The Feminist Label
My question for today is: What if the United States' Declaration of Independence had been written like this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all women are created equal..."?
Before you start screaming, "AH! Feminist!!! The word 'men' includes all women," let's consider this with calm and logic. The word "men" includes all women-- let's examine.
The Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776. It was drafted, composed, and edited by men. It was signed by delegates from each colony, all of which were men. When these men wrote that all men were created equal and certain unalienable rights, did they really mean me?
Because on July 5, 1776, women didn't have the right to vote--we wouldn't have that for another 150 years.
On July 5, 1776, women didn't have the right to own property--that would come 60 years later, and even then, we could "own" but not "control" property.
On July 5, 1776, women didn't have to serve on juries, access birth control, or go to college with men. And the drafters of the Declaration of Independence were thinking of me?
In class, we just read Gould's "Women's Brains." In that essay, Gould points out the logical fallacies in the misogynistic attitudes and "findings" of "scientists" in 1876. Not 1776-- 1876. If this is how people were thinking 100 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, how were they thinking on July 4, 1776?
In 1976-- not 1776-- the Equal Rights Amendment, stating that the guidelines set down in the Constitution of the United States apply to all Americans regardless of sex, had still not been ratified. after being introduced to every single Congress for the previous 50 years. (Guess what? It continues to be introduced to every single Congress since the 1980s, and still has not been ratified.)
My point is this: When the Declaration of Independence was written, "men" did not include "women." So, by natural extension, I must ask the next question: Does the word "men" include all "women" today?
Let's think about it this way: Guys, what if we did change the Declaration of Independence to say "women" instead of "men," but told you that the word "women" includes all men? How would you feel about that?
Guys, what if the United States Senate were made up of 83 women and 17 men? What if the Congressional leadership were made up of 7 women and 1 man?
Would you be okay with that? Would you feel underrepresented? Undervalued? What would you do about it?
And women, we're not off the hook, either. Why aren't we doing something about this? Why aren't we talking about it? Why aren't we upset?
To conclude, I want to be absolutely clear: I am NOT advocating for changing the language of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or any other historical documents. That is not my point, but rather a nice hyperbole (rhetorical device #1) to make you think about my point. I don't think the words on the page matter so much as what's in our heads. I am advocating for a change in the way we think. When someone asks if you are a feminist and you say no, is that because it doesn't bother you that women are underrepresented and undervalued in our society? Or is it because it's not cool to be a feminist?
If the definition of feminist is belief in equality between sexes, then we should be all be feminists. Whether people judge us for that, or think that all feminists are man-haters, or say we are a bunch of wusses shouldn't matter; say what you are, and don't be afraid of a label that you should hold with pride.
I challenge you to make 2076 look a lot better for both sexes than 1976 did, or 1876, or 1776. You get to do that. If I'm lucky enough to be alive in 2076, I'll be 95 years old, but I will think of each of you, and I'll be grateful to you for the equal rights I have because of the change you create. You get to do that-- own it. That's my point.
Before you start screaming, "AH! Feminist!!! The word 'men' includes all women," let's consider this with calm and logic. The word "men" includes all women-- let's examine.
The Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776. It was drafted, composed, and edited by men. It was signed by delegates from each colony, all of which were men. When these men wrote that all men were created equal and certain unalienable rights, did they really mean me?
Because on July 5, 1776, women didn't have the right to vote--we wouldn't have that for another 150 years.
On July 5, 1776, women didn't have the right to own property--that would come 60 years later, and even then, we could "own" but not "control" property.
On July 5, 1776, women didn't have to serve on juries, access birth control, or go to college with men. And the drafters of the Declaration of Independence were thinking of me?
In class, we just read Gould's "Women's Brains." In that essay, Gould points out the logical fallacies in the misogynistic attitudes and "findings" of "scientists" in 1876. Not 1776-- 1876. If this is how people were thinking 100 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, how were they thinking on July 4, 1776?
In 1976-- not 1776-- the Equal Rights Amendment, stating that the guidelines set down in the Constitution of the United States apply to all Americans regardless of sex, had still not been ratified. after being introduced to every single Congress for the previous 50 years. (Guess what? It continues to be introduced to every single Congress since the 1980s, and still has not been ratified.)
My point is this: When the Declaration of Independence was written, "men" did not include "women." So, by natural extension, I must ask the next question: Does the word "men" include all "women" today?
Let's think about it this way: Guys, what if we did change the Declaration of Independence to say "women" instead of "men," but told you that the word "women" includes all men? How would you feel about that?
Guys, what if the United States Senate were made up of 83 women and 17 men? What if the Congressional leadership were made up of 7 women and 1 man?
Would you be okay with that? Would you feel underrepresented? Undervalued? What would you do about it?
And women, we're not off the hook, either. Why aren't we doing something about this? Why aren't we talking about it? Why aren't we upset?
To conclude, I want to be absolutely clear: I am NOT advocating for changing the language of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or any other historical documents. That is not my point, but rather a nice hyperbole (rhetorical device #1) to make you think about my point. I don't think the words on the page matter so much as what's in our heads. I am advocating for a change in the way we think. When someone asks if you are a feminist and you say no, is that because it doesn't bother you that women are underrepresented and undervalued in our society? Or is it because it's not cool to be a feminist?
If the definition of feminist is belief in equality between sexes, then we should be all be feminists. Whether people judge us for that, or think that all feminists are man-haters, or say we are a bunch of wusses shouldn't matter; say what you are, and don't be afraid of a label that you should hold with pride.
I challenge you to make 2076 look a lot better for both sexes than 1976 did, or 1876, or 1776. You get to do that. If I'm lucky enough to be alive in 2076, I'll be 95 years old, but I will think of each of you, and I'll be grateful to you for the equal rights I have because of the change you create. You get to do that-- own it. That's my point.
Hello Mrs. Foreman! I would just like to start off by saying that your introduction was very interesting, and instantly stood out to me. It is weird to think about the Declaration of Independence saying that all women are created equal. I do not know why that was so weird for me to read, and the thought of that in its own kind of scares me. Our society gives way less credibility to women than we should, and like you said in your intro, most people (especially men) would read it and just accuse you of being a crazy feminist for portraying this idea of having it flipped around! I thought it was a very interesting post, and it definitely made me think about a lot! Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI do understand why we needed active feminists in the past: to choose who to/not to marry, to gain the right to own property, to vote, etc, whereas nowadays, active feminists often focus on double standards and problems with society in general today when it comes to oversexuality and exploitation. In addition, as you also pointed out, people often bring up the misrepresentation in the legislative branch, and government overall.Interestingly, though, this is possibly the one point that actually annoys me sometimes. Yes, women SHOULD be represented in government. However, is it guaranteed that a women will best represent women? Because it is hard if not impossible to ever have a completely unbiased social structure, no matter how hard we try. A women may have to overcompensate in some ways to please the people, esp. the men in power, and never be able to get anything done. Even women may be annoyed with her if she is elected simply because she is all "FEMINIST!" A man would not have to deal with this. Moreover, should it not be the most competent people in charge? My biggest point is that I'd personally rather have a competent persona that can represents my views to the best extent possible, and just being a women would not qualify someone to represent me, in my opinion. --> I really did like a lot of the points you pointed out, but I probably need to stop talking now haha -Silver
ReplyDelete