Week 4

Iron Jawed Angels

I don't know why I expected the suffrage movement to have been easier. I don't know why I expected the suffrage movement to be more widely discussed. Of course entrenched systems of privilege fight for their continuation, and of course the difficult struggle for women's right to vote would be largely ignored by that same system that attempted to originally deny it.
The film Iron Jawed Angels has attained a privileged spot on my list of favorite movies. I was impressed by the writing, acting, directing, music, and everything else that goes into a movie that I don't know how to appreciate. I don't know if I was surprised by the struggle of the suffragists or disgusted. I found something so familiar on the faces of those rushing to inflict violence against the women in the parade or picketing the White House or in the jailhouse. Patriarchy and privilege are so entrenched; any move to subvert the system is met with both violence and disgust. And that scares me.
I thought the movie was laced with strikingly humanizing depictions of all of the main characters. I guess that's how you make a movie interesting, but I still really appreciate understanding these powerful women that did so much to change the world as complete human beings, even if the personal stuff was largely fictionalized. I was so impressed by the strength of every woman. The determination to move forward, and to do the right thing, in the face of unbelievable adversity inspired me. In the face of the status-quo favoring NWSA, Alice Paul took as drastic action as necessary to ensure a constitutional amendment. At a time when the President of the United States viewed the enfranchisement of half of his nation's population as a "special interest", state-by-state focus simply wasn't going to work. By being vigilante in her advocacy and drastic in her methods, including maintaining a hunger strike while imprisoned, Alice Paul was able to achieve victory when the United States was at a time of war, and couldn't handle the negative publicity.

Manifesta
Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards wrote Manifesta. It begins with a dinner party, which I find inherently exclusionary. I’ve recently begun an article about taking a break from Feminism for Queer theory. The introductory definition of feminism articulated it as a fundamental distinction between M and F with M oppressing F. I much prefer to make the M: masculine and the F feminine. Then I can neatly fit into the F and fight against oppression. When groups make the F: female, my voice is excluded along with, I assume, trans voices.
This becomes relevant when the Norman Women’s Collective only invites ‘men’ to the last meeting of the month, and only after an email informing the collective of their presence beforehand. There are a whole slew of issues I have with this.
However, Baumgardner and Richards posit the consciousness-raising that occurs when women speak about male supremacy is a “radical…process…[what] spur[s] women to change the world and transform the personal into the political” (14). I have a hard time remaining angry and excluded, I don’t fully understand the limits of my male privilege, so I think often I should just let spaces exist without me.
What follows is an articulation of a desire for a third wave manifesta and what Baumgardner and Richards would put on the docket. Abortions and STDs and male accountability. I did like the discussion of abortion. The “anti-choice fringe is more activist, organized, and better funded” (32). Note the billboard sized display on South Oval the week of the election. Furthermore, “the most anti-choice states spend the least amount of money on children’s services,” while “states that were pro-choice were the most pro-children” (32). Your politics are just patriarchy. You can try to wrap them in religion, but at the core you hate women and children and that’s not very Christian.
DISCUSSION OF MARRIAGE! I can’t comment. I guess I can, I did some highlighting.
WORK AND FAMILY, WITH COMMENTS
“But I get so tired of asking” (39). This reminds me of my apartment. I do the cleaning. And I hint at the desire for help, but Seth and Kevin refuse to clean anything if I don’t specifically request it. Even if I do, Seth refuses to take out the garbage. Elizabeth and I are the only ones that will do cleaning. It bothers me. Reminds me of my parents. Marriage probably sucks.
Marriage excludes “same-sex couples from its benefits, responsibilities, and pleasures” (40). But even an inclusive marriage would be exclusive. The benefits and responsibilities shouldn’t be confined to romantic-love inclined couples. I have a hard time getting on board.
Motherhood: is the “opposite of liberation”? “You are bound to your body, to your baby, and to societal expectations in which motherhood means always having to say you are sorry…unrewarded by a system that gives no economic value to rearing children and other tasks of human maintenance” (44). Gay couples create “revolutionary” families (46)! Again consciousness raising is presented as the solution! Creating activists that fight for politics that supports women and children.
My last line highlighted:
“What weaves a feminist movement together is consciousness of inequities and a commitment to changing them” (48).

Alright! Let’s start our third wave!