Important anniversaries are on us. This quote by the second first lady of the United States, Abigail Adams, is as fresh and pertinent as it was when she penned this in a letter to her husband in 1776.
From the birth of this country down to present day, women are the forgotten citizens. When they assert their rights, some war, some other movement, a disease, some other man or even the rights of proto-humans are placed before them and many just fall in. We take care of our gay brothers suffering from aids while the last few states fail to ratify the ERA. We support the abolition movement to free and give rights to Black Americans and votes to black men while we’re considered property way into the 1970s and cannot achieve the vote until 1920. We march. We do all the behind the scene work and organizing. Then, when we ask for the vote, for our place in governing, for our right to lead, we are told that would be expedient to larger movements. This is true of black civil rights movements, labor movements, peace movements or antiwar movements, and the founding of our nation and so ad infinitum.
We are not only approaching our annual celebration of Independence Day. We have come upon the 160th anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention. The women who met during that July suggested this addition to the Declaration of Independence and penned their own tome the Declaration of Sentiments.
It was signed by a number of women leaders including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. The first women’s rights conference in the United States Convention was held in Seneca Falls, New York on July 19 and 20, 1848. Few will be celebrating this historic gathering or probably even know of it. One hundred and sixty years after the convention, the equality that Elizabeth Cady Stanton demands still eludes us.
The eloquent Frederick Douglass, a former slave and now editor of the Rochester North Star, however, swayed the gathering into agreeing to the resolution. At the closing session, Lucretia Mott won approval of a final resolve "for the overthrowing of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.
This is the same Frederick Douglass who later threw women under the carriage for Black male suffrage. In 1869, an amendment was proposed to Congress that guarantees "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Douglass told women to wait since it was easier to get the proposed amendment through congress if it guaranteed black males the right to vote, but not women. This is exactly what happened. Women had to wait.
For over two centuries, American women had few civil or political rights. Wives had to do what they were told by their husband. Until 1884, a wife was officially listed as one of her husband’s possessions. Women stayed slaves for years after the emancipation proclamation was signed.
When I was at university, I noticed this strange pattern. Every time women say it is our turn to be recognized for all this work and we deserve equal pay, equal rights, and equal respect, men change the subject and put some other movement in between us. If you look through history, many women’s rights movements have been cast aside for peace movements or labor movements and later for civil rights movements that basically favored the rights of gay men or black men.
When asked what the role of women was in the Black Panther Movement, the answer was: "The only role for women in this movement is horizontal." This continual divide and conquer strategy has left us waiting at bus stops for buses that we are later thrown under. Much of the impetus of the women’s movement in the 70s was distilled to civil rights for gays after Stonewall and the Aids crisis. Gay bashing and Aids struck gay men hard but much of the work and nursing was done by lesbians who abandoned the fight for the ERA and protection of the sanctity of women’s individuality as the religious right’s attempts to water down Roe v. Wade increased the humanity of proto-human life while decreasing that of breathing, living women.
The odd thing is that none of these movements are bad causes. The development of a democratic nation, peace, abolition, Aids research, or suffrage for black men all have merit. The fact that these are ALL good causes is not what bothers me. The larger point to me is that these movements sprung up during active women’s rights movements and suddenly took precedence.
Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm has always been one of my personal heroines and clearly recognized that women’s rights were not a priority for this nation. She was always quick to note that she had experienced more sexism in her life than racism. Please read what this great champion of women’s rights said as she fought for passage of the ERA.
Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 264, before us today, which provides for equality under the law for both men and women, represents one of the most clear-cut opportunities we are likely to have to declare our faith in the principles that shaped our Constitution. It provides a legal basis for attack on the most subtle, most pervasive, and most institutionalized form of prejudice that exists. Discrimination against women, solely on the basis of their sex, is so widespread that is seems to many persons normal, natural and right.
Legal expression of prejudice on the grounds of religious or political belief has become a minor problem in our society. Prejudice on the basis of race is, at least, under systematic attack. There is reason for optimism that it will start to die with the present, older generation. It is time we act to assure full equality of opportunity to those citizens who, although in a majority, suffer the restrictions that are commonly imposed on minorities, to women
Whenever women make progress, men step in with some other distraction and create disunity. I see this same pattern today in the Democratic Party ONE HUNDRED and SIXTY years after the Seneca Falls Convention and well over TWO HUNDRED years after Abigail Adams.
Women, please stop and think about this before you donate your time to peace movements, misc. civil rights movements, ANY kind of movement. We are the work horses of all of these movements, yet how many of these movements turn around and provide us ANYTHING but lip service? Think of the DNC, what have they done recently to stop the hemorrhage of reproductive rights? support equal pay laws? stop SEXIST attacks on women candidates? Which women in this system (yes, YOU Nancy Pelosi, yes, You Candy Crowely, yes, you Cindy Sheehan, yes, you Donna Brazille, yes YOU, Governor Sibilius, yes YOU Senator Mary Landrieu, yes you Secretary of State Rice,yes, YOU Gloria Borger, …) will willingly sell out their own sex to be acceptable to the boys and get recognition in a movement or a profession not of our own design whose rules are set up so that we ultimately fail.
Just THINK ABOUT IT when you celebrate this Fourth of July. Look at your daughters, your mothers, your grandmothers, your granddaughters, and the women around you and THINK about it. What movement did I join that stopped me from asking for basic human and democratic rights for women? Think about what happened to Hillary Clinton this primary season and ASK yourselves will you compromise YET again?





16 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
A really terrific post.
I already took RevDeb’s pledge, and won’t be giving any money to ANY Dems. (Does Grayson count, since he doesn’t really act like a Dem?)
And, I think this particular post will give me much support in explaining why I will not be campaigning for any male candidates in the future, either.
Frederick Douglass has long been one of my heroes. Too bad I didn’t know about his throwing women’s suffrage under the bus. I might have read his narrative of his life as a slave with a more jaundiced eye.
Highly recommended.
I just posted something juxtaposing the excitement in the house when the bill passed with my own disappointment at still being a second-class citizen.
thx :-)
Because..when in doubt, throw women under the bus. No matter what, punish women. And women, if it means that you can play with the big boys, go ahead – betray other women, especially if they are not of your race or class. No one will call you on it. No one will punish you for it. It is expected.
I am guessing that you don’t want to be told where your facts are wrong but I am going to try to do it anyway if the moderators don’t censor it all. So a bunch of “Fisking” if you like but a general comment to begin with.
Men, not women, are the disadvantaged gender in America today and things were not much better 160 years ago.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton of course was an upper class woman who lived off her husband. Using his money and living a life of leisure which for the first time in history had been extended to a very large class of people (upper class white Victorian women) instead of just the aristocracy, because of the industrial revolution. Stanton and her pal Mott had to busy themselves with something to avoid boredom, and so got in on the abolitionist movement.
That Stanton was not serious about abolition is testified to (as you tangentially refer) when she opposed the vote for blacks after the Civil War, on the grounds that women ought to get the vote first. She ended up voting against the Republicans (at the time the liberal party recall — Lincoln etc) because of it.
So Stanton gets some bee in her bonnet and organises a little gathering of friends. First of all what kind of “oppressed minority” ever does that? It’s absurd. Blacks sure didn’t do that. Why? Because blacks were slaves and genuinely oppressed. Rich white folks made meetings on their behalf. Upper-middle class women though, had all the leisure time and money for nonsense like that, because as I say they were living the life of aristocrats — better than their husbands who still worked for a living. Stanton had servants. I’m going to bet that Sojourner Truth didn’t.
So all the over-privileged upper class white women turn up for a good bitch about their horrible husbands who are paying for the whole shindig. Well not so much. Most of the women though the meeting was ridiculous. Most men too of course but we in the enlightened 21st century know men’s views don’t count. In fact up until the early 20th century most women opposed the vote for women and many other women’s rights. That’s how “oppressed” women were.
Even among Stanton’s weird friends the question of the vote for women almost failed to get a 50% vote in its favour as they “passed” their silly “resolution” on that first day in Seneca Falls, New York.
And how did Stanton go about expressing her alleged desire for “equality” with men? Did she stress the unity of the human race? Did she stress that after all we are all the same in spirit if not the flesh? No. What she said was that all men everywhere hate all women and love to attack and oppress them all the time (I wonder what Mr Stanton thought of that?) That women therefore need to go to war against men and defeat them. As you say above she chose a war metaphor for her cornerstone relationship between men and women and the feminist movement has for ever after been at war against men, attacking them, spreading nasty lies about them and generally treating “equality” as if were a winner takes all proposition where women must oppress or be oppressed.
How different it might have been had the movement been founded by someone who genuinely wanted equal rights for men as well as for women and fought for men’s rights as well as women’s. How different if instead of a “sex war” they had declared a sex co-operation. How different if they had declared that men’s traditional roles also restricted what men could do and were unjust to men just the same as women’s roles restricted them. How different if instead of setting men against women and therefore needing to cast men as the bogeymen of their stories, they had gone forward together with men in pusuit of liberty and genuine equality for both sexes.
And to this day the hate-men philosophy of sex-war continues in the feminist movement. Rotten at its core.
Let the Fisking commence….
No they aren’t. July was four months ago; the 160 anniversary was last year. You just copy and pasted this whole article didn’t you? Did you even read it?
It may be a little OT but why do feminists pick Abigail Adams? She was a right winger you know. She wasn’t any sort of women’s rights advocate in context. Some of the founding fathers genuinely did make arguments for women (and even children) voting. Oh but they were men so they don’t count, right? With feminists the idea itself is subservient to the sex of the one expressing the idea.
On the contrary women are the remembered and pandered to sex. There is a women’s history month. None for men. A women’s health month. None for men even though women already get far better health than men. Everywhere you see pink ribbons for breast cancer but nothing for men’s cancers that are comparable. This is nothing new. Go back to the earliest recorded societies we know of. The bible’s Deuteronomy, or the Code of Hammurabi. You’ll find special rules protecting women. Women are always remembered. Men, never. Unless they are king of this or that of course — just as queens were also recorded. But for the 99.99% of men who were not king or general or famous explorer? There is nothing for them.
When was the last time this board — or any board in the blogosphere had a diary about men’s rights? But there are about half a dozen diaries about women’s rights right now. Remember the women? How could we ever forget?
Just for the record I challenge you to name even one single right that women lack that men have. There are plenty men lack that women have starting with the right to not get drafted and the right to decide when they are ready to become a parent.
I always challenge feminists to name one because they can’t.
Do you know why? The ERA wasn’t ratified because women (specifically Scharfly and her group) pointed out that ERA would disadvantage women. An equality amendment would jeopardise all the rights women have over men. Congress listened– to women. They refused to hear any men’s right’s groups on ERA 9all in favour of it naturally). Today groups like NOW do not want ERA and favour a complicatedly worded sexist amendment that will give women (yet more) rights over men.
Utter rubbish. I challenge you to point to a single law in any country ever, in any time of history ever, that says women are property (can be bought and sold as slaves) and men were not.
Until about 1920 most women opposed the vote for women. So in fact had men given the vote to women before that time it would have been by opposing women’s opinion. One issue with feminists is the way you always pretend that every woman on earth is a feminis. In fact I think something like 12% of women say they are feminists.
As I said above Stanton and Anthony voted against blacks vote. But let me be frank here. These were upper class white women with servants (Stanton, not Anthony, she was more middle class) and they were galavanting about pretending their situation in life was worse than recently freed slaves. Talk about a mountain sized inability to get a grip on life. This bizarrely inappropriate tendency of feminists to compare women to the truly oppressed blacks continues to this day. And I don’t mean a metaphorical comparison here. They literally said women were worse off than black former slaves still living in the South. What an unspeakablely … words fail me frankly. Apparently you support that pretense today? Really? You really think that white women in the 19th century were worse off than black men? Really???
No, see that would be what blacks had to do for their owners. You know? Their actual owners because they were actual slaves, not rich women with some bizarro victim-complex? Please make a reference to any case where women were obligated to do as their husbands commanded.
Never happened. Show me when that ever happened. And I don’t mean silly things like “well both might be mentioned in someone’s will”. Unless it was “I leave my golf clubs to Harry and Albert can have my wife.” You see once again that really did happen to blacks. As in “slaves”?
Shows how well you misconstrue the situation. This isn’t about feminism. It’s about civil rights that Democrats feel so happy to deny women for what is essentially a paucity of health care benefit. The point of the diary is that it has always been just fine to do this.
You change the subject to some silly version of feminism and simply prove the point. You hate women and it shows. Unless women are subservient they are “rotten”. Eye roll!
All you have to do is give up the rights you have that men don’t and that will be true. Will you do that? No. Because power never concedes anything except by force. Women earn the same as men if they can ever be bothered to work as hard as men. They don’t because they don’t have to. Women already account for over 80% of consumer spending. Tell me how women spend 4 times more than men while earning less because they work less?
This man isn’t.
This man isn’t shamed by your lies and tricks. You’ll be the one to change the topic on me I can guarantee that. You’re not used to a man that stands up for his rights and for equality are you? You want men to be cowed into shuffling their feet and looking at the floor while you spin propaganda about how evil men are and how victimised women. We’ll it’s not true and I’m calling you on your game.
So lucky you! You finally found a man who will debate equality. What will your response be? You’ll run a mile.
But if your “movement” has no real issues it is hard to really do much isn’t it? I try to ask feminists I debate to name a current issue for feminism in the US. Many of them actually say “the vote”. That’s right, you read that correctly. Many of them are so hard up to think of any issue they say “the vote”. A real movement has issues.
It’s called “pandering”. It’s what politicians do to powerful groups who’s voices count. As opposed to powerless groups who have no voice. On its face the assertion is ridiculous. Obviously a black woman has much less problems with racism than a black man because of the power of their gender but even so. Did you never stop to think that genuinely disadvantaged groups don’t constantly go around complaining about their status because complaining is non-functional for the oppressed. It works for the powerful.
Do you see a bunch of Muslims going about bitching about how they are being blamed for that Fort Hood thing? Not in public at least. No they are very apologetic and trying to say this isn’t typical of Muslims etc etc. Complaining that they are being scapegoated while perfectly true would not be a good idea. Why? Now ask how come that same logic never applies to women.
But it does apply to men.
Plenty. Even the Republicans don’t dare to attack women. Consider Sotomayor. She made sexist remarks saying women were better than men. She made them repeatedly. One time she implied a race angle too and the Republicans attacked her on the race angle. Not one Republican ever called her out for the genuine sexism, but rather they tried to say she was racist which was rubbish. Why didn’t the republicans point to her sexism? because they were afraid to attack a powerful group (women) but fine with attacking a weak minority (Hispanics).
Politicians are endlessly bragging about their work for women. When was the last time you can recall any politician of either party bragging about their work for men?
———————————————————————-
So I wasn’t censored. I am surprised and happy to be wrong.
I was away at a professional conference until this evening. In my email I found a communication from “President Obama” on behalf of the democratic party. I include my response as follows:
To the Democratic Party and in particular, to President Obama,
I am sorry sorry but I must decline your offer, which is actually a request that I donate money to this party. I cannot. You see, the bill that passed the House is, in my opinion, historic only in its blatant push back against women. I am a woman. I am the mother of 3 woman. I am sister to 5 woman, and the daughter of one woman. You want my money? You want me to further your agenda, which in its implementation sets back my rights as a woman? I think not. In order to live with myself and in order to be able to look my daughters in the eye without flinching I must decline. To earn my support back, my work on behalf of this party, and this President, in order to earn my monetary contributions to your cause I suggest and encourage that you begin to honor those of us that are 1/2 of the population; that you begin to show some spine and begin the REAL work of reform that you promised.
It is with a regret as deep as my disappointment in your actions so far, I remain,
an active progressive, that will continue to donate and vote by my conscience, which at this point is not with Obama and his party’s accomplishments so far.
Perhaps if enough requests from money are turned down, and the reasons are given they will get the message. And if they don’t get the message? Too bad. I will donate and work on behalf of reform and candidates that does not throw my daughters reproductive rights under the bus.
In fact the bill financially benefits women unfairly over men. But don’t worry, your female privilege means that you get to complain about things that don’t exist while someone else pays for.
I do aplaude your decision to cut off the Democratic party but it is a shame you do it for such a base, selfish and sexist (as well as false) reason. Ah well, any win….
Have you ever noticed your sons, brothers, father etc have no such rights?
Excellent post, Dak. I was glad to hear Rachel Maddow bring up the abortion issue on Meet the Press, and that there would be blowback from progressive women on this, because the panel, like so much else the media pundits do, was totally minimizing it.
I remember watching a documentary on how profoundly the women’s movement helped the civil rights movement and being shocked by that “later for you, girls” decision. Wow. The female paradigm is about partnership and cooperation, the patriarchal or masculine one is about power and control. So despite all that help, they didn’t want to make room in the new treehouse. (Yes, individuals have their unique characteristics, so it is not about biology, and I know many very enlightened men and some misogynistic women, but considering the wars and the majority in charge … it seems to fit with gender very often. Power can corrupt and those in power lose empathy to narcissism having the control.)
But I hope the progressive men will join and I see at FDL definitely are joining with the women for this issue of individual and civil rights. It seems the most strident and violent pro-life activists are men which often made me wonder what multiple motivations were at play.
David Brooks kind of sniffed that progressives constituted only 20% of the citizenry and if Obama wanted to “throw away” his majority on the progressives it would not be wise. So condescending of Brooks, but Obama is playing to Brooks and his type apparently.
The Single Payer Medicare for All people I encountered seemed like a real cross section of America. Some were liberals, some were liberal in liking Single Payer, not necessarily liberal in other areas. The sanity of the single payer plan had appeal to many of the country. But the corporate media freaking out on behalf of the corporatists about a molecule of their profit making being disturbed now have their drum beating talking points about how Obama is going too far too fast with big government in your business.
The country is fed up. The ones who get why are legitimately angry about health care issue and a wimpy Congress. Nader said Obama would be pleased at anything that managed to squirm through a cowardly Congress, as a notch on his belt.
The citizens who are angry but clueless are manipulated by the corporate/evangelical hucksters for the Republican party and the corporate media.
You see this in these “reality” shows, where the men pretty much always gang up on the women from day on, unless there is a “showmance” involved. If there is a possibility of sex, then they will support women, but otherwise they are booted out. To many men, the only value women have is for what they can do for men, only.
We keep falling for this, over and over again. It’s appalling! The guys just assume it’s fine, and that is the way it’s supposed to be. They look blank when it’s pointed out to them. They have the pathology of privilege.
Daikinikat -
thank you so much for re posting here – fabulous to see this latest onslaught placed in it’s proper historical context.
on a related personal note – it was a splash of cold water to see so many of the attacks on Jane Hamsher (and members of her team) in this epic HCR Fight were inherently sexist – complaints that would never have been lodged against a man
History has indeed called, asking us all to recommit to true equality – it’s time for another Declaration of Sentiments
thank you again for your edifying post
clare boothe lucid
one more thing :D
would like to see a feminist’s take on the relationship of corporate donors and the female pols to whom they donate – got an intuitive flash that expecations for congressional women are firmer and more narrow (with less leeway) than for those of their male counterparts
granted, all but a few critters are corporate owned but there’s something almost patriarchal out there
My sentiments exactly!
A few more misandronist comments.
No response to my lengthy criticism.
Who is “changing the subject” now? Who is running away now?
Just as it ever was.