Choosing a single ideal figurehead for the women’s rights movement would be an incredibly difficult task. Considering all of the monumental women who have significantly contributed to the women’s movement since the movement’s beginning, selecting only one would be nearly impossible. Hypothetically, a leader or figurehead of the women’s movement would essentially have to embody an identity shared by many, if not the majority, of members. Perhaps, rather than focusing on a central identity such as gender or race, centering the movement on a common goal would be more fitting. Addressing the women’s movement as a coalition rather than a collective identity would be the first step towards identifying a figurehead. Kimberle Crenshaw’s article attempts to bring an understanding to the reader of how race and gender intersect in the lives of minority women who experience violence such as battery and rape. She first addresses structural intersectionality by stating it is, “The ways in which the location of women of color at the intersection of race and gender makes our actual experiences of domestic violence, rape, and remedial reform qualitatively different than that of white women” (Crenshaw 1991: 1). My interpretation of this statement stems from the civil rights and original women’s movements. While in the civil rights movement the central identity of the members was based on race. African American women and men had to unite in order to combat segregation and other racist laws restricting freedoms of African Americans. Similar with the original women’s movement, women were standing up against men and the laws that limited their freedom. Black, and other colored women, were marginalized. Their needs were different from their fellow black male supporters in the civil rights movement and different from white women members of the women’s movement. As Crenshaw illustrates in her research, identity politics, “Frequently conflates or ignores intragroup differences” (Crenshaw 1991: 2). After reading Crenshaw’s article, I feel that if a single woman was to represent the women’s movement, that women must be a minority. By electing a minority woman as the figurehead of the women’s movement would potentially attract many minority women to the cause as they may feel their needs and identities are welcomed. Crenshaw also notes that race and gender are not the only intersecting identities that influence women’s lives. Sexuality and social class are also important factors when considering a leader for this movement. Sojourner Truth, born into slavery, was an African American woman known for her work as a feminist and abolitionist. Faced with the intersection of race, gender and class, Truth delivered her famous speech, “Ain’t I a Woman?” at a women’s rights convention in Akron, Ohio. Truth, a woman indeed, asked the audience why they were not fighting for her rights too! After all she stated, “Ain’t I a woman?” the women’s movement in the early beginnings had an identity and frame that did not encompass women who fell outside of the categories of white and middle class. Often these women involved in the beginnings had time to meet while many women, specifically minority and lower-class women, were unable to attend. Furthermore, if African American women began participating in the women’s movement their male counterparts may have interpreted their actions has disloyal. Considering socioeconomic class, selecting a woman from the middle class would be most appropriate for an ideal representation. If the figurehead were to be from the upper class, many middle and working class women might feel as though she would never understand the hardships of life that they experience. By choosing a middle class representative the median between poor and wealthy would be represented. Another alternative would be to appoint a figurehead who was born into a poor or working class family and worked towards a higher class. Sexuality as an identity would be, in my opinion, the most difficult choice for the right figurehead. Radical feminists see heterosexual relationships as oppressive. Having a heterosexual leader or figurehead may infuriate this section of the women’s movement. Finally, looking at religious affiliation, selecting a woman who does not claim a specific religious identity would be most appropriate for the women’s movement. As we read in Young’s article, religion played a major role in defeating the ERA proposal. Mormon women were called by the LDS church leaders to denounce the equal rights amendment. Young argued in his article that Mormon women used the political engagement to serve the church and ultimately secure their eternal fate. I do not necessarily disagree with the gender roles established in the Mormon faith, however, in my opinion religion and political agendas should remain separate from one another. The figurehead of the women’s movement would ideally keep her religious involvement to a minimum when addressing social and political issues and representing the women’s movement.
In looking at the intersections of race, gender, class and sexuality, finding a suitable figurehead for the women’s movement would be incredibly difficult. Because of identity politics, minority, poor and lesbian women feel marginalized. For the purposes of making a final selection, here are the characteristics I feel would ideally represent a figurehead of the women’s movement: minority, lesbian, non-radical, middle-class, and in the age range of 25-35. The benefit of selecting these characteristics and identities is many women would feel some part of their identity is represented within the women’s movement. In order to prevent intragroup conflict within the movement, having a woman that embodies many different identities would be ideal.
In Hendrickson’s article, “The Ladies Before Rosa: Let Us Now Praise Unfamous Women,” he addresses how many women participated in exactly the same behavior as Rosa Parks by refusing to move from their seats on a public bus, yet these women are not recognized in the same respect as Parks. Hendrickson notes that Claudette Colvin was an adolescent when she refused to abandon her seat for a white citizen. Further, she was from a poor family. Parks on the other hand was a well-respected member of the community, beautiful, and youth leader. While many women uttered “No” previous to Parks, she was the woman who sparked an entire movement. I think that had Colvin headed the boycott many participants would not have supported her in the way Parks was supported. Based on Colvin’s age and community involvement she did not carry the necessary weight needed to start a movement. Community members could identify with Parks and furthermore she was respected. While there were many women before Rosa Parks' time that refused to give up their bus seats, only Parks could ignite the fight of the civil rights movement.
Dana,
ReplyDeleteYour approach to the ideal figurehead is logical and insightful. I agree with your logic about the ideal icon for this movement and in my own ideal icon represents many of the same characteristics as yours, such as the age range, minority race,and non-radical. I think it would be most important if this person came from poverty and worked her way up the social class ladder because it would prove that she has experienced many struggles to get to her desired place in society. I am not 100 percent about what the ideal sexuality would be for the figurehead because it seems like a lesbian leader might also prevent many women who are more traditional or who have husbands to join the cause. I did not consider this notion until reading your blog and I guess what I had envisioned when I wrote my blog was a single mother type icon. It is interesting to read all the various perspectives... Anyway, until now I have never really thought before about how people become "iconic faces" for a movement and did not realize what a strategy it is to pick the right person.
I also agree with your point that Claudette Colvin would not have been as successful as Rosa Parks for all of the reasons you mentioned. Rosa Parks was the obvious choice for the movement. It is unfortunate for people like Colvin not to get as much recognition because essentially all these women did the same thing, but their backgrounds or character prevented them from notoriety.
On a side note, I really did enjoy reading your blog and felt that it flowed nicely and that your thoughts were clearly organized in your writing. Also, how do you get the pictures to go into the middle of the text? Every time I upload pictures it automatically puts them at the top.
Jillian,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response and feedback. I agree with you that a lesbian could potentially "turn off" heterosexual women. If there was a way to leave sexuality out of the criteria, I would opt for that, but I'm not sure if that would be possible. I remember in my first women's studies class the professor told us that radical feminists see the act of intercourse of oppressive. So, most radicals would never put themselves in a heterosexual relationship and find this action to be a necessity in combating sexism. Interesting right? I mean, for me, I always had this idea of what a "feminist" was, but I was blown away that some women actually think this way. It's tricky, because some women are 100% against heterosexuality, while others are. I think this is something that could be debated for quite some time.
As for the pictures, just cut and paste the link where you want the picture to appear in the paragraph (the code that you get when you upload the picture...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour sequence of logic in identifying ideal figurehead traits was very interesting to follow. I also thought that this post was well written, yet retained the kind of raw uncertainty that I believe is inherent in these types of investigations. I could tell that you were sorting your answers out as you went along, which made this post very non-confrontational. It's obvious that you recognize that there is no definitive answer. When I wrote on this topic myself, I was torn in what to write because I was put off by the judgment that I learned from the reading is present when movements select figureheads, as in the case of E.D. Nixon and Rosa Parks.
ReplyDeleteE.D. Nixon made many judgments against the character and social status of the women who came before Rosa Parks, including Colvin. Yes, these judgments were centered on his responsibility in selecting just the right figurehead, but those judgments served also to demerit fellow activists, brothers and sisters for the same cause. It seems a loosing battle on both ends to select a figurehead, yet once selected, figures like Rosa Parks certainly have done immense good in furthering social movements. It puts a human face on social issues that cannot be replaced by other forms of campaign. So, I was torn. I'm glad to get the sense that you didn't feel there was a precise right and wrong for these kinds of judgments.
Ultimately, if the leadership of the women's rights movement were to select a figurehead for 2010 forward, the powers that be would have to make those tough judgments to justify their selection process. I feel that your points regarding those ideal characterizes is justified and makes sense. Certainly, you paint a complete picture of one type of figurehead that would likely appeal to many activists. I wonder if the selection process itself, however, would turn women off seeing as there are many potential figureheads to consider.
Surely many activists would have a strong opinion about who they would want and who they would not want for a figurehead. At least without a figurehead, women are not forced to identify themselves with a specific representative for the entire movement. As the movement shifts towards more intersectional goals, I wonder if it would be beneficial for the movement itself to push more specific issues with representatives based on the interest group (such as lesbian women's rights, minority women's rights, etc.) What do you think?