[2Wycked]

The Seneca Falls Convention was held in the summer of 1848, between the days of July 18 - 20 in Seneca Falls, in upstate New York.

It has been credited as the first, formalized meeting of women's rights activists in America. At this point, there was no talk of feminism; the rhetoric was about women's rights. It was a hot, stuffy affair of about 300 men & women. Tellingly, men were not allowed to be stand-up speakers, as the women were trying to counterbalance male domination of the political sphere. Already, we see the terrible roots of feminism as female supremacy.

A declaration of sentiments was drafted and some interesting & damning debates over class & race started here and still percolate & permeate feminist discourse.

The two primary organizers of the convention were Lucretia Mott & Elizabeth Cady Stanton.



Elizabeth Cady Stanton is quite possibly one of the most influential people in American history. As usual, her psychologically deficient childhood birthed her feminism. She was born into great wealth with a father who was a prominent lawyer. There were eleven children born into the family, five of whom died in early childhood. This caused her mother to fall into a life-long depression. Her father's robust professional life prevented him from having a great influence on her directly. The parenting in the family fell to the eldest daughter - never a good situation.

Stanton took to her father's legal library and began to develop a knowledge base. She attended elite primary schools and won awards for her debating skills. Her father famously remarked after her getting an award, "How I wish you were a boy!" Stanton took this comment to believe that he valued boys over girls. In reality, it seems that he valued them differently, not as the same. A key error in feminism is that they assume men & women are the same and as such, valuing a man for this & a women for that necessarily means a person values the man over the woman.

However, we see the profile of a woman desperately seeking the approval of a man - her father. Her mother is a supremely weak person and that probably fuels her own inability to value a woman's distinct contribution to a marriage & childrearing. As such, she found a beta to marry & took on the role of "voluntary motherhood." She rubbed elbows fellow 1%'ers in New York City and loved the intellectual debate - probably all fueling her narcissism as she got to feel superior to men as a class if she bested a man in a debate, all the while doing it in a supremely class & race privileged atmosphere.

Eventually, she moved to Seneca Falls, where she fell into a depression because of the lack of intellectual stimulation, in which she did not get narcissistic self-preening validated. She traveled to London in 1840 to the Anti-Slavery convention, where she met Lucretia Mott. The two bonded over women's rights, as they were not allowed to speak or vote at the convention, as the organizers were worried the two would push women's rights & derail the convention.



Lucretia Mott, herself, was a Quaker and was primarily interested in abolishing slavery. Her interest in women's rights paled in comparison to Stanton's, especially as Stanton radicalized her views. Mott was interested in expanding social respect (worship) for women's roles in society. Women like her were strong proponents of women as men's moral superiors. She was opposed to female suffrage, noting that politics are corrupt and subject to power relations that prevent true morality from being used. Part of this relates to the privileged women that would develop as a Gibson Girl in the Gilded Age of America, but also part of that is Mott's observation that voting isn't as close to as relevant as a person might think.

However, their deep friendship & mutual correspondence lead to the Seneca Falls Convention. Predictably, the narcissistic Stanton insisted it be in the town in which she lived, which is quite the demand in a world that doesn't have the automobile.

Regardless, around 300 people showed up the event headlined by Mott & Stanton. It was held during a hot, blustery series of days.

The first day, the men were required to be silent as the two headliners talked about the importance of women's rights as general concept. Stanton recited her "Declaration of Sentiments" in the morning session. What I find is humorous is they had breaks for refreshments in both days, when men plowed through in greater heat to draft the Constitution. I had better keep my misogynistic observations to myself.

Later that day, debates over female suffrage occurred, with a "humorous" recounting of a woman's idea she works so much harder than her husband - her slaving away all day while he comes home from work to sit around. That woman is already admitting she has class privilege as not many men worked outside the home in such a manner in America.



The second day was the most important. Stanton's declaration was adopted by the entire convention, with men's & women's signatures segregated on the basis of sex - in the name of equality, of course. What is most striking is the only black person allowed to the event - Fredrick Douglass - gave a rousing speech about the equality of all people, black & female, that is often cited as marrying the nascent women's rights movement and abolition as one. It isn't.

Before talking about race & women's rights, consider the roots of Christianity in women's rights. Stanton herself distanced herself from Christianity in her life, but knew if she was to reach women, she needed to use Christianity. Her declaration was couched in Biblical exhortations. She argued that female happiness was the touchstone for social approaches to sex relations, but then would argue men & women were created equal by God. She used Christianity to appeal to women, but knew that she could never get the world she wanted purely through Christianity.

She knew that she could get to women via emotional appeals. Towards this end, as she was not a great orator nor had the ability to relate to women at large (her narcissism) - she employed Mott to give rousing speeches to the women in the evening sessions. Mott probably was the one that cemented the convention, as her speeches brought tears to the eyes of women and laid the groundwork for Stanton's radicalism.

Lurking right underneath this was pure social constructionism by women's rights activists. Like many other women's rights activists, Stanton thought women's more emotional nature stemmed from oppression. Douglass, himself, more than hinted at that he thought men & women were equals, only held apart by male domination of women.

The convention ended with a good bit of fanfare. Unlike what any feminist would tell you, the convention was met with, in totality, tepid approval. There were many newspapers & intellectuals that did not approve of the convention, but a very good bit of people agreed with the convention. The ideas that women should have easier access to divorce, custody rights & independent income streams wasn't as radical as some would argue. The radical idea was women's right to vote. Which introduces race.



In the aftermath of the Civil War, a few Constitutional Amendments were considered. The least controversial one, the 13th Amendment, officially abolished slavery & involuntary servitude. However, a serious rift developed in the women's rights movement - between those who supported universal enfranchisement for all men, and those that did not & insisted on an equal voting rights Amendment that included women.

The 14th & 15th Amendment concern discrimination based on race & black male voting rights, respectively. I am certainly butchering 14th Amendment jurisprudence, but understand the impetus for the 14th Amendment - although hotly contested - was to ensure equal enforcement of the laws for both whites & blacks. Of course, it took over 100 years to see this idea reflected in reality in a sense.

Stanton, and many of her supporters, refused to support either Amendment, saying it should not be Constitutional law if women are not included. This caused quite the rift in the movement, as many women's rights activists were white supremacists and were not in favor of clearly ending slavery. Others were put off by Stanton's insistence that black & female emancipation should be tied at the hip.

Fredrick Douglass argued that white women already enjoyed class privilege, marriage privilege and the fact many women can bend their husband's ears, as well as their son's & brother's. Do you think his correct idea bent female ears? No. He eventually backtracked in his comments, asserting he never meant to suggest women shouldn't have the right to vote, saying he was suggesting white women enjoyed more privilege than black men, but in a way that ignored female oppression.

Douglass fell into the classic trap of American feminism - he is forced to ignore race so he can solicit female approval. He stood by when Stanton relied on highly racist language in order to move white female approval away from both Amendments, he stayed by her side as a friend and never spoke ill of her.

A fascinating, and probably an unprovable concept, is the psychology of American slavery with respects to both black men and women. Douglass spent his life, with respects to Stanton, in her shadow with regards to sex issues. She clearly regarded women as superior to men (meaning she thought she was superior to everybody else), but she also sensed the country was changing with respects to race. She clearly prioritized female emancipation over black emancipation; in my opinion, she hijacked the issue of slavery to talk about her own discontent as a woman - excuse me, all women's discontentment with being a wife & mother.

Did, at the time of emancipation, slavery gift many black men to either codependency or narcissism? Douglass clearly suborned himself to women - was he dominated by a narcissistic woman in his youth? Was she black or white? What about the men in his life - what were their profiles? Douglass' acceptance of Stanton could have been purely political, understanding white women & their issues were far more important to society than a black man's. That is entirely possible. Still, is the idea that Douglass learnt to obey white women & that reflected on his views on white women's rights is plausible, as well.

Still, Stanton's marriage of women & race reflected her correct notion that race was more quickly evolving than women's rights in America. She would be incorrect in the long-term as racism was far, far more entrenched than any other prejudice. However, in the short-term, she was right America was more concerned - superficially - with the equality of blacks.



Consider this post by Ta-Nehisi Coates, whom I consider one of the worst, if not the worst, political/social commentators in America.

As usual, he sides with a white woman over a black man, taking the peculiar position that if Douglass still spoke of Stanton highly after she laid out her racism, it must be cool.

Once again, a rich white women versus a black man right after the Civil War? Please, liberals, let's talk about power differences. Don't give me this shit about once racism is abolished by the 13th Amendment that black men will "accede" to the privilege of their white counterparts. What choice did Douglass have? Alienate a very prominent white female supporter?

For all their power analyses, liberals like Coates ignore it when it means their heroes are either hedging their bets for the future or are outright charlatans. I give Douglass the benefit of the doubt and I assume he was calculating his political bets and decided it was best to not ditch Stanton. Stanton, as I previously argued, was just a rank narcissist that only cared about herself - so white women were all that mattered to her.

Still, the moral judgmentalism of America is relevant here. Coates does nothing to understand why he approaches race & sex in the way he does - he does not understand that he is only interested in judging the people around him with no regard to helping them. I started a writeup about this psychological issue and I will port it soon to the forum. Understand that people use issues like racism, sexism, religion, etc. as a way to establish superiority over others via judgmentalism.

This tension between race & sex under-gird feminism.

Black men watched as white women waltzed into speakeasies, half dressed, while they had to worry if they would be physically attacked for playing the saxophone on stage.

Black men watched as white women pursued second-wave feminism from their comfortable middle-class+ living rooms.

Black men watched as white women broke those oppressive barriers in a handful of years while black men had not done since the dawn of America.

Black men then watched white women promote black women at the expense of the black man. You know, the oppressed sisterhood.

Black women currently are highly over-represented (in their race & sexually) in college, masters & professional schools. Black men are highly over-represented in prison & the unemployed.

Remind me, does it pay to be black or a woman? Remind what oppression matters more in America. . .

[j r]

Isn't it a little weird to talk about entitled feminism in 184?. This is a point when women were denied basic political and social freedoms. This isn't xoJane cat ladies talking about the latest episode of Girls or how that awkward guy from the bar had a rapey vibe about him.

And I have to disagree on Coates. Most opinion writers are ideological hacks. Coates' politics are pretty far from mine and he is still one of my favorite opinion writers. This is mostly because he is actually constantly engaged in expanding his frame of reference, incorporating new evidence, and challenging what he already believes. That's the way it's supposed to be done.

[Benoit]

(07-11-2013 06:11 AM)j r Wrote:  

Isn't it a little weird to talk about entitled feminism in 184?. This is a point when women were denied basic political and social freedoms. This isn't xoJane cat ladies talking about the latest episode of Girls or how that awkward guy from the bar had a rapey vibe about him.

You're not talking about rich women. They had lives so easy that they got bored and wanted to work for fun.

And now every woman sees it as freedom to be stuck in workplace drudgery for 40-50 years instead of doing a bit of tidying and lounging around. I was going to say "while the man pays for everything" but that's still in place now, just enforced by governments and society.

[vinman]

Another solid post. But how in the Hell do you find time to do all of this?

[2Wycked]

@ j r:

I suppose I labeled the post wrong, but this post is how entitled, rich white women with psychological issues kicked off American feminism. Consider my post on RoK about Mary Wollstonecraft.

It isn't so much about what rights men or women shouldn't have, but about how the ideological fuel for the movement is based out of women who have been burned badly by either men or women.

Consider Stanton. She clearly refused to identify with her mother, seeing her as weak & ineffectual. She identified with her father and, as such, sought to live like him. Her own severe issue with motherhood was born out of her relationship with her mother.

@vinman:

I have a post tonight that will explain some of that - I deliver pizzas part-time and, as such, it give me a lot of time to think.

Also, the gears are always grinding. When I play basketball or lift on days I work out, I am always thinking.

Everyday, I have the same routine. Check my phone, scan headlines on Drudge, WSJ, NYT & usually some feminist site like Wonkette or Jezebel. See what everybody is burning on.

I briefly read the local paper & op-ed pages. I usually only read WSJ op-ed's everyday. I make a point to read at least 4 or 5 ones on NYT or some other liberal outlet every week.

I usually scan some manosphere blogs, but I rarely read anything but Dalrock, Private Man or Capt. Capitalism on a daily basis - although on Sundays I make a point to read anything I haven't on RoK or other select blogs.

Usually, through every day, at least 3 or 4 ideas come to me. Usually, at the time, only one pans out.

To churn out content like me, you have to always be thinking. You really have to love it.