I recently read "White Women's Rights: The racial origins of feminism in the United States" by Louise Newman and wanted to review suffragist writing through Newman's lens. My friend had a copy of "Woman, Church, and State" and let me borrow it. I'm about half way through and I must admit that while I was intrigued by her first chapter, the second one, Celibacy, was more disturbing in the way that Gage subtly attempts to link, directly, the institution of US slavery and enslaved Africans with that of white, European women and their oppression through the patriarchy, most visibly represented by the church and the state.
Gage has a lot to offer. She's a compelling writer, well researched, and makes some good arguments. However, I cannot escape Angela Davis' critique of the suffragettes nor Newman's theoretical lens.
Specifically, Newman critiques early (white) feminism through the lens of racism, colonialism, and (racist) evolutionary theory. And with that lens, Gage is starting to come into focus (no pun intended).
I'm going to keep reading and see where Gage lands, but it seems shaky at this point.
July 30, 2016
Nearing the end of the chapter Marquette where she starts with the creation of church law/dogma that gives lords and religious officials the right to rape newly wedded women. She goes from here to prostitution. Gage makes declarative, generalizing statements wrapped tight in her version of morality, which muddies her argument. The more I read, the more the argument is slowly being made that women's degradation and indignity is the same as slavery in the US. And I must dig my heels in on that. Both are horrible institutions, but they are pointedly different. For instance, enslaved Africans were human chattel, not human beings with some recognition of their humanness. Gage talks about serfs working the land and how they lord would come and take half the wool and half the harvest. Upon being wed, the lord would come down from the castle and demand the newly wedded woman go with him for three days, without her new husband, presumably to rape. Gage notes that half the harvest would be held by the family. She also noted that serfs could buy their way out of having the newly wedded woman be taken and raped by the lord. Again, these are disgusting things and Gage has certainly done her homework. But enslaved Africans had nothing to hang onto--no land to till where half the harvest was theirs to keep. Further, when a slave master wanted to rape an enslaved African woman, he would rape her. There were no options for getting out of such an ordeal. Harriet Washington wrote an amazing book on Black people being used for medical experimentation in the US from the time of the first colonizers all the way to the 21st century. Again, this is not to dismiss the plight of European or white women, but her subtle attempts to make a one to one analogy between the institution of slavery and white women hurts her more than helps her.
Yes, her research and history of women's oppression under the church and the state is very compelling. However, Gage is trapped in a time and place where her political perspective is clouded in paternalism, racism, and colonialism.
From Newman: "With the use of two tropes, that of sisterhood and uplift, white women claimed to share the victimization of slaves rather than to identify with the power and privilege of the white male oppressor. The exclusion of enslaved black women from the categories of both 'slaves' and 'women' was a common feature of white abolitionist-suffragist discourse, although white women sometimes invoked claims to a universal sisterhood that contained assumptions about a universal womanly character. At the same time, the tropes of sisterhood and uplift began to foster and reflect a new self-understanding among white women that they, as white women, had a moral responsibility to reform an evil social and political system."
Onward.
Update: August 6, 2016
I took a brief 2 day hiatus from this to read something else, but now I'm back.
I wanted to go back to the Marquette chapter for a second. On page 210 she says, "Until woman holds political power in her own hands, her efforts for protective legislation will be arduous and protracted." For me, this line sums up a lot of her political appeal in the book. The use of the word "until" is important. The context she wrote this book in was the push for (white) women's suffrage in the US. In Newman's book, she spoke about how white women would cast themselves as saviors of native people and enslaved Africans because they had the intellect, the schooling, the connections, and the moral indignation. So the line above spoke to me because she seems to be telling the reader that until white women are enfranchised, we cannot expect civilization to rise above barbarity and savagery. And again, I am not knocking her research or the history of oppression felt by European women. But the social context in which the work was written--it was not written as a stand alone history of women's oppression--is really important to keep in mind. And it gnaws at me as I continue reading because I see her trying desperately to make this 1 to 1 analogy between the institutions of slavery and (white) women's oppression. It makes me uneasy.
My other concern with the idea that if women just controlled stuff things would be different, and granted this was written in a totally different period, doesn't sit with me either. I look today at women in the military, women CEOs, or a woman potentially to become the next president. I look at police forces that are a super-majority white and get a black chief as if that will resolve the violence of the system and the unequal scrutiny put upon people of color. And I see how these individuals, when they take the top position in the dominator culture, do not systematically change the system for a better one. If anything, they become indoctrinated in these dominator cultures and perpetuate the injustice, violence, and greed of their male peers. And this is why feminism fails if its goal is simply to reach equal footing with men. The dominator culture is not changed nor are the systems of violence that keep our society segregated. Gage, and many feminists of her time, felt this was the goal. It is a misguided goal. But it's easy to reflect on these issues in hindsight.
The chapter on witchcraft was horrifying and vastly interesting. It tells the story of how white men have used ignorance and fear to dominate others in their pursuit of prestige, wealth, and power.
I approach the last few chapters!
August 28, 2016
I read a couple of books between starting and finishing this one. I've got about 40 pages left. Whew. I finished her chapter on Wives which talks about the oppression of marriage and all that that entails. I did notice that she cooled it a bit on the direct comparisons between enslaved Africans and white women. I appreciated that. This chapter did annoy me a bit in its length and repetition. I read the same argument three times in this 40+ page chapter. I mean, based on when she wrote it and why, it makes sense.
I just finished the chapter on polygamy where she really REALLY lays into the Mormon church and Christianity in general. It was an interesting read, again with a lot of criticism directed at the Mormons.
Her comment at the end of the chapter (see below) is not surprising coming from a woman in an era where white men made all decisions and white women were supposed to be led by those white men and be obedient to those white men. It's the same kind of commentary that says if more women or people of color were at the top, then society would be better. I think the issue is the structure of society and the systems of domination, and not necessarily the "diversity" of people of who run and benefit from white supremacist imperialist capitalist patriarchy. (Thanks bell hooks!)
"Polygamy and all kindred degradations of her sex will become things of the past, and taking her rightful place in church and state she will open a new civilization to the world." (p. 409)
Again, based on the time she wrote it, such a statement seems radical, and if fact was, then. However, today, we know that just because a woman is head of a major corporation or government, or that a person of color becomes a police chief over a predominantly white force, this does not equate into the idea that this figurehead will "open a new civilization," or deliver justice for all people.
Looking at history, we see these brief, historical milestones as something the populace gets behind to their detriment as the actual policies are overlooked or disregarded by the vast majority. The trap for activists and radicals today, is to read something like this and then make the conclusion that if we only had all women lead, then things would change. You don't change the system, the system changes you.
We should also be wary of anyone who promotes the idea that if we just took control of the state or the church, that things would be better for all. The power of these systems must be rejected and dismantled if we are concerned with liberation.
Finishing up the last few chapters. She has an incredible grasp of the oppression of white women. I am curious to see how she concludes.
September 8, 2016
Done. By the end of the book she is railing hard against the christian church. Again, an amazing display of knowledge and persuasive argument regarding the oppression of (white) women. The last couple of chapters were really thoroughly focused on the church and the state that codified religious dogma. When I began this review I was worried that her argument was going to end with her making a one to one comparison between formerly enslaved Africans and the oppression of white, European women. Thankfully, she veered away from that conclusion and instead heralded a coming revolution that would inevitably split the christian church right down the middle. Today, it feels to me more like the christian dogma and associated organized religion is becoming obsolete rather than tearing the spiritual and religious seems of the United States apart.
By the end I really wasn't completely sure where she was going. Her argumentation broke down somewhat. Reading Newman's book DID give me a useful lens from which to see and name aspects of her work that were oppressive in other ways and I really appreciated that.
It's a long book and can repeat itself in parts. It is also a fascinating study of the oppression of white, European women. It's worth the critical read. Read Newman and Davis too.