1848-2006: The Evolution of Womens Position in Society - Essay Example

1848-2006: The Evolution of Women’s Position in Society. Stephanie Coontz’s “Too Close For Comfort,” is an article published in the New York Times, in 2006. It addresses current sociological studies which find that there is a steep decline in American’s close relationships outside the sphere of marriage and the family. Coontz traces the changes which occurred in the role of marriage, as the source of emotional support to men and women, over a period: from Biblical times, through the medieval and Victorian ages, to the present decade. She holds that the emphasis on romantic love and marriage is an ideology which held reign only in the first half of the twentieth century. Coontz argues that while the expectation of finding “fulfillment and friendship in marriage” (10) is justified, it is equally important to strengthen relationships outside the world of matrimony. “The Declaration of Sentiments,” drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, is a milestone in the women’s suffragette movement in the United States. In 1848, the year in which the convention was held at Seneca Falls, New York, and at which the declaration was issued, the status of American women was drastically inferior to that of men. Stanton and her co-reformers list the grievances of American women, and formally announce their resolution to “use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object” (Stanton, 13). On the surface, Stephanie Coontz’s article and the Convention’s Declaration address entirely different issues: the former analyzes the cause and effects of making marriage the main source of emotional support, while the latter addresses women’s status. However, a deeper reading reveals an underlying vein of similarity in the two pieces. Coontz and Stanton both explore the status of women, and their happiness, in terms of marriage. Coontz explores the role of marriage as the source of emotional support for both men and women. She holds that the “the idea that individuals could meet their deepest needs only through romantic love, culminating in marriage” (Coontz, 9), originated only in the early twentieth century, reached its peak in the 1950s, and then declined. Before this focus on marriage as the most important relationship emerged, most societies condemned any move “to elevate marital affection and nuclear-family ties above commitments to neighbors, extended kin, civic duty and religion” (Coontz, 8). This was obviously a safeguard against the danger of the fabric of society being torn from a wholesome entity into the fragments of countless nuclear families. As culture was changed by the industrial economy, social obligations weakened, and the belief “that marriage and parenthood could satisfy all an individual’s needs” (Coontz, 9), gained widespread credence. However, as an increasing number of women entered the workforce, they realized the importance of forging “social contacts and friendships outside the home” (Coontz, 9). Again, in this decade, there appears to be a revival of the idea of marriage as the exclusive realm of emotional support. Coontz considers this to be retrogressive - a “slipping back” (Coontz, 10). She attributes this falling back to the fact that a growing percentage of marriages have both partners at work. The increase in work hours “has devoured time once spent cultivating friendships” (Coontz, 10), and thrown individuals back into seeking emotional support solely in marriage. Coontz recommends the strengthening of outside relationships as a means of emotional satisfaction. The Declaration drafted by Stanton focuses on the various ways in which the status of American women is subservient to that of men. Stanton categorically declares that the prevailing social norms, sanctioned by men, are aimed at “the establishment of an absolute tyranny over” women (11). The Declaration goes on to give a comprehensive list of the injuries against women: a woman cannot vote; she is barred from speaking in public or holding office; she cannot attend college; her employment options are limited to teaching, tailoring, domestic or mill work; she cannot make contracts, sue in court, divorce an abusive husband, gain custody of her children, or own property; she is totally under the control of her husband, even in the matter of her own wages; obedience to her husband is a given; she is excluded from public participation in church affairs; divorce laws fail to take the woman’s position into consideration. The adoption of “a different code of morals for men and women” (Stanton, 12) further degrades the woman’s status in society. After listing the various factors that play a role in the subjugation of women, The Declaration goes on to pass several resolutions, geared towards the removal of these inequities, based on the unequivocal belief “that woman is mans equal” (Stanton, 13). These resolutions include: laws which discriminate against women cannot be accepted as legal; women must be made aware of their subjugation; men are duty-bound to encourage women’s participation in religious gatherings; men and women should be judged on the same moral standards; women have “a sacred right to the electoral franchise” (Stanton, 14). The Declaration makes an eloquent plea for women’s equality. A comparative reading of “Too Close For Comfort,” and “The Declaration of Sentiments,” makes the reader intensely aware of the contrast in women’s status in the two time periods. Stephanie Coontz has written “Too Close For Comfort,” more than a hundred and fifty years after the Convention at Seneca Falls. It is now very much taken for granted “that all men and women are created equal” (Stanton, 11). Women have the franchise, equal rights over property, are very much a part of all the three branches of government and the religious ministries, and have long since gained “admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States” (Stanton, 13). Coontz’s article belongs to a period in American history when the women’s suffrage movement has clearly triumphed in its objective to secure “to woman an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions, and commerce” (Stanton, 14). In contrast with Stanton’s time, when married women predominantly stayed at home, “60 percent of American married couples have both partners in the work force” (Coontz, 10). Increased working hours for both men and women leaves women with less time at home, when compared to their sisters of the last century. Paradoxically, “mothers and fathers today spend even more time with their youngsters than parents did 40 years ago” (Coontz, 10). It is evident that women’s status, employment, and child rearing, have undergone a sea change from the 1840s to the present decade. Coontz and Stanton couch their arguments in terms of the happiness of women. The Declaration categorically asserts the right of women to “the pursuit of happiness,” and stresses the necessity for the installation of a government which will “effect their safety and happiness” (Stanton, 11). The prevailing suppression of women has caused pain and suffering. Divorce laws and conditions ignore the happiness of the woman. It is “the true and substantial happiness of woman” (Stanton, 13) which is the overriding duty of all human laws. The Declaration couches its definition of happiness in terms of a woman’s right to enjoy equal privileges with men, freedom from dependence on men, and the liberty to give expression to the full range of her inherent capabilities. In short, the Declaration equates women’s happiness with the freedom to live life on their own terms. Stanton and her colleagues argue for women to break free from the stifling marriages, in which they are bound by vows of obedience to their husbands, compelled to hand over their property and wages to him, and allow him to be, “to all intents and purposes, her master” (Stanton, 12). The Declaration emphasizes a woman’s life outside marriage and aims to create awareness in women about the other spheres of life waiting for them: politics, religious ministry, education, and varied prestigious employment. In this respect, Coontz differs from the approach taken in the Declaration, as she explores a woman’s happiness within the bonds of matrimony. Coontz admits that contemporary women find “joys in marriage our great-great-grandparents never did” (8). An increasing number of women discuss important issues only with their husbands. A significant percentage depend “totally on a spouse for important conversations” (Coontz, 8). In total contrast to the gender-skewed marriages of Stanton’s time, contemporary, “marriage is generally based on more equality and deeper friendship” (Coontz, 10). But this very improvement in the marriage relationship is now posing another threat to women’s happiness. It is ironical that women who had tasted the freedom won by the reform movement set in motion at Seneca Falls, in 1848, were willing, in the 1950s, to accept “that marriage and motherhood offered them complete fulfillment”(Coontz, 9). While the suffragettes urged their fellow-women to move out of the restricted world of matrimony onto to public stage, contemporary women are in danger of once again becoming totally dependent on marriage for all their emotional and social needs. A comparative reading of Stephanie Coontz’s “Too Close For Comfort,” and “The Declaration of Sentiments,” drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, is very thought-provoking. The inequalities in the status of women, which the Declaration resolved to abolish, have been destroyed. However, modern women are in danger of voluntarily confining themselves within the restricted sphere of marriage once again. The very stifling atmosphere which the women of the 1840s attempted to escape from now threatens to engulf the contemporary woman. The comparison is a wake-up call to all women. The need of the hour is to strike a healthy balance between martial life and the larger social relationships offered by society at large. Works Cited. Coontz, Stephanie. “Too Close For Comfort.” The New York Times. November 7 2006. Web. 6 October 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/opinion/07coontz.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “The Declaration of Sentiments.” Seneca Falls Women’s Rights Convention. July 1848. Web. 6 October 2012 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0875901.html EVER since the Census Bureau released figures last month showing that married-couple households are now a minority, my phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from people asking: “How can we save marriage? How can we make Americans understand that marriage is the most significant emotional connection they will ever make, the one place to find social support and personal fulfillment?” I think these are the wrong questions — indeed, such questions would have been almost unimaginable through most of history. It has only been in the last century that Americans have put all their emotional eggs in the basket of coupled love. Because of this change, many of us have found joys in marriage our great-great-grandparents never did. But we have also neglected our other relationships, placing too many burdens on a fragile institution and making social life poorer in the process. A study released this year showed just how dependent we’ve become on marriage. Three sociologists at the University of Arizona and Duke University found that from 1985 to 2004 Americans reported a marked decline in the number of people with whom they discussed meaningful matters. People reported fewer close relationships with co-workers, extended family members, neighbors and friends. The only close relationship where more people said they discussed important matters in 2004 than in 1985 was marriage. In fact, the number of people who depended totally on a spouse for important conversations, with no other person to turn to, almost doubled, to 9.4 percent from 5 percent. Not surprisingly, the number of people saying they didn’t have anyone in whom they confided nearly tripled. The solution to this isolation is not to ramp up our emotional dependence on marriage. Until 100 years ago, most societies agreed that it was dangerously antisocial, even pathologically self-absorbed, to elevate marital affection and nuclear-family ties above commitments to neighbors, extended kin, civic duty and religion. St. Paul complained that married men were more concerned with pleasing their wives than pleasing God. In John Adams’s view, a “passion for the public good” was “superior to all private passions.” In both England and America, moralists bewailed “excessive” married love, which encouraged “men and women to be always taken up with each other.” From medieval days until the early 19th century, diaries and letters more often used the word love to refer to neighbors, cousins and fellow church members than to spouses. When honeymoons first gained favor in the 19th century, couples often took along relatives or friends for company. Victorian novels and diaries were as passionate about brother-sister relationships and same-sex friendships as about marital ties. The Victorian refusal to acknowledge strong sexual desires among respectable men and women gave people a wider outlet for intense emotions, including physical touch, than we see today. Men wrote matter-of-factly about retiring to bed with a male roommate, “and in each other’s arms did friendship sink peacefully to sleep.” Upright Victorian matrons thought nothing of kicking their husbands out of bed when a female friend came to visit. They spent the night kissing, hugging and pouring out their innermost thoughts. By the early 20th century, though, the sea change in the culture wrought by the industrial economy had loosened social obligations to neighbors and kin, giving rise to the idea that individuals could meet their deepest needs only through romantic love, culminating in marriage. Under the influence of Freudianism, society began to view intense same-sex ties with suspicion and people were urged to reject the emotional claims of friends and relatives who might compete with a spouse for time and affection. The insistence that marriage and parenthood could satisfy all an individual’s needs reached a peak in the cult of “togetherness” among middle-class suburban Americans in the 1950s. Women were told that marriage and motherhood offered them complete fulfillment. Men were encouraged to let their wives take care of their social lives. But many men and women found these prescriptions stifling. Women who entered the work force in the 1960s joyfully rediscovered social contacts and friendships outside the home. “It was so stimulating to have real conversations with other people,” a woman who lived through this period told me, “to go out after work with friends from the office or to have people over other than my husband’s boss or our parents.” And women’s lead in overturning the cult of 1950s marriage inspired many men to rediscover what earlier generations of men had taken for granted — that men need deep emotional connections with other men, not just their wives. Researchers soon found that men and women with confidants beyond the nuclear family were mentally and physically healthier than people who relied on just one other individual for emotional intimacy and support. So why do we seem to be slipping back in this regard? It is not because most people have voluntarily embraced nuclear-family isolation. Indeed, the spread of “virtual” communities on the Internet speaks to a deep hunger to reach out to others. Instead, it’s the expansion of the post-industrial economy that seems to be driving us back to a new dependence on marriage. According to the researchers Kathleen Gerson and Jerry Jacobs, 60 percent of American married couples have both partners in the work force, up from 36 percent in 1970, and the average two-earner couple now works 82 hours a week. This is probably why the time Americans spend socializing with others off the job has declined by almost 25 percent since 1965. Their free hours are spent with spouses, and as a study by Suzanne Bianchi of the University of Maryland released last month showed, with their children — mothers and fathers today spend even more time with their youngsters than parents did 40 years ago. As Americans lose the wider face-to-face ties that build social trust, they become more dependent on romantic relationships for intimacy and deep communication, and more vulnerable to isolation if a relationship breaks down. In some cases we even cause the breakdown by loading the relationship with too many expectations. Marriage is generally based on more equality and deeper friendship than in the past, but even so, it is hard for it to compensate for the way that work has devoured time once spent cultivating friendships. The solution is not to revive the failed marital experiment of the 1950s, as so many commentators noting the decline in married-couple households seem to want. Nor is it to lower our expectations that we’ll find fulfillment and friendship in marriage. Instead, we should raise our expectations for, and commitment to, other relationships, especially since so many people now live so much of their lives outside marriage. Paradoxically, we can strengthen our marriages the most by not expecting them to be our sole refuge from the pressures of the modern work force. Instead we need to restructure both work and social life so we can reach out and build ties with others, including people who are single or divorced. That indeed would be a return to marital tradition — not the 1950s model, but the pre-20th-century model that has a much more enduring pedi- gree. Stephanie Coontz, a history professor at Evergreen State College, is the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.” Seneca Falls, New York, 1848 Source: U.S. Dept. of State The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions was drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton for the womens rights convention at Seneca Falls, New York in 1848. Based on the American Declaration of Independence, the Sentiments demanded equality with men before the law, in education and employment. Here, too, was the first pronouncement demanding that women be given the right to vote. Sentiments When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of natures God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they were accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled. The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise. He has compelled her to submit to law in the formation of which she had no voice. He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men, both natives and foreigners. Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides. He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead. He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns. He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master-the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty and to administer chastisement. He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes and, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women-the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man and giving all power into his hands. After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it. He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known. He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her. He allows her in church, as well as state, but a subordinate position, claiming apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the church. He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man. He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God. He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life. Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation, in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States. In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the state and national legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of conventions embracing every part of the country. Resolutions Whereas, the great precept of nature is conceded to be that “man shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness.” Blackstone in his Commentaries remarks that this law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their validity, and all their authority, mediately and immediately, from this original; therefore, Resolved, That such laws as conflict, in any way, with the true and substantial happiness of woman, are contrary to the great precept of nature and of no validity, for this is superior in obligation to any other. Resolved, that all laws which prevent woman from occupying such a station in society as her conscience shall dictate, or which place her in a position inferior to that of man, are contrary to the great precept of nature and therefore of no force or authority. Resolved, that woman is mans equal, was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such. Resolved, that the women of this country ought to be enlightened in regard to the laws under which they live, that they may no longer publish their degradation by declaring themselves satisfied with their present position, nor their ignorance, by asserting that they have all the rights they want. Resolved, that inasmuch as man, while claiming for himself intellectual superiority, does accord to woman moral superiority, it is preeminently his duty to encourage her to speak and teach, as she has an opportunity, in all religious assemblies. Resolved, that the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior that is required of woman in the social state also be required of man, and the same transgressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman. Resolved, that the objection of indelicacy and impropriety, which is so often brought against woman when she addresses a public audience, comes with a very ill grace from those who encourage, by their attendance, her appearance on the stage, in the concert, or in feats of the circus. Resolved, that woman has too long rested satisfied in the circumscribed limits which corrupt customs and a perverted application of the Scriptures have marked out for her, and that it is time she should move in the enlarged sphere which her great Creator has assigned her. Resolved, that it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise. Resolved, that the equality of human rights results necessarily from the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and responsibilities. Resolved, that the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions, and commerce. Resolved, therefore, that, being invested by the Creator with the same capabilities and same consciousness of responsibility for their exercise, it is demonstrably the right and duty of woman, equally with man, to promote every righteous cause by every righteous means; and especially in regard to the great subjects of morals and religion, it is self-evidently her right to participate with her brother in teaching them, both in private and in public, by writing and by speaking, by any instrumentalities proper to be used, and in any assemblies proper to be held; and this being a self-evident truth growing out of the divinely implanted principles of human nature, any custom or authority adverse to it, whether modern or wearing the hoary sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as a self-evident falsehood, and at war with mankind. Read More