Author: Annabeth Stoll

The themes that I see across this week’s reading is oppression via patriarchy. The Redstockings Manifesto very clearly names men as societal dominators – and interestingly notes that other -isms (most notably capitalism and racism) as mere extensions of male suppression. These systems were, and still are, primarily controlled by a small subset of white men.

In Steinhem’s Washington Post piece, she notes ways in which science has proven male superiority over women. She laughs, and continues on to include an amusing statistic from the American Medical Association, that “women are better drivers because they’re less emotional than men.” While interesting, the piece itself feels reductive to the movement. At a time when women were fighting tooth and nail for equality, she published a piece that openly mocks her oppressors multiple times. I can only imagine that the Post’s male readers were not impressed. While Steinhem did put in considerable work in the Women’s Lib Movement, I consider her to be a figurehead of “cultural feminism”: a movement that is based on feminism’s effect on one’s personal life and relationships, a way for women to shout “equality” for the sake of themselves, and not society at large.

The Politics of Housework notes ways in which a woman’s husband argues his way out of housework, and the following is particularly offensive:

In animal societies, wolves, for example, the top animal is usually a male even where he’ is not chosen for brute strength but on the basis of cunning and intelligence. Isn’t that interesting ?”
Meaning: I have historical, psychological, anthropological and biological justification for keeping you down. How can you ask the top wolf to be equal?

I find the above quote to be a perfect example of the way men either consciously or unconsciously (neither of which are acceptable) assert control over women, implying that they are “better than” on the basis of their sex.

No matter how heinous the act of the lynchers may have been, it was discussed only for a day or so and then dismissed from the attention of the public. In one or two instances the governor has called attention to the crime, but the civil processes entirely failed to bring the murderers to justice.

Seem familiar? The things that stood out the most to me about this week’s readings is how they ring true not only in the context of the abolitionist movement, but in today’s society. How many times in the past year, two years, five years have we seen people attacked and murdered for the color of their skin? We rarely see the victims of these crimes meet the light of justice. In that sense, Ida B. Wells’ “A Red Record” reads like a piece that could be published today. Wells speaks of many things, but very simply states at the end that “we do insist that the punishment is not the same for both classes of criminals.” In fact, she gives three excuses made up by white men to justify the tens of thousands of lynchings that took place in the decades following the Emancipation.

• Repression of and stamping out race riots
• Maintaining a “white man’s government”
• Vengeance for crimes against women

These three excuses once again feel eerily close to the views of what we would today consider the political far-right – and yet, in the 1800’s and today have no basis or evidence to support them.

I’d like to end on a slightly more humorous note: In Sojourner Truth’s 1851 speech, she literally implies that God and woman created and bore Jesus, so what was the man’s part? I feel this way a lot in my everyday life and hope you maybe all giggled too.

In “Oppression” by Marilyn Frye, the author analogizes women’s oppression as a bird trapped in a cage. As a woman, this feels resonant because we as a whole are often limited by our perceived gender in a patriarchal society.

Oppression itself differs from simply being miserable or frustrated in that those who suffer from it are bound into situations often out of their control. Solutions are limited, and typically detrimental or involve penalty. Those who are oppressed are also expected to be silent, to give way and hold space for their oppressors – leaving them occupying no space for themselves.

In “Feminist Politics: Where We Stand Now” by bell hooks, the writer mentions that because feminism was made more acceptable, women no longer needed to fundamentally challenge or change themselves or the culture. I think this is particularly resonant because It is always the easiest option to stay in one place, to fall victim to our “creature comforts.” Without asking questions or raising our voices, there is no path to any actual change. Why are so many women comfortable with being comfortable when there are so many women who aren’t? I think that if you are aware of an inequality or injustice and you have the means, status, class ranking, etc. to use your privileges to lift those without them, feminism truly means that you use them not to your own advantages, but to better the “women’s experience” as a whole.

In Audre Lord’s piece, a concept that I also found interesting is that of social control: that women have only been encouraged to recognize differences between themselves and men. This is ingrained when we are children in elementary school, even with something as innocuous as cooties. Young boys and girls are given the impression that there are imaginary lines between the “two genders.” This is not only detrimental in development for children who do not fit into the gender binary, but gives them the impression that there should be a line in the sand separating male/female. I have found that this has only snowballed the older I get.