Abigail Littleton

Feminist Theory

Aldridge Sanford

February 20, 2007

Reading Response

Stanton, Anthony, Truth, and Douglass

            All of the readings are defined by their authors.  These people were movers, shakers, and revolutionaries.  They were true patriots.  They were brilliant.  If people in today’s society could make arguments like these people did, we may not have such debatable issues.  After reading each of these pieces, it seems confusing as to why the suffrage movement did not attain success within Stanton and Anthony’s lifetime.

            The “Declarations of Sentiments” should be submitted to Congress every session.  The brilliance in this piece of work was astounding.  What better way to speak to a nation of white men who rule over all else, than to use their own words?  How could the white man deny others what he could not deny himself?  A declaration of the rights of women was what the nation needed.  This piece served well as a wake up call to those who would listen.  It was also very enlightening that the piece called for equality, not dominance.  Stanton was fair in her assessment that “woman is man’s equal” (73) and thus, “the same transgressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman” (73).

            Truth is a brilliant speaker.  Though not academically eloquent, this woman was a master storyteller.  Aristotle would be proud of her candid use of ethos to connect to her audience.  Her simple logic drew you to a place where there is only one answer; the one she wants you to have.  This makes her a master rhetorician as well.  Her words are not only enjoyable to listen to, but the must have cut to the bone for they were sharp as they were smart.  She, like Stanton, used the white man’s argument against him: “he says women can’t have as much rights as men, ‘cause Christ wasn’t a woman!  Where did your Christ come from?  From God and a woman!  Man had nothing to do with Him” (79).

            Anthony weaved an argument that left nothing open to debate.  Her speech would also have made Aristotle proud because of her direct use of logos.  Her logic was more than solid.  She left no stone unturned, and argued for two positions: give women equal rights as men, or leave women out of your business.  Women cannot be excluded from the law and held accountable to it.  She asks the white man to make the choice between the two options: “if you insist on this version of the letter of the law, we shall insist that you be consistent and accept the other horn of the dilemma, which would compel you to exempt women from…the violation of laws.  There is no she or her or hers in the tax laws and this is equally true of all the criminal laws” (93).  Anthony’s line of logic is different from the rest because if claims that her argument is already supported by the law, and just asks that people recognize it as such.  She also brings her audience to a set of choices rather than one choice.  This line of logic provokes much more thought on the part of the audience.

            Douglass, known for his eloquence, became a “woman’s rights man” (98) in part due to the author of the first reading.  Stanton’s argument stood the test of his logical powers.  I think his line of argument the most simplistic and profound of them all.  He sums up, very well, a general reaction to the other three authors.  He does not beat around the bush, but rather directly states “I have never yet been able to find one consideration, one argument, or suggestion in favor of man’s right to participate in civil government which did not equally apply to the right of women” (99).  For all the brilliant arguments the previous authors labored to produce, it really does come down to the simple fact that there is no argument against women’s rights. 

            What ties these authors together, other than their initial cause, is their plight.  They were of lower caliber in both status and education than those they were arguing against.  How much brilliance shines from these people, to know that they did not receive the educational value that their enemy did, and yet they can stump them.  If all people could have such natural intelligence than the questions these people ask wouldn’t be relevant.  All the established education, all the power, and all the privilege did not give the established order the upper hand over truth and natural intelligence.  The white man had all the resources, but did not know how to use them correctly.  These authors had little resources, but they dominated the educated thought in this particular debate.  That is what is most remarkable 

  1. How was it the Quakers taught equality but their teachings didn’t reach the nation?
  2. What has happened to activism like this?