Elizabeth Cady Stanton outlines the ways in which men have oppressed and deprived women of their rights in her Declaration of Sentiments from the 1948 Seneca Falls convention. These include being held inferior in legal, religious, economic, political, social and personal aspects of life. Using the form of the Declaration of Independence, she states that women and men are equal and outlines all of the offenses which men have committed. The language is strong and clear, placing blame squarely on men and making it clear that it is no accidentally created situation, but that they had “in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her” (Stanton, 1889). The difference between first wave and 3rd wave feminism is clear: 3rd wave lacks the unified voice and list of specific complaints. I wonder how satisfied Stanton would be if she saw the state of women in US society and globally. Many of the issues she raises have been resolved- many of the legal boundaries, blocks to education, and oppression of rights have been removed. I think what still remains true is the idea that men have created a “false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in men” (Stanton, 1889). Levy might argue that today the double standard of morality is perpetuated by women equally to men.
I relate Sojourner Truth’s speech to the current state of feminism because she describes the disparity between how she, as an African-American woman, was treated completely differently than a white woman. The 3rd wave of feminism has goals such as abolish double standards and strive for equal pay for equal work, generally focusing on empowerment and identity. While these are incredible valid and important to American women, they are of little concern to women in other countries who face female genital mutilation, systematic rape as a tactic of warfare, vastly unequal literacy rates between men, or even not being legally allowed to drive a car. Even inside the United States, there issues such as ignored rape of female prison inmates. Can 3rd wave feminism fight issues as disparate as sex stereotypes in the United States and sex slaves in Thailand?
DuBois compares the 1st and 2nd waves of feminism and the similarity that they both stemmed from social causes, abolition and the civil rights movement respectively. During these movements, women were confined to “shitwork” of the women’s sphere while men made the decisions. They were already organized in a group framework of social change, and feminism naturally sprung out of their frustration. What does this mean for the 3rd wave, which is not coupled with a social movement? If Levy is right that the 3rd wave defines itself against the “anti-sex” aspect of the 2nd wave, what does this mean for the future of feminism? Will another wave of feminism emerge from the current environmental cause, which could potentially illuminate gender disparities and environmental injustices?
When reading these articles, the theme of sisterhood that Levy discussed and that we mentioned in class, was at the forefront of my mind. Numbers are powerful. Change doesn't come from one man, one woman, or one frustrated student. Change comes depending on the number of upset or frustrated people.
ReplyDeleteA general lack of cohesion, many different factions and small differences in opinion seem to me to have prevented the change that women in general as a sex wanted to see. Regardless of whether these women were maximizers, minimizers, radical feminists, liberal feminists, cultural feminists, white or black, they are all women and they all want equality! Despite the fact that some were sex positive or black or anti-porn, or middle aged, they all seemed to realize that there was sexism and injustices that they as women faced. I don't want to oversimplify and say that their only identity is that of a woman, because I can recognize the complexities and many other groups to which they can belong, but regardless of what color, class or sexuality they are, they all share the bond of sisterhood and of being a woman. It's easy now to play Monday morning quarterback and point out all of their flaws, so I don't want to do that, but after reading these articles, my hope for the next wave of feminism is to capitalize on the past generations' mistakes, particularly their mistake of splitting over small differences like whether they are porn or anti porn. The men who set up this country didn't split themselves up over small differences of opinion. They organized and united themselves with a common dislike for England and British Parliament and united themselves over a desire for a new government that embodied a main ideal, and they added amendments to that. So, let's as women not make the same mistakes the past waves of feminism made, and let's unite over the same goal of equality, and not just for women like us, but for women across the world of different sexualities and ethnicities, and then make amendments and work out the smaller differences once the main goal is reached. I hope for the future of feminism and the next wave is a realization of the power of numbers and the effect it will have on change.
So far, many (if not all) of our readings have discussed where a man fits into the women’s movement. I thought that all of the readings for tomorrow, “Feminism Old Wave and New Wave” “Ain’t I A Woman?” and “The Declaration of Sentiments” had a very interesting message about what a man’s place is in the movement. It seemed as though men’s involvement in the women’s movement was not something that any of the authors wanted. Ellen DuBois states “Once again women discovered that they could not put their faith in male reformers because the oppression of women was not top priority for anyone but women themselves” (2). I thought that some of the sentiments, which may be justified or not, fringed on being anti-men. I think that the history of male dominance over females is a major reason for our present inequality, but there are a lot of other factors that are not recognized in these readings. Statements like “The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man towards woman” (Stanton and Mott 1) seemed a little extreme to me. I felt that there was a very pent up, resentful tone in all of the readings. I couldn’t really relate to this feeling. Perhaps this is because I live in a much later time, but I have never felt a collective dislike of men as a group. This made me think about and understand why some men shy away from feminism and the women’s movement because they think it is about being against men. I understand that specific men did do wrong against these women, and that is the reason for their outpour of dissatisfaction, but to speak out against “men” as a group is fairly bold. I know that at least two of these writings “Ain’t I A Woman?” and “The Declaration of Sentiments” are still well-known and talked about today, signaling their success, but I am almost surprised because I know it is almost always a more effective strategy to highlight the positives of your side (the women’s movement) than to criticize the negatives of your opposing side (the men). That being said, I definitely appreciate the power and effectiveness of these readings. I just gained a better understanding of why some men feel that the women’s movement targets them as a group.
ReplyDeleteStephanie, Emma, and Emily,
ReplyDeleteThis is a wonderful, thought-provoking set of responses to this week's reading. You've all really engaged with these readings, and also thought far beyond them, which is the sign of a good post! A couple of ideas I especially appreciate: first, Stephanie, I think the connection you draw between white women alienating black women and American women failing to consider 3rd world/international women is a good one. Certainly, feminists have increasingly looked globally, but it has taken quite a long time. I'm also interested in Emma's thoughts about how targeting "men" works to alienate both 3rd wave women and men. Might this be why writers like Neuborne talk about programming instead of male domination? Are there ways in which embracing men as the "cause" of the problems might add momentum to a movement? Finally, I'm intrigued by your opening thoughts about a Third Wave Declaration of Sentiments, and may borrow it for next week: what would a "modern" declaration contain?