Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:55 am Post subject: Tonight's reading (second half of chapter 2 in Dicker)
AHHH don't read pages 75-84, read the rest of chapter 2
Hello everyone, i'm posting for Martha. yayy.
Tonight's question to repsond to is: How did the Women's Movement change after the Civil War? Consider inclusion/exclusion as well as tactics/strategies.
The Women’s Movement changed a lot after the Civil War. Women’s attitudes changed along with the 14th Amendment. Women were upset that black men were gaining the right to vote, but they were not. This changed women’s attitude toward black people. While before the war a lot of women had been vocal in the abolitionist movement and fought for black freedom/rights, now that black men were gaining rights over them, they were mad. The book says on page 40 that Staton, who once fought for complete equality, now became elitist and almost racist, saying that women deserved to vote more than black men.
I really like what Sojourner Truth said about how even though black men could now vote, she wished black women could vote. This made me think about Truth’s “Ain’t I a woman” speech and the idea that black women weren’t really women. The fact that black women couldn’t vote when black men could, kind of contradicted the idea that they weren’t really women, because if they weren’t women, and now black people could vote, then technically they should have been able to vote. But it seems like men decided to use different ideas when it was most convenient for them, and suddenly when race was no longer an issue in terms of voting, black women suddenly just became “women.”
Another major change after the Civil War was the fact that women split into two groups. Personally I think this was a bad idea, and that women should have stayed as one group; I think that would have been more powerful, and maybe they would have gained suffrage sooner. I’m wondering what other people think of this, and also why people think they split into two groups, besides the fact that one had more liberal ideas and one was more conservative?
One of the biggest effects the Civil War had on the women's rights movement was that it widened the divide between the races. At this point, it became a race for the right to vote; who would get their rights first, black men or women?
This also caused tension between the women of the movement, as they some of them became racist towards blacks. Susan B. Anthony said, "I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work for or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman." Sojourner Truth, a black woman, also spoke out against black men's rights, knowing that it would not give any woman more power over the men. She said; "colored men will be masters over the women... I wish woman to have her voice."
Also some suffragists were allying themselves with men who had been considered racist, like George Train, who helped Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Anthony get the funds to write their newspaper on women's rights.
Both during and after the Civil War, women were becoming more outspoken and more women were joining the movement. As the movement grew, younger women began joining the fight and providing more radical tactics for the movement. Alice Paul fought for her rights by participating in hunger strikes and demonstrations that even landed her in jail in England. She returned to the U.S with the new and radical tactics she had learned in England and organized a parade of five thousand women in 1913.
I think that some of the effects that the Civil war had on the suffrage movement were that it widened the divide between the races, causing more racial tension. But also, it pushed the activists of the women's movement to try new tactics, like Alice Paul's.
Ahhhhhhh I read the other one before Meg texted me!!
Whatevs, as for this one I thought what Rachel was saying is super interesting about people, men in this circumstance, manipulating ideas so that things are convenient when they work for their side. That was very wordy and repetitive but, Rachel and Truth really nailed it I think, black women were not women, and then they were not even considered black, when it was convenient for the ruling party, white men. I guess I dont really have much to elaborate on that, I just thought the idea is a common one throughout history and a good one.
I think that some women were also insulted by the fact that one oppressed group gained the ability to vote before the other. There is a unifying factor, and a sense that one group should be happy, but I would still be annoyed seeing that one person would attain such an important right over me. With this anger comes an additional push, it creates an odd sense of competition.
In labor history we looked at the splitting of the labor unions, and I think that this is closely related. People cant seem to grasp the idea that it is more efficient to try and encompass everyone's ideas into one big plan than to split into to little group, only to reunite later. There is a distinct lack of efficiency in most movements, the ideas are all there, they are just missing organization.
To answer Rachel's questions, I think the women shouldn't have split into two groups because they gained more momentum after the NWSA and the AWSA came together to make the NAWSA in 1890.
I think the reason why they spilt was just because the two groups had different points of view. It's hard for a large group of people to get along with each other, and this is shown many times in the chapter. An example is when Victoria Woodhull became an active member of NWSA, but once people started to realize what Woodhull was like Susan B. Anthony took the liberty of kicking her out. It's hard for people to get along with others who have different approaches in things that they're very passionate about.
Do you get what I'm saying? This is making a lot of sense in my head I don't know it if it's coming out right though.
On page 46, it says that "[Women in the early twentieth century] claimed that women were different from men and superior to them; as a result they deserved to vote." I found this statement profoundly disturbing, because it's so untrue! No sex is smarter than the other! Where earlier in the chapter everything seemed very reasonable for why women were fighting for the right to vote. I was wondering when do people think that this idea of women being smarter than men came from?
The women's movement changed after the Civil War in many ways. Before and during the civil war, many women worked with the abolitionists, assuming that if black men got the right to vote, women would get their right to vote soon after. When this didn't happen, many women (including Ms. Anthony) became very resentful, and worked against the abolitionists.
In short, the Civil War changed the womens' rights movements by making the leaders of the movement focus more directly on Women gaining their right to vote, and less so on the rights of others.
So I think that all the points made thus far have been completely valid. I definitely agree that women could have been a stronger and more persuasive unit if they had not been divided by race. Before the Civil War, women worked together no matter of their race, which strengthened their arguments for equality. By dividing themselves into groups they essentially lost one major strategy or point because they directly opposed it.
Another interesting thing that happened after the Civil War was the change in attitude of the women's movement. As Abby said, women started to move onto more radical tactics and more radical thoughts. Victoria Woodhull is a great example of this. She spoke on behalf of the NWSA and she also had personal and political views that some of the more conservative women in the movement disagreed with. She worked to promote the freedom of female sexuality.
By the time the two women's movement groups had combined, there were already 4 states that had gained women's suffrage. Finally these ladies got together to fight for their equal rights together!! It certainly took them long enough to put aside their differences and realize that they were working towards the same goals. After these women got together though, their logic about WHY women should have the right to vote changed. Women in the beginning of the movement made arguments about women's equality to men but, as the movement progressed and grew, the idea became less about equality, and more about women's superiority to men! This to me seems counterproductive, as this is somewhat "reverse feminist", if you will. What I mean is, that first wave feminism was founded on the idea of equality of the sexes, and if the idea changes to "women are superior over men" then how is this idea different than what these women had been fighting against for so many years?
Also...did anyone else think that Victoria Woodhull was born in the wrong time period and actually belonged in the 60's feminist movement?! She was the one who promoted "free love" and sex outside of marriage. I think she was a little ahead of her time!
Okay so when i wrote this, i didn't really read other people's responses and wrote the answer down while reading so I am sorry if there is repetition. Now to the question. Alright so the civil war was from 1861-1865 in case anyone didn't know.
It changed by abolitionists and women's right activists formed the group American Equal Rights Association. But activists (as they are called in the book) Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton didn't join this group because they disagreed to some extent what it was trying to accomplish. I think they were so angry because they disagreed with the fact that the 14th Amendment stated in some way, shape or form that black men would vote before white women/women in general so they created American Women Suffrage Association. As I was skimming through everyone's comment in a way, I think rachel asked why they didn't become one group and as it mentions in the book, it is because "AWSA was a conservative organization that wished to focus on the one issue of gaining suffrage for women while NWSA concerned rights of women and the goals were more broader and more radical." A tactic that I found on pg. 41 was that Woodhull found a loophole in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment that because of their use of words "person" and "citizen," respectively, guaranteed women the right to vote.
So I don't ramble on, I will only put down other main details I saw but it will not be in order.
Oh, and when the two groups did join together, it was because the standard for women was changing now that they could vote so they were fighting about the same thing eventually.
Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and Idaho were the first four states in the West that allowed women to vote.
Alice Paul used some tactics while trying to persuade people like advocating public demonstrations and picketing which was a form of protest.
After the civil war, activists in the early 20th century, women's suffrage divided along racial and ethnic lines.
and one more thing.
I found a little bit of irony while finishing chapter 2 because I knew these women were fighting against the government to allow women to vote but they never fought about all women's equality. I feel like they were some wars/fights between each other esp if you were a different race. Because on pg. 51, when Alice Paul was in a march, she sent all the colored women to the back and i felt like when these women were talking about women, they were referring to like middle class white women.
But I am going to stop there before you all kill me.
But I am very sorry this is long. I just had so many thoughts and I am also sorry if this is confusing to read Martha
Oh and I will post the dora thing over the weekend in case anyone is wondering
It's kind of funny and very hypocritical what women did after the civil war. Before the war abolitionists and feminist began to work together to fight for the right to vote, a right that only white men had. After the civil war black men were given the right to vote, instead of sticking with the whole movement, they broke off. After they were given that right, many stopped advocating for both black and white women.
Obviously this upset women but instead of breaking that trend white women separated themselves from black women. Either because they believed it would gain more support, or because they did not believe in the cause. Either way they threw their sisters to the curb to gain the right to vote, leaving them to fight for themselves.
I think its really messed up what they did, they preached about equality for women, all women. But they gave up, it was everyone for themselves.
"... extending the vote to 'ignorant' black and immigrant men was 'to exalt ignorance above education, vice above virtue, brutality and barbarism above refinement and religion", quoted Stanton by Dicker. The quote somehow represents the division within the women's movement after the Civil War. Due to the nature of the war (about slavery and racial issues), the rights of black men were given priority over the rights of women. Continuously the two Amendments 14th and 15th were in favor of black men and ignored the benefits of women, hence ignited anger among the tireless women's rights activists. At first, I was not sure whether to call the fact that these activists politically criticized black men a tactic or just a reaction (when one's benefit is hampered by an external power, it is human nature for him/her to react against it). However, when I read that the movement's activists excluded black women because they did not want to upset the South, it became obvious to me that the whole white-black division was a political tactic. Furthermore, each movement's leader used different political strategy and tactic for activism. When some activists used writings and established organizations during the movement, more radical activists like Alice Paul "saw the need for direct action, advocating public demonstrations, parades, and picketing tactics she learned in England".
US soldier Robert Stevens jailed for Afghan attacks
The accused are attached to the 5th Stryker Brigade, which saw heavy fighting in Afghanistan
Continue reading the main story
Related stories
Allegations hit brigade's reputation
US army trial for Afghan killings
US army hears Afghan murder case
A US Army staff sergeant has been jailed for attacks on Afghan civilians as part of a deal which requires him to give evidence against other soldiers.
Robert Stevens was sentenced to nine months in prison and demoted after he admitted "shooting in the direction" of two Afghans, and lying to officials.
Prosecutors at his court martial dropped a count of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault on three Afghan men.
Sgt Stevens is one of 12 soldiers charged over the attacks on civilians.
Five of the accused are charged with killing three Afghan civilians in Kandahar province this year, but Sgt Stevens is not among them.
Army prosecutors have said the other accused men conspired to kill unarmed Afghans for sport and to cover up the killings by fabricating a story about coming under attack.
Some of the soldiers are also accused of keeping body parts of dead Afghans, taking photos of corpses and of using drugs.
False claim
The BBC's Rajesh Mirchandani in Los Angeles says the most serious charge the medic faced was that he fired at unarmed Afghan men.
Sgt Stevens falsely claimed that a group of Afghan civilians posed a threat by saying he had seen one of them with a rocket-propelled grenade.
In court he testified that he had fired under an order from the alleged ringleader of the group, Staff Sgt Calvin Gibbs.
He also admitted wrongly possessing a grenade.
He could have been sentenced to a total of 19 years for his crimes. Apart from the nine months' detention, he will be demoted to the rank of private and must forfeit all pay and allowances while serving his sentence.
He has also agreed to testify against his fellow accused in their upcoming courts-martial.
Based at Fort Lewis in Washington state, they were attached to the Army's 5th Stryker Brigade, which deployed to Afghanistan last year and saw heavy fighting around Kandahar.
Finger bones
The alleged killing of Afghan civilians took place in March this year while the unit was deployed to Forward Operating Base Ramrod.
Staff Sgt Gibbs is accused of taking finger bones, leg bones and a tooth from Afghan corpses as trophies and of showing fingers to another soldier and threatening to kill him if he reported drug use to commanding officers.
Staff Sgt Gibbs's lawyer has said his client maintains the shootings were appropriate engagements with the enemy and denies any conspiracy to murder Afghans.
Correspondents say the legal proceedings in the matter are likely to be complex, in part because of the difficulty of gathering evidence and witness testimony from the Afghan war zone.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[/quote]
