Campbell Class Discussion

Option Two:

I noticed some important similarities between the four timelines. For instance, two marked the start of women's suffrage history as 1776 with Abigail Adam's letters to her husband to "remember the ladies". Three of the four ended around the same time with the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment.

Laurie Mann's timeline is organized mainly chronologically, but also sectioned off into different parts of the suffrage movements. In my opinion, her timeline seems very sequential, as if one event is directly related to the event preceding it. It also brought to my attention just how long it took for women to make any progress in gaining their rights. Perhaps it was because I read this timeline first, but I felt like there was much more backward movement before progression than I realized, and I was very amazed that these women did not give up. This timeline also mentions slavery and black rights frequently, showing how it is related to women's suffrage (i.e. voting rights).

I felt like the NAWSA timeline added more social commentary than the others; such as when it mentions how "Americans, in general, held highly stereotypical notions about women's and men's roles in society," which was emphasized in print from 1820-1880. O also felt like this timeline focused more on women's education and its important place in women's suffrage. This timeline actually goes beyond 1920 and ends in 1923 with the proposition of the Equal Rights Amendment to eliminate gender discrimination, which has never been ratified. I was not aware of this, and it rather shocked me that it still is not a part of our Constitution.

In "A History of American Suffragist Movement" timeline, the lack of passive voice was more evident to me. This gave me the impression that more blame was placed on the government and those in charge. The anti-suffragists were more identifiable than they were with the use of passive voice, which gives the impression that these unfortunate events just "happened" to the women.

Finally, the WASM in the U.S. timeline was organized very differently than the others. It was organized strictly into different suffrage movements and organizations (ninety of them!) and was not necessarily chronological. This type of organization allows us to see that many of the movements overlapped, instead of happening one after the other. It also allows us to see that some of the movements are ongoing. This timeline also mentions additional movements not mentioned in the other timelines, such as anti-sweatshop, anti-feminist, etc.

Required Reading Response:

In Karlyn Kohrs Campbell's study of early feminist rhetoric, she first informs us of the social boundaries that suppressed female writers and speakers in the nineteenth century. She tells us that rhetorical action was defined as a "masculine activity" due to gender roles (295). Not only were societal restrictions used to exclude women from speaking and writing, but biological ones as well (I find this to be a major contradiction in society, seeing as biology and science is meant to be purely factual).

Campbell then explains the typical feminine style of writing and speaking in the nineteenth century. Since female speakers and writers had to adopt "masculine" traits to be considered effective, they were often criticized as "unwomanly," and felt the need to "incorporate evidence of femininity" to please a broader audience (296). This contradiction led to rhetoric with the goal of empowerment by "persuading women that they could act" (297). This form of discourse was considered feminine because of its use and effectiveness in this period. It was seen as "less authoritative and aggressive," making it a more acceptable method of self expression by women (297). Additionally, she adds that the "argument from justice" was seen as "selfish," while the "argument from expediency" was seen as more fitting of the "true woman" because it advocated women's rights for the sake on reinforcing their current gender roles (298).

Campell includes these examples of what was considered "feminine style" to show us that the women were not necessarily writing in this way because they were women, but because they were forced to write this way or not at all, if they wanted to be taken seriously. This had an effect on how women wrote and spoke to advocate their rights and suffrage.