Hey everyone- Stephanie here.
"How long till my soul gets it right?
Has any human being ever reached that kind of light?
I call on the resting soul of Galileo-
king of night vision, king of insight."
- Indigo Girls
Basically today we talked about the Declaration of Sentiments again. The following are some of the main points and discussion threads we went over:
Why the Declaration of Sentiments was not as effective:
• According to men, women didn’t really know any other life than that of submission to men
• Slavery puts the rights of women on the backburner
• People could only take so much change at one time
• Compared to the straightforward rebellious points of the Declaration of Independence, this did not provoke war on men but was rather a plea for help from men
• There was no direct ‘cause-effect’ relationship
• Women were not really in power
• Most women were stuck in their own glass ceilings: tending to family matters, like children, etc…
Then, we addressed a few questions Mr. Laz hurled at us, mainly 'would Stanton approve of the situation women are in today?' and 'what about the woman running for president presently?'
We thought these over, and about Hilary, we concluded that she is automatically discounted because of her sex. If she acts too emotional, people will think her incapable and too weak for public encounters. If she acts too distant and, well, manly, then she will be viewed as too cold and machine-like to lead our country. We also found that you really can't be a divorced woman from a politician and still hope to make your own way in politics. So, if she had divorced Clinton, it would have damaged her political career, although being the morally correct thing to do in such a situation.
There is also no such thing as full equality. Only under the law can it be regulated, but still, racism, sexism etc can still exist in the minds and hearts of people.
Over and out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hey, it's Erin.
I don't think that the Declaration of Sentiments would have been any more effective if it declared war on men. Not only would that have alienated neutral men but also some women who wouldn't agree with such drastic means to obtain rights. It would also give men who opposed the declaration more reasons against rights for women; they could say something like, "look at what happens when women try to get power - they go nuts and become dangers to society."
I think that either way, asking for help or declaring war, was a lose-lose situation. If they asked for help they could be pushed aside, but if they declared war they could alienate more people and be point to as crazy. You can't really argue over what could have happened, but I think that if the writers of the Declaration of Sentiments had declared war on men, it would not have worked in their favor.
Hey, it's Jasmine.
I agree with Erin - I think that even if the Declaration of Sentiments had openly declared war on men, it would not have had the same impact as the Declaration of Independence did. In the case of the Decl. of Independence, it was possible for the colonies to break away from Britain - they were already separated by an ocean and had self-governed themselves in a way for years. Back in 1776, America and Great Britain were involved in an official war, with battles and fatalities. On the other hand, women and men were involved in a war of words and hunger strikes, but not an actual war. Also, they were part of the same society and couldn't physically separate themselves into two different places. Although there was a mental divide (they occupied separate spheres), women and men depended on each other on a day-to-day basis: the women were expected to serve as moral guidance for the family, while the men were expected to support the family financially.
Also, I'm looking back at my history notebook from last year. I wrote in my notes that society saw Seneca Falls as a "horrible revolt" and called women "weird" and "wacko" (this is quoting directly). As Erin stated, this only made men more weary of giving the vote to women.
So, basically, the women couldn't actually declare war on the men, although they did directly attack them with words. Since it was impossible to break away and form a separate society, they had to try to work things out with men by asking for help from both genders.
Hey, it's Amy!
I think that the Declaration of Sentiments was slightly hypocritical, since women were looking for rights and independence fromt the male population, yet that is exactly who they are asking for help. The women were dependent on males fighting for their independence from males. It's kind of like a teenager saying, "Mom! Leave me alone! I'm moving out and getting my own apartment and am going to be independent and in control of myself!" and then asking your mom for money to buy the apartment. There's no way your mom's going to give you that money, so why should the men have voted to give more rights to the women if they still were dependent on the actions of men.
But I do agree that they could not have declared war on the men, especially since the men had control over everything and were a major part of their lives. Men going on strike would have been a lot worse than women going on strike. However, the plea of the Declaration of Sentiments was not an effective measure and had very little results.
-Amy
Hey, it's Jasmine.
I guess I kind of agree with Amy. Maybe the Declaration of Sentiments seems hypocritical because it was based on a document that didn't really correspond to the situation (Declaration of Independence). The Declaration of Independence was written to declare rebellion against Britain. The colonists basically said, "We've tried to reconcile, but it hasn't worked, so rebellion's the only option." On the other hand, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, etc. WANTED the men's help. She said that only with the support of both genders could equality be achieved. She wanted to reconcile.
In another post, Erin said that the Declaration of the Rights of Woman (in France) was more effective than the Declaration of Sentiments. I think that it was more influential because asked for equal rights without criticizing the men. It definitely seems less hypocritical. On the other hand, in the Declaration of Sentiments, it doesn't quite make sense to attack men throughout the whole first part, and then in the very last resolution ask for men's support.
Post a Comment