Women reaching the 14th Amendment and the struggle of being equal
Centuries and wars have passed and still, equality for woman in the United States has not been all met. Keeping in mind that woman are the only individuals that can give birth and also have taken part in serving our nation’s best interests. Being a woman should not be a cause of inequality, American society needs to reframe their views regarding woman’s inequalities. Since many of us woman including myself have felt some form of injustice. It is necessary to address injustices and overturn the wrongness that has been made by many thinkers, that not only view woman as household material but as merely property.
During the 18th and early 19th Century society viewed Woman’s place in the house rather than going to work, their job was to take care of their family needs especially their husbands. They basically had to be submissive to what the man in the house wanted. It was viewed as the "traditional family" whereas the woman that took part in the change and gave us liberty was known as taking part of a "religion without a name". Orestes Brownson in the woman question of 1869 article states "We say frankly in the outset that we are decidedly opposed to female suffrage and eligibility. The woman's rights women demand both as a right and complain that men, in refusing to concede them, withhold a natural right, and violate the equal rights on which the American republic professes to be based. We deny that women have a natural right to suffrage and eligibility; for neither is a natural right at all for either men or women." (American political thought, page 855) This not only shows the hatred towards the women activists but the Machismo that existed back in the day. Brownson basically means that woman should not mess with politics and that the ones that are messing with are absolutely wrong and do not hold the natural right according to him. But, since the civil war woman has been trying to fight the good cause of women suffrage. They have also been part of the winning of the wars, and also have played an important part in the anti-slavery movement. Taking example Susan B. Anthony, the greatest advocate for woman suffrage and also known for being in the United States coin from 1979 to 1981 according to the United States Mint.
Later he states, "we ask not if women are equal, inferior, or superior to men; for the two sexes are different, and between things different in kind there is no relation of equality or of inequality." He gives a clear view of what it means to him to be a man and how woman are portrait as needing to be subordinate to men because according to his Catholic religion theirs a hierarchy in which men always are first in everything as they also view God as being a man and therefore men always have the last word.
After that he states "of course, we hold that the woman was made for the man, not the men for the woman, and that the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church" Many men like him believed that the role of the women was essentially taking care of the family, they used different arguments to prohibit the spouse to live freely without the fear of being suppressed by the men's thoughts about her role in the family. It also gives me the sense that men wanted to fill powerful by having the woman as their housekeeper. Tradition also played a great role in what is viewed as inequality. Since Church had a great impact on the decision taken by the state, marriage and women were viewed as submissive and moldable individuals that are to be the family's unity. Because they took care of everyone and instruct what to do in the house and also teach their children. But, when something goes wrong or not as planned by the men regarding their children women have all the fault since the women raised the children.
Although for Victoria Woodhull, the first women ever to run for the American presidency and social reformer suggests that woman are unprivileged and with no liberty whatsoever in taking decisions. As she states "I am of that portion of the people who are denied the privileges of freedom; who are not permitted the rights of the citizens; and who are without voice, in the pursuit of justice, as one of that sovereignty to whom this government owes its existence, and to whom it will be held accountable, as it holds all accountable who set themselves against Human Rights." (American political thought, page 861) Equality for women is still an ongoing battle but simply imagining what it felt to not have the right to vote which is disenables having the freedom and liberty to say what you feel is necessary at times must be hard.
As Woodhull knew what women needed and how female society would come together as a whole to protest injustices and instead of denigrating woman as Orestes Brownson, she is a clear example of what being a woman is, with all the daily struggles we might have. Later she states "If the right to vote shall not be denied to any person of any race, how shall it be denied to the female part of all races? Even if it could be denied on account of sex, I ask, what warrant men have to presume that it is the female sex to whom such denial can be made instead of male sex?" This is essentially true not only regarding voting rights but equality. Women at this particular time receive unequal pay. Men get more money even though woman do the same jobs as them. According to the American Association of University Women (AAUW) at the rate of change between 1960 and 2016, women are expected to reach pay equity with men in 2059. But even that slow progress has stalled in recent years. If change continues at the slower rate seen since 2001, women will not reach pay equity with men until 2119. This means that equality between man and woman is essentially difficult and somehow impossible. But, also taking by example that only less than a hundred years have passed since the ratification of woman's suffrage right has passed it gives me a feeling that in order to make any agreement regarding equality will take a long process which means a lot of time.
Another argument Woodhull mentions is "Men, you are wrong, and you stand convicted before the world of denying me, a woman, the right to vote, not by any right of law, but simply because you have usurped the power so to do, just as all other tyrants in all ages have, to rule their subjects. The extent of the tyranny in either case being limited only by the power to enforce it". And I could not have been more in favor of her perspectives as in that particular time, men viewed woman as property. Women felt un comprehended due to the manly authority. A woman did not have the right to vote due to the fact that that woman was not permitted to own property, and property ownership was a precondition for voting. They were totally unrecognized on the political process.
Another incredible writer would be the feminist and lecturer Charlotte Perkins Gilman who in her Woman and Economics (1898) book she proposed for centralized kitchens, expert housekeeping, and other changes in household labor that were intended for the betterment of women and society in general. She is this book states that a woman is not a household material since she is not a family function or has a family stomach. As she states, "This does not involve what is known as "co-operation." Co-operation, is the usual sense, is the union of families for the better performance of their supposed functions. The process fails because the principle is wrong. Cooking and cleaning are not family functions. We do not have a family mouth, a family stomach, a family face to be washed. Individuals require being fed and cleaned from birth to death, quite irrespective of their family relations." (American political thought, page 874) This is another thing that one must know before thinking and not agreeing to Equality of gender. Many traditional men tend to view woman as the family's face since they are the ones that take care of what needs to be done in the house and how to properly educate the children and how they are willing to be viewed by society. 1800s Society was a great destroyer of families since they wanted to achieve the ultimate goal of having a remarkable and perfect family. They critiqued all the families that tended to go a little bit liberal. But as time passed and women started being part of political movements such as the Woman Movement led by Susan B Anthony and others and discussing the feeling they had when not being able to be free or treated badly by their husbands. Because in that period of time many women suffered domestic violence and abuse. Since the men were the feeders of the family, many of them would go to the local bar and spend their money which provided food to the family. Families and mainly the mother and children were left starving and as the man got angry because the wife angrily spoke back to him men would potentially beat up the wife and at times also their kids. Then after a long time fighting for woman's right to vote in the 1900s woman finally had the opportunity to.
The roaring twenties as being a fundamental evolution of the way society viewed woman, was a clear example of what freedom meant for a woman. Woman for the first time since fighting their cause and standing against the anti-slavery back in the civil war. Had granted the fourteenth amendment. It gave them the power to say and do what they had ever wanted, to vote and take a real part on democracy. Woman essentially broke out of their shells of modesty and was not afraid to have their own opinion regarding everything, it felt like glory I must assume. Social attitudes changed drastically as what was viewed as normal such as domestic violence was now viewed as a terrible act. The woman's felt complete until some portions did not go well as is the gender equal pay, level of legal scrutiny when they go into courts with the gender discrimination case, workplace discrimination, pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and domestic abuse and violence.
Charlotte Perkins later states, "The orphan, the bachelor, the childless widower, have as much need of these nutritive and excretive processes as any patriarchal parent. Eating is an individual function. Cooking is a social function. Neither is in the faintest degree a family function." As she mentions this it is I would not agree with her on this since I believe that cooking is not a social function because it is a necessity. Without cooking a food properly, one can get intoxicated. But the point that she wanted to make is that being the head of the family is difficult, but it is more difficult being a woman since woman was not entitled to work outside their homes. And thinking that in that period of time woman had from five to ten children. It was a very hard and tough situation to be in, levels of poverty were felt.
As Gloria Steinem once said, "Women are not going to be equal outside the home until men are equal in it". Some individuals that oppose this view would say that woman already have equal rights. But it is, in fact, they are wrong, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has not yet been ratified by Congress. This amendment would make it unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sex at work. Men already have this right; women do not. Further point out that there is a difference between our rights and how we are treated in society. Constitutionally, people of all races have the same rights in the United States, but black people still consistently deal with race-based discrimination.
Jane Addams also a big supporter of woman's rights wrote If men were seeking the franchise (1913). This issue of the Ladies Home Journal, she turned the tables and wrote of men demanding the vote. At last, she states, "When Plato once related his dream of an ideal Republic he begged his fellow-citizens not to ridicule him because he considered the cooperation of women necessary for its fulfillment. He contended that so far as the guardianship of the State is concerned there is no distinction between the powers of men and women save those with customs has made." (American political thought, page 882) Plato one of the ultimate greatest philosophers viewed woman as being also a part of society. Since the social status of women in Ancient Greece was more confined, women were viewed as domestic slaves, they had essentially no rights. Women were viewed as mere property since in order to get married men had to offer cattle, land, or money.
Plato in one of his writings the Republic has some clear arguments of why women should be equal. As he states, "Then the women have equally with the man the qualities which make a guardian…" (Rogers, 139). What he meant was obvious, a woman is capable as men, woman has a brain and are smart. The only thing is that they need is have a right to education. But even though he believes in woman's power he views it as something impossible to achieve. He somehow compares reaching equality as a great wave and something that will be very disputed.
A great abolitionist and a lifelong supporter of the economic and political rights of women Susan B Anthony. In the elections of 1872, she voted illegally as she believed that women who during that time were denied the right to vote were mere subjects, not citizens. In one of her arguments she states, "But by forms of law all made by men, interpreted by men, administered by men, in favor of men, and against women; and hence, your honor's ordered verdict of guilty, against a United States citizen for the exercise of "that citizens right to vote," simply because that citizen was a woman and not a man." Like Orestes Brownson and Phyllis Schlafly would agree as Brownson is known as a machista and Schlafly as the favorite conservative lady which believed that woman only need to raise the children and was a great anti-equal rights amendment because she thought it would destroy families and require unisex facilities.
In one of Phyllis Schlafly writings, The Power of the Positive Woman (1977) book. She states,
"Likewise, it would seem that, for a woman to find her identity in the modern world, the
path should be sought from the Positive Women who have found the road and possess the
map, rather tag from those who have not. In this spirit, I share with you the thoughts of
one who loves life as a woman and lives love as a woman, whose credentials are from the
school of practical experience, and who has learned the fulfillment as a woman is a
journey, not a destination."
(American political thought, page1407)
One assumes she hated the feminists by the way she refers to them as "liberationists". But, if she was opposed to the ideals of woman that insight equality and protests. Why did she went on being an activist and going State to State advocating anti-equality, although it is supposedly the men's job to be in the political spotlight not for the woman because women are supposed to be in their homes doing preparing for supper.
She later mentions abortion and how liberal woman view it as she states, "If man is targeted as the enemy, and the ultimate goal of women's liberation is independence from men and the avoidance of pregnancy and its consequences, then lesbianism is logically the highest form in the ritual of women's liberation. Many such as Kate Millet, come to this conclusion, although many others do not." (American political thought, page 1408) I am totally opposed to this argument. Being a woman that wants to be given same rights as men do not have to be lesbians. Being a lesbian means having a different sexual orientation, being aware of your body and not wanting to have children is not supposed to be viewed as wrong and immoral or even being a lesbian. Woman deserve to be able to take control of their body. As they are ultimately the ones that are affected by the consequences.
She then later states that woman should be obedient to men as she states, "A positive woman cannot defeat a man in wrestling or boxing match, but she can motivate him, inspire him, encourage him, teach him, restrain him, reward him, and have power over him that can never achieve over her with all his muscle. How or whether a Positive woman uses her power is determined solely by the way she alone defines her goals and develops her skills." (American political thought, page 1409) She one more time makes the claim that man is superior to woman and the only thing the woman can do is obey and be part of his life by making feel welcomed and loved. While the man is the opposite, he expects love, but does he love back?
Bell Hooks on the other hand, in her excerpt from her second book known as Feminist Theory from Margin to Center (1984) argues that a “mass-based feminist movement” is necessary to combat sexism and other systematic forms of oppression. As she states,
Sexist discrimination, exploitation, and oppression have created the war between the
sexes. Traditionally the battleground has been the home. In recent years, the battle
ensues in any sphere, public or private, inhabited by woman or man, girls and boys. The
significance of feminist movement is that it offers a new ideological meeting ground for
the sexes, a space for criticism, struggle and transformation. Feminist movement can end
the war between the sexes. It can transform relationship so that the alienation,
competition, and dehumanization that characterize human interaction can be replaced
with feelings of intimacy, mutuality, and camaraderie.
(American political thought, page 1427)
This means that when society first viewed feminist they saw that it was basically a group of women that hated man, but when viewing feminism wrongfully all things get bad. Being a feminist does not mean you hate the man, it only means that you want the ultimate goal of equality. Being equal regarding our constitution, our human rights, job and pay opportunities and benefits without falling into what is known as being a "radical feminist".
For Milton Friedman and Rose D. Friedman wrote Free to choose (1980), which was a good book that argued that the role of the government should be limited since “economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom.” As this book has very strong beliefs in free markets and Capitalism, it also gives some insights of why equality should exist because of human freedom. As the book states,
Freedom is a tenable objective only for responsible individuals. We do not believe in freedom for madmen or children. We must somehow draw a line between responsible individuals and others yet doing so introduces a fundamental ambiguity into our ultimate objective of freedom. We cannot categorically reject paternalism from those whom we consider as not responsible.
(American political thought, page 1442)
Freedom as quoted above is viewed as something that should be granted to responsible individuals who act according to the set of social rules. In the other hand, equality is basically having the same rights as others. In an equal society, freedom would be granted to everyone. But, one does not have to be free to be equal nor one has to be equal to be free. Freedom and equality may sound the same but is not. From society's perspective, not everyone has the same rights taken for example, woman and men.
In conclusion, the woman has fought long battles to be able to stand for their rights. Equality has been the main focus and throughout the decades' woman still faces some injustices such as equal pay, oppression and gender discrimination. Equality is not fighting for the wrong cause, it is fighting for everyone needs. Being aware of those injustices and making sure future generations can be proud of the accomplishments that have been made, taken by example the 14th amendment authors such as, Susan B Anthony or Jane Addams.