hussey, 44 N.C. (Busb.) 123 (1852) (ruling wife's testimony against her husband incompetent in all cases of assault and battery, except where permanent injury or great bodily harm is either threatened or inflicted); Richards v. Richards, 1 Grant's Cas. 389, 392-93 (Pa. 1856) (denying petition for divorce; suggesting that "it is a sickly sensibility which holds that a man may not lay hands on his wife, even rudely if necessary, to prevent the commission of some unlawful or criminal purpose" and further that "some allowance should be made for the frailties of human nature" that "betray[ ]" a man "into the commission of an act, or a harsh expression, for which, in a moment after, he might be repentant and sorrowful").
"The right of chastisement"=beating one's wife.
Sorry, that citation should be:
Prologue: Reva B. Siegel, "'The Rule of Love': Wife Beating as Prerogative and Privacy," Yale Law Journal, 106 (June 1996), pp. 2117-2207.
http://womhist.binghamton.edu/vawa/prologue.htm#endintro
Actually, patrick, I did no homework at all. Just exercised a few logic circuits.
Just because it took law enforcement officials some amount of time to actually recognize they weren't enforcing the law, doesn't mean the law wasn't there to start with.
Revsparker, however much you might want the rulings you cited to mean blanket permission for spousal abuse, they actually don't say that. They might actually mean that, but I don't think we can conclude that from what you've presented. There seem to be caveats regarding cases of "greatest emergency" and "prevent the commission of some unlawful or criminal purpose" and the like, which would apply (I'd like to think) equally toward one's laying hands on a perfect stranger.
Not saying, again, that you're wrong. Just that you've not brought the evidence. Assault with the intent to commit battery should never, ever have been given permission under any venue. That sort of thing violates equal protection.
That said, I'm way over my head here, legally. I'm an engineer, damn you, not a lawyer.
David,
Revsparkers rulings were not meant to show universal permission for wife-beating, but rather to show exceptions to the opposite (universal illegality), which Dean had stated was the case. Neither Rev nor myself mean to say that it was always legal to beat your wife...just that there are many occasions in which it was legal.
They were more free and more powerful than any woman who decided that her power came from the law rather than herself.
Mrs. du Toit, that was EXCELLENT!!
I have not looked into this enough to get a firm grip on facts, but I am very appreciative of the books and resources that have come out of this ongoing discussion. And from what little I *have gleaned in my own personal studies of American history, I side with Dean and Mrs. du Toit : American women, from the settlement of the colonies on, have been the LEAST oppressed of female society in the history of man...and there is a marked history of women owning property and having basic rights under the law. Some of the comments arguing against that have the taint of Boomerism : "it didn't exist until MY generation came along."
Heh. I like your term "Boomerism" Sharon. I may have to adopt it. "It didn't exist until MY generation came along." Classic.
The profound misogyny I speak of that many so-called "feminists" (or what Christina Hoff Sommers calls "gender feminists," which I think is a great term) lies in the denial of the tremendous power, respect, and influence that women have had throughout Western civilization, and most particularly in the United States since the founding in 1776. It's a pernicious notion that castrates the women of history, and feeds the notion that somehow, women were nothing but universally oppressed slaves until the brave Suffragettes and their so-called "heirs," the Friedans and Steinems, forcibly "took" their rights from the brutal men who were denying them to them. Such a worldview is both profoundly misogynist and profoundly misandrist, in different ways and yet equally pernicious in both directions.
No one has made mention Of Wendy McElroy's Freedom, Feminism and the State a wonderful anthology that shows the relationship between women's role in the anti-slavery moment and the desire for more personal freedom that grew from it. With all due respect to Mrs. DuToit, it lacks a "Beardian" economic perspective, and says simply, "We worked to free the slaves, now what about us?"
Here's the names of the contributors:
Angelina Grimké Voltairine de Cleyre
Rose Wilder Lane Jean Bethke Elshtain
Sharon Presley and Lynn Kinsky
Lillian Harman Bertha Marvin
"Danielle"
Lucy Stone and Henry Blackwell
Sarah Grimké Ezra H. Heywood
Stephen Pearl Andrews
Clara Dixon Davidson
Speech of Polly Baker
Lillian Harman Angela Heywood
Stanley Day Beverly J. Combs
Wendy McElroy Rosalie Nichols
Suzanne La Folette Susan Anthony
Joan Kennedy Taylor Gertrude Kelly
Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English
Ellen Battelle Dietrick
Lysander Spooner Emma Goldman
Of course, again, Frank, the comparison to slavery is still rather odious, and always has been to many women.
The fact is that women enjoyed far more rights than slaves did. Otherwise they would never have been so influential in helping end slavery in the first place--or in quite a few other political causes wherein women have been very powerful and influential over the 225 years or so of this country's history.
It would also bring us to the rather startling conclusion that millions of slaves would have preferred slavery to freedom. After all, millions of women opposed the women's suffrage movement, which is one of the reasons it took so long to be successful.
Which, again, goes back to a point I've made repeatedly: isn't this constant need to portray women as weak victims of an oppressive society just a little tiresome? For everyone?
rubbish
I think that your "point" is sick and deluded!
I personally am in full support of what these women put at stake!!!! I also believe that in a "Mans World" there would be Nothing of any importance at stake! (heres a hint! Without women.... there wouldn't be any Mans World) women brought you in this world and we can take you out just as easily! you have NO business saying what you said about what women did for themselves! and i have but one more thing to say! MEN ARE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD TODAY!!!!!NOT WOMEN!!!!!
Mary,
You are by far the stupidest woman i know!!! what you wrote yesterday was true to a point. However! What kind of RUBBISH are you trying to pull? It seems as though you didn't even read the bluddy information before you opened your trap!
You sounded rude, ignorant, and to be quite honest you sounded just like a typical American to me!!!!
i think women needed the vote in them days because they had no rights and the men had all the rights for e.g. the men could cheat on thier wives but thier wives could not divource them but the men could divource them though before women were married their fathers owned them once they were married their husbands owned them so in my eyes i think they deserved the vote well they got it the end but for the wrong reason though coz the men at war and the govermenthad no1 eles to vote for them
ur a sik man!ur a pig headed idiot who thinks u no best.women r as good as men. without them there would be nothing.are u married bi the way? cos if u r man i feel sorry for ur wife.
ur a sik man!ur a pig headed idiot who thinks u no best.women r as good as men. without them there would be nothing.are u married bi the way? cos if u r man i feel sorry for ur wife.
ur a sik man!ur a pig headed idiot who thinks u no best.women r as good as men. without them there would be nothing.are u married bi the way? cos if u r man i feel sorry for ur wife.
How sad and pathetic are all you people?! Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than slander some knob head, whom you have never mets, website. Like he gives a shit what you think.
Well basically, you see i think that the suffragettes shoul;d realise that their place is in the kitchen. After all women do only have small feet so they can get closer to the sink!!!!!!!!
If anybody has any complaints I will be happy to field them and kill you with my array of sudden death moves!!!!!
FUCKERS
How sad and pathetic are all you people?! Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than slander some knob head, whom you have never mets, website. Like he gives a shit what you think.
Well basically, you see i think that the suffragettes shoul;d realise that their place is in the kitchen. After all women do only have small feet so they can get closer to the sink!!!!!!!!
If anybody has any complaints I will be happy to field them and kill you with my array of sudden death moves!!!!!
FUCKERS
Nicholas, you are a shovanistic pig. I know who you are and I, as a suffragette, am going to hunt you down. When I find you I'm going to make you eat my shit, then shit out your shit nad eat it cos its made of my shit that I made you eat. Love Emma the suffragette
I would like to apologise for forging Nicholas Brown's name as far as thepathetic sexist comments go. This was intended as a joke, even though I was the only person who foundit funny. Nicholas would never even dream of saying those things and I am sorry for any trouble I caused.
Ben Johnson.