Having learned extensively about the suffrage movement and the issue of birth control, determine whether the vote or the pill more significantly empowered women in 20th century America. You should post twice and be sure to use evidence from class sources.
Transcript of The Pill.
At first I was not sure whether the pill or vote played a bigger and more important role, but after class discussion today, I think that the pill empowered women more in 20th century America. I think that ambition and desire was present in both cases. Women were very ambitious about achieving the right to vote and women were ambitious and stubborn to get the right to the pill. However, having an access to the pill gave women what the right to vote did not. The pill gave personal control of women's bodies and their choices. Whereas their vote could have been easily ignored and not counted and women would not have any control over that. Also, when Casey and I talked about this topic, she brought up a very good point. If I was a mother with 10 kids, I would not have time to go and vote, because I would be busy taking care of my children. Therefore, the pill limited the number of child births, giving women more freedom and more time to work. By 1960, 36 % of all women sixteen and older- 23 million women, worked for paid wages. Women started working, making better decisions for themselves and their families, therefore creating healthier families. Now women could enjoy sexual intercourse without fearing of the consequences(more babies). Poor or uneducated women now were on the same level as the high class women. Now both classes of women had access to one common thing "the Pill". While the pill gave women all of those things, the right to vote did not. It seems that all those years of Alice Paul and National Women's Party fighting and protesting did not change the ideological and stereotypical view of men. Women thought that by having the right to vote, it would give them power and voice but it did not. The world was still male-dominated. "Women were 50 % of voters, but by 1967 they held 4 & of the state legistlative seats and 2 % of judgeships" Even after achieving the right to vote, women were still politically oppressed. "Mystique" was the image of the woman as mother, wife, living trhought her husband, through her children and giving up her dreams. And although the pill did not change that, it did give women "control" and "power" that the vote did not. Women had finally control of personal decisions and choices, which empowered them. This led to women questioning doctors, which was not accepted at that time since the doctors should never be questioned. WOmen went agaisnt something big to fight for what they believed in. They took control of their lives and realized that they should not be treated that way while rich and high class women have an access to the drug. All women deserved to enjoy herself without feeling gulity of having an unwanted child.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Erkina I agree that the pill allowed women regain control of their bodies, which had once belonged to men, and while this is important and significant I believe that the vote was more empowering to women. The pill allowed women to take control of what they were born with, something that should have been theirs from the start, however the vote allowed women to not only take control in their lives but also elevated them to a political status equal to men, “Since 1964, women regularly cast more ballots than men: 42.3 million female votes (or 67 percent of all eligible women) as opposed to 34 million male votes”. While women are more in control with the pill, I still believe that if a women in the late 50s or early 60s was asked by her husband to get off the pill, that she would in fear of losing her M.R.S degree but the vote is something that no man can take away from a women. This is due to the fact that the vote has to do with so much more than just what happens to one family. The vote is a nation wide cause that happens once every four years where a women can go and vote for her future president, one who will make laws to benefit her in ways that deal with family matters like the pill, but also with many other important matters such as war and careers. Knowing one has the right to vote is the most empowering thing for women because it allows them to control all aspects of life and not just the ones concerning a family. Advancing in polotics allowed women to take control of not only themselves but their country and being apart of that put women in a position of power that when it came to political matters was equal to men, which empowered the women to do as much as possible with this right and to use this right whenever allowed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily about the fact that the vote is a nation wide cause where women can go and vote and therefore be heard. Women by voting make a choice that will affect the entire country. however, the vote does not guarantee that "her" selected president will take office, whereas the pill guanrantees protection from unwanted pregnancy. Also, while the vote supposedly allowed women to be equal to men politically, it did not in reality. Women were still oppressed at that time, even after the 19th amendment. WOmen were still considered inferior to men and no where were the number of female politicians equal to the number of male politicians. Men were still dominating and still thought that women's role was to stay home. Therefore, since that stereotype was still going, the pill allowed at least women to have control within their home.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSure, it could be argued that women’s successful battle for the vote was a door opener to the expansion of women’s rights, but I still believe that the creation of “the pill” was more successful in this area. 2.3 million women were on “the pill” in 1963, one year after it was approved by the FDA (PBS). 4 years later, in 1967, 12.5 million women worldwide were taking it (PBS). Considering the fact that many women, for example Catholics, had conflicting beliefs with the practice of birth control, this is a huge sum. This is a stark contrast to the number of women voting after women’s suffrage was passed- according to the New York Times, “it is clear that woman [sic] suffrage did not double the vote.” This makes sense in a number of ways- women were busy raising their families, and did not have time to follow politics or get to a voting booth. While suffrage was controversial, it was not nearly as controversial as birth control. According to a PBS documentary, women at church were being told that the faces of their unborn children would haunt them on their deathbeds if they practiced any method of birth control whatsoever. Therefore, birth control and thus “the pill” was a far more powerful event in women’s history than suffrage.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason that “the pill” was more important than the vote was that it had more practical applications. Although voting has the potential to bring about positive change in your favor, it doesn’t always work out that way- voting doesn’t always mean that your views/opinions will be represented. The implications of “the pill” are so much broader than that, and using it almost definitely provides a set outcome. By knowing that you’re not going to get pregnant, you can be sure that you will be available to work whenever, which was especially important for women who wanted to become lawyers and doctors. (According to the PBS documentary, there was a huge pickup in the number of women in these fields after the creation of “the pill”) As a woman, being able to plan your future was a huge advantage when looking into work.
It is important to remember that despite initial health concerns, “the pill” was absolutely a savior for women. In the early 20th century, women were simply not taught about their own anatomy. According to documents like “Hard Facts,” women (especially those of the lower class) were having tons of babies- some carrying as many as 18 pregnancies- and they did not know how to stop. Having these babies was a huge disadvantage for a number of reasons: the women couldn’t work outside of the home, couldn’t provide for their children who were inevitably sick, and they themselves became sick. Women literally through themselves down the stairs to abort a pregnancy (Hard Facts). No one did anything of that severity for suffrage.
After watching The Pill I have come to believe that it was the pill that greater empowered women in the 20th century. I believe that this statement holds much truth given the fact that our knowledge of women getting the vote is very strong after we spent much of the school year discussing it. Even knowing all this, I was convinced by The Pill that it indeed resulted in holding more power.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the love and happiness that a child brings, he or she also presents many a burden. Money, care, attention, and perhaps most importantly, time. The responsibility of raising a child is one that takes dedication, so much so that everything else professionally gets thrown out the window. Women pre-pill were forced to stay at home and take care of their children. With no way of preventing pregnancy, mothers often had upwards of 10 children. Margaret Sanger writes of a woman married at 14 who birthed 16 children. Sanger also points out that in degenerate families, which make up most of the population, the average number of children born is 7.3(Sanger 2). The mixture of low income and the burden of taking care of children only gets worse when there are 7.3 of them. At the time, I believe it is absolutely safe to assume that so many children was a woman’s entire life. The Pill was here to change this statistic. The pill helped women avoid unwanted pregnancies and because of this had more control and time with their lives and began to pursue professional careers. The Pill was first given to women in 1968 and it is no coincidence that by “1969, women were 40 percent of the entire work force of the United States…”(Zinn 506). Women could control their pregnancies and because of this pursued what they had always wanted to but could not before.
Why is this more important than the vote one may ask? My reasoning is that because of the impacts of The Pill, women finally had some control over men. Women who were now raped by men would not necessarily get pregnant and this could cause a fear in the eyes of a man who is raping a woman to potentially assert dominance. The Pill also put women in the work force, which ultimately put them in positions of power that could involve literally being the boss of men. On the contrary, the vote was simply a law that could be interpreted by the men who made it as they pleased, and really, aside from actually voting, served not much of a purpose in terms of putting women in power. One can look at history to compare the vote to other insignificant acts. Did the 15th amendment do anything to African-Americans? The vote was simply writing on paper, while The Pill was power and control.
Personally, I don’t really think that the vote was as successful as people made it out to be. Just because the law was supposedly on their side doesn’t mean that the whole country changed its preconceptions about women. People still believed that women were weak of mind and created by god to serve the men they were married to. I can hardly imagine the side against suffrage conceding so quickly to the fact that women were “equals”.
ReplyDeleteWhile it may just have been unfortunate timing, the Great Depression put a bit of damper on women’s rights. Had the depression not occurred, women might have been in the place they are now much earlier (not to say that the place that they are now is the end of the battle). Women were prohibited from voting because of the need to stay home and work to keep the household of 20 kids and a drunk husband in order. When were they supposed to find the time to go out to the ballot boxes… where were they supposed to find the time to think about politics?
However, even now the effects of suffrage aren’t as great as they were made out to be. I know that my mom and dad always vote for the same person. My dad happens to be more educated on politics, so when he is talking about the candidate he is going to vote for he ends up convincing my mom to vote for him too. My mom might say that she is open to choosing other candidates but that has never happened before.
To go even further on this point… there is a lot of debate concerning the fact that the majority isn’t really represented in the government anyways. Just because you vote for the person who represents you doesn’t mean that your opinions will always be represented. Just because women could vote doesn’t mean that their opinions would have been accurately exemplified.
Women’s condition didn’t really change until the pill. The vote only set the stage (a very big stage at that), which enabled women to accomplish what the fight for suffrage originally set out to do. After suffrage, even though America was still considered this big evolved nation, women were still dependent on men. Although they went to college they only went for MRS degrees… to become a wife, and they were married by the age of 19. Then they would have kids until they weren’t able to have any more.
After the pill; however, women were able to postpone their pregnancies. Now instead of leaving college to have children women could go into law, medicine, and other respectable men’s field’s. Women’s general choice to accept and use the pill also showed that people weren’t as reliant on religion anymore. Women deliberately defied Catholicism’s wishes against birth control and began to separate religion from the rest of their lives. They could make their choices unhampered by religion’s (sometimes) backwards ways.
When I first heard the question of what had the most impact: the vote or the pill, I immediately thought the vote. I mean the pill was just a form of birth control while suffrage finally allowed women to entire the political sphere. But after reflecting on it and just being present during the class discussions, I have to revise my answer to pill. After women had acquired the vote, “their subordinate condition had hardly changed” (Zinn 503). They were still perceived as inferior beings that belonged solely in the home, rearing the children. Suffrage allowed women to cast a vote for their desired representative, but it didn’t improve their social standing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the pill completely revolutionized a women’s life. The pill meant that women no longer had to experience baby after baby, coming closer and closer to death with each child. They were able to limit the amount of kids they chose to have. And that is the key word. Chose. Women were finally able to chose to get pregnant. They finally had control of their own bodies. This created endless opportunities for women. Instead of going to college to get a “MRS” degree, women had the chance to become doctors and lawyers without fear of a pregnancy interrupting their schooling.
The pill also created a cause to fight for. According to Alice Rossi, after the suffrage movement “there [was] practically no feminist spark left among American women” (Zinn 504). The battle for the pill created, as Charlie said in class, a decision-making mentality. Instead of being submissive, the women fought for the pill, fought for a safe pill, fought for their rights. Following the birth control movement were social campaigns concerning abortion and gender equity in the workplace. The birth control movement helped these causes by creating a generation of women who refused to be pushed aside, and demanded that their needs be heard.
While we were learning about the women’s suffrage, it was interesting how the topic of the pill never really came up in discussion. When people think of women gaining the right to vote, usually NAWSA or the “winning plan” usually comes up in discussion. Now that this “pill” discussion has started to take place, I think it’s really interesting how so many people’s perspective has changed on the whole situation. Even though getting the right to vote was a major milestone, just because a law is in place doesn’t mean it does much. As said by social historian Howard Zinn, “Even where the law was helpful it was helpful only if backed by action” (511). So even though women had the right to vote, it didn’t mean that people were all of a sudden going to consider men and women equal. Women still needed to take action to be treated equally, and the Pill provided them with that power to take action. I think that the movie is partially right when it says that the Pill was the singlehandedly most important thing for the equality of women. It did provide women with a means of controlling how many babies they wanted to have, and it also gave them opportunity to go out into the world and complete their education and get jobs. Women became more self-independent as a result of the pill, and they no longer had to rely on men to live a normal life. The pill led to the “repossession of our bodies… a world in which every woman is the presiding genius of her own body” (513). Without the pill, I don’t think that the fight for gender equality would be as far along as it is today.
ReplyDeleteI remember when we read Born for Liberty, there was one part toward the end that summed up very well how ironic winning the vote was for women, since the very thing that brought them together, once they achieved it, was not able to hold together the extremely different and individual women after. As Sarah Evans says, “Suffrage, as a symbol, condensed a wide spectrum of female discontents and allowed a broad coalition which could not hold together around any other issue” (Evans). This shows that, although winning the right to vote was extremely important, it’s significance was somewhat lost in the years after the Suffrage Amendment was passed, and that’s why I believe Birth Control was more important for women. Birth Control, specifically the Pill, has allowed for women to break down boundaries by providing them with a constant reminder that they are in control of their bodies, not just during Election Day, that they can become doctors because they don’t have to worry about getting pregnant halfway through medical school, lawyers, you name it. I agree with the woman who said the Pill was the single most important motivator for women’s rights in the 20th century, and I would argue in history, because it allows women to push social roles and values everyday when they swallow a pill.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Michelle, while I understand that the pill is a way of expressing independence from the control that men once had over their bodies on a daily basis I believe that its fair to argue that the vote expresses independence from the control that men had over women politically on a daily basis. The vote is more then placing in a ballet once a year. Women now get the opportunity to research the candidates and have intellectual discussions that in the past were only had by men about who they are going to vote for and what matters are most important to them. The vote has allowed women to express opinions that were normally kept to themselves. In chapter 6 of Zinn he said, "It is possible, reading standard histories, to forget half the population of the country. The explorers were men, the landholders and merchants men, the political leaders men, the military figures men. The very invisibility of women, the overlooking of women, is a sign of their submerged status." but with the vote now accessible for women it made them impossible to forget or over look because they now helped determine the fate of America. Having that power is too me what empowered women the most during this time period.
ReplyDeleteAfter having class discussion and a conversation with my table group, I came to believe that the Pill was much more empowering for women. When I think about the vote, which is very rare, I don’t think it has impacts that are noticeable. However, the Pill produced immediate effects. First of all, it was very effective in preventing women from having babies. In effect, women have more time for themselves rather than having to take care of kids. Women would be able to hold jobs and actually gain some money. Of course women always had the important task of raising the children and maintaining the home, but as Zinn states, “They [women] worked very hard at home, but this wasn’t looked on as work, because in a capitalist society,[…] if work is not paid for, not given a money value, it is considered valueless” (506). This was huge in that women were not just working in their domestic sphere, but they were now leaving that sphere to work in the outside world. While the vote was an opportunity that was present to women, the Pill offered so much more that would directly affect their lives. And even if the women could vote, they would not want to leave their children just so they cast that vote. The importance of the vote is belittled when a woman is already occupied with the responsibilities as a mother. So sure, the vote is important, but the Pill had an aspect that was much more personal to women then the vote could ever achieve. It gave women the control over their bodies and prevented repercussions that could possibly ruin their future.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Grace said about Catholic women having these conflicted feelings about birth control. But I also want to add that it would have been mostly middle to upper class women who would have dealt with these feelings. These women had the time to think about these ideas since they weren’t so loaded down with burden and desperation as the lower class women were. Among the uneducated, lower class women, there were many children and pregnancies when they did not want that many. Many of them didn’t even know how not to have babies. To have that many would be an incredible burden since there is not enough money and energy to take care of them all. It also is a threat to the health of the mother and to the children. And since these women are so occupied, they don’t have time to think about whether the birth control pill was killing unborn children or not. They simply needed it for their health and “survival.”
ReplyDeleteWhile the 19th amendment did give women political equality it didn’t give them as many advantages or freedoms that the pill did. The amendment may not have been as advantageous towards women as the pill, but it was still a huge step towards equality between man and women than anything that had been done before. It put women and men on an equal political level. It was up to the women to take advantage of that fact or not.
ReplyDeleteBut they didn’t, not for any fault of their own but because of other outside factors such as the Great Depression and World War II. Not even those events, however, caused the inability to take part in the political system and gain more equality through politics. Women were stopped by their children. There was no way to prevent pregnancy so women could have up to 18 kids. All those kids mean little money and no time. Most of them ended up ill in some way and so many pregnancies caused the mother to become horrible ill as well so even without the problems of money and time the mother is most likely not well enough to care about politics. But the pill fixed all of those problems and it even helped to give women more freedom and power than just stopping the pregnancies. Without birth control women could never have a career or get a higher education because they kept getting pregnant. With school they would have to drop out and in the work force no one in their right mind would hire a woman who would be constantly getting pregnant. But with the pill she could control her pregnancies and so she could obtain better degrees than a “MRS” and she could obtain a career. The pill also led to sexual freedom, the ability to partake in politics, a changed relationship with the doctor, economic freedom from men, the ability to choose their partner with more discrimination, healthier and less pregnancies, and a bit of newfound freedom from the church. All of these things combined led to women becoming more independent and wanting that independence, they saw that they could gain equality and so a new wave of women’s rights began.
The vote gave women the ability to potentially control how the government should operate, however the pill allowed the women to control their own bodies. Control over one’s own body is the most significant civil liberty that someone can obtain.
ReplyDeleteIt was astonishing that a large movement could be mainly influenced by the societal reactions to a tiny pill. Yes, the right to vote was crucial to the women’s right movement; however, the implications of the birth control pill were far greater than those of the vote. This medicine opened new doors for women because they were finally considered sexually equal to men. They were able to enjoy sex the same way men did—without needing to worry about the aftermath. Women obtaining the ability to decide when to have and when not to have kids was far more essential to the empowerment of women than any event in the Women’s Suffrage Movement, even more so than the receiving the right to vote.
The pill also differed from any event in the Women’s Suffrage Movement because it benefitted all social classes. Women could now invest their time in the work places, rather than having to tend to a kid that they didn’t even want in the first place. The pill unified women across all economic classes, as together they all gained control of their bodies—this in turn unified the movement as a whole. Instead of solely the upper class fighting for more power, it was an entire type of people fighting for a common cause that they all wholeheartedly believed in, and all wholeheartedly benefited from.
Most significantly the pill truly put women on equal footing with their male counterparts. In being able to control their own bodies, it meant that women could make a choice to remain in the home as wives and mothers or move beyond the home. Controlling pregnancy and childbirth meant freedom from a single destiny.
After reading many posts, my belief has been confirmed that the development of the birth control pill was more empowering for women, rather than the in obtainment of the fourteenth amendment. While the vote was extremely important to women and the pursuit of equality, all it really did was give women a chance to get their opinion out in the country. The pill on the other hand, finally gave women a chance to be part of society, not just get their opinions out. Within the first year of the pill being released to women in the United States, “women were 40 percent of the entire work force” (Zinn, 506). This is no mere coincidence that the pill lead to the women of the United States getting more involved. Another reason why the pill is more beneficial to women than the vote is because the pill is used by a greater percent of women. Recently, in 2010, only 46.2 percent of women over the age of eighteen voted in the election, while in 2008 63 percent of sexually active women reported having used the pill at least once in their life as a method of contraception (Women by the Numbers, 1). Statistically it is clear the pill has been used more which shows it is just as beneficial if not more.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the wide spread acceptance of the pill came a new confidence. This is a second reason why the pill has proved to be more beneficial for women. The vote did not give women an opportunity to get out of the house and work because they were still worried about childbirth and the chance of being restricted for nine months at a time. Both the vote and the pill were option, meaning that if a woman chose to have to vote she could, or if she chose to go on birth control, she could, however which of these things gives a women a chance to live a life that they really want to live? Voting for someone does not guarantee that they win the election, or that the ideas that this person represented will be brought to office. Taking the pill on the other hand, controls a woman’s fate. It gives that woman a chance to take control of their own life. The pill lead to many women protesting for what the believed in because they were not fearful that they would be pregnant and not be able to contribute. Zinn noted that, “Women began to speak openly” (510). There was less of a fear and more of a belief that women were equal. Taking the pill was leading to women becoming equal with men through the eyes of society.
I want to introduce this new idea to the discussion in the hopes that maybe someone will agree with me. In my opinion, it was neither the pill nor the vote that empowered women most in the 20th century, but rather the introduction of women to the American Government.
ReplyDeleteIn 1917, when Jeanette Rankin became the first woman to be elected to congress, I believe that this was opening a door to a whole new world for women. With this introduction to the world of politics, women could now represent their ideals and have influence on the political decisions. While in no way did women have a majority of power, or anywhere near that, they were just entering into this field. By the time that the birth control pill had been FDA approved, in 1960, 58 women had served in Congress, with an additional 10 women having served in the Senate. This allowed women to have more of a say in political matters. Even though the vote did give women some political influence, the largest decisions in lawmaking and political policies rested in the hands of men. The vote may have been a precursor to women in the government, but the empowerment from the vote is dwarfed by that of the allowing of women in Congress and the Senate.
Although this is skipping past the 20th century, a perfect example to show how far women have come in the government is Hillary Clinton. Clinton ran for president, and although she was unsuccessful, she set a precedent for women who have aspirations of female governmental figures. The fact that in less than a century, women went from having no representation in governmental decisions to becoming a candidate to be the President is truly encouraging.
Sure, the vote may have allowed women to be independent and maintain control over their life, and the vote opened a door to women nationally, but having women in Congress/The Senate has empowered women exponentially more than either of the two prior suggestions. I hope that some of you see my perspective and agree with it.
sorry, on my post I just noticed a typo. in the last paragraph it should have started as "Sure, the pill"
ReplyDeleteIn the debate over what empowered women more during the 20th century, the vote or the pill, at first I thought that the vote would of course have the bigger impact on women. It came first, and opened so much opportunity for women thereafter. However, after watching The Pill and reading all of the posts on the blog, I am confident that the pill actually did empower women more.
ReplyDeleteFor one, the pill put women on the same level as men. Before the pill existed, women were confined to the home. Even after they got the vote, women still held the same role as the housewife that cooked and cleaned. However, with the pill, women were given more of an opportunity to pursue careers like doctors and lawyers. A women could plan a pregnancy around things her job required, such as a big court case or a surgical procedure, without having to worry about the need to go on maternity leave unexpectedly. When it came to politics, the pill taught women to self-advocate. After they got the vote, they quieted down, but having to stand up for their own health and needs in the eyes of politicians had women speaking out again. From a relationship perspective, men and women could be equal in their relationships. Before, men could do whatever they wanted sexually without having to worry about unwanted pregnancy. However, with the pill, both men and women could enjoy their relationships freely.
This contributed to the happiness and well being of families on many levels. If the parents in a family had a healthy and enjoyable relationship, then that certainly set the tone for the rest of the family. The size of families was also controllable, helping to increase the health of its members. Families no longer had eight children, but instead a manageable number that the mother could control.
Overall, the pill put women in charge of their own lives. It gave them a decision making mentality; some women had to make the choice of whether or not to obey what the church said in regards to birth control. It put upper-class women on the same level as lower-class women. They weren’t subject to the confines of a baby if they were to get pregnant or raped.
I agree with Caroline that the pill was more important because it allowed women to break down social barriers by not isolating them in the home, and I think it is important to mention this also served to help women realize they were not alone, and that other women were experiencing the same problems they were. In Feminine Mystique, Freidan mentions that talking about "the problem" brought women together, and that "two of the women cried, in sheer relief, just to know they were not alone," so the Pill would arguably bring women together in this way, just as the vote had decades before. The main difference that makes the Pill more important is that it not only brought women together, but kept them together. Whereas the vote was a monumental triumph that left its victors at odds with each other within a few years as the Great Depression dawned, the Pill has allowed women to stay together and fight for other reproductive rights, such as abortion and the morning-after pill.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I believe Caroline makes a good point when she says that the Pill was crucial in its contribution "to the happiness and well-being of families on many levels," since it allowed mothers to have more time to focus on each individual child and not fret over another pregnancy. The Pill brought families together and improved family life, and since children are the nation's future, this was not just a triumph for families, but for the United States as a whole.
I stand in my belief that the Pill was the more important of the two, but the vote contributed to the Pill being allowed and is therefore also very important, as well as being important for the political independence of women. In reality, both were a step toward women's rights, and were both very important for gender equity in the U.S.
George,
ReplyDeleteWhile it is interesting to consider what influence the entrance of women into the political field might have exerted on the Women’s Rights Movement as a whole, it seems intellectually irresponsible to ignore its deeply social aspect. The election of a woman to Congress in 1917 is a remarkable event in the history of female empowerment, but it represents only a small step in the context of a long journey: the government was still run by the overwhelming male majority; the effect of a woman in Congress cannot be understood as having much value beyond the symbolic. Even if, at the time of the FDA’s approval of the pill, 58 women had served in Congress, that still represents a very small minority, and in the absence of precise details as to what sort of influence these women were having on Congressional matters, it is difficult to judge the significance of female political power within the narrative of the movement. Political power did not mean social liberation for women, and without social liberation, they would never be able to achieve true equality with men.
The pill freed women on a biological level, which led to greater social freedoms. No longer were women considered as mere ‘child-bearers’ or subjected exclusively to the duties of the housewife. Now that women could control their abilities to have children while still engaging their sexualities, they were not forced to choose between two different forms of servitude. I want to reiterate the fact that they now achieved sexual equality to men, just because of a tiny medicine. The fact that they were permitted to enjoy a typical activity such as sex, the same way men did, was far more significant than any form of political achievement. In fact, I would argue that the political achievements of women were only validated after they began to achieve social equality. In the words of Simone de Beauvoir, one of the most famous feminist philosophers of the 20th century, “However gifted an individual is at the outset, if his or her talents cannot be developed because of his or her social condition, because of the surrounding circumstances, these talents will be still-born.”
I believe that although the creation of birth control benefitted women in a large way, preventing them from having too many children and therefore being seen as bound to the home, the suffrage movement more directly impacted all women, and was a war on government rather than religion. In “The Pill” it was stated that in Massachusetts and Connecticut, two states with a substantial Catholic population, “the use of birth control was a crime subject to fines and imprisonment” (“The Pill”). Clearly the government was basing its laws off of the majority of the population- and the majority was Roman Catholic, making up 25% of citizens in the 1950s (“The Pill”). Though the government was the one that was outlawing birth control, it was more a consequence of the beliefs of the population, rather than the government itself having a problem with the product. The church was the one who would not allow it, and therefore, as the government did not want to go against the church and the people, they did not either. There was no fight to legalize the pill in government, as seemingly once the pill was created it was soon permitted. This is where the pill and suffrage differed- to gain the vote, women had to fight the establishment and gained independence from men in doing so, whereas with the pill women had no say in its ratification. John Rock, a Catholic doctor, was the one advocating for the pill, and although this was strategic in order to gain more support for it, it seemed to me as if it made women appear as if they could not do it on their own, and had to rely on a man for a product which remains solely for women (“The Pill”). The pill was not difficult to legalize in government, but was intended to be fought for in the Church, which Rock failed to do even in the end of his life. If women had been the ones fighting for their rights, and had taken it to the Catholic Church, I probably would believe that the pill had a greater beneficial impact on women. However, the fight against the church and government was introduced by a “male spokesperson,” and the battle ended with his death. In contrast, though the woman’s rights movement died down once woman gained the vote, there are still many campaigns and upcoming amendments to gain equal rights between genders- like the Equal Rights Amendment- whereas one barely hears anything about the movement for approval of birth control in the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the pill has caused much detriment to women despite its one benefit, as it forces many women to choose between practicality and faith. Women are strained to choose between believing the government in its approval of the pill or the Church, and it causes much religious questioning among them. In comparison, the vote was universal, and had no religious backlash, but was rather a reform of society, not religion. Additionally, with the pill, black women have feared that it was a form of racial genocide, and in the initial stages as a product of the quick legalization, many women have died or suffered from extreme side effects (“The Pill”).As the suffrage movement allowed women to fight for their rights, was ultimately more inclusive, and was a successful reform of society and not religion, I believe that it was the more empowering factor in women’s equality in the twentieth century.
ReplyDeleteInitially, my answer to this question would be that the pill played a more significant role in the empowerment of women in the 20th century. The pill gave women the most important thing in the world: time. It allowed them to plan their lives and start careers before they had children. It gave them the choice to have children or to not. It allowed the lower class women to have fewer children so that they could manage their money appropriately. More importantly, the pill did not only allow women to make the decision of when or if they would have babies, but it gave them the power to make other decisions in their lives as well. As the doctor said in the documentary, doctors were taught to think of themselves as gods who should not be questioned and were always right. However, the pill empowered women to question the doctors and self-advocate. The vote also gave women to step outside of the domestic sphere and participate politically in society. But, the pill saved lives.
ReplyDeleteMy only question then would be, had women not acquired the vote, would they have had the ability to take the pill? If women had not had the experience in taking a stand and fighting for what they believe in before this, would they have had the courage to do so when it came to the pill? In my opinion, the ability to vote is less severe of a change than the ability to choose to have babies, because reproduction is essential to all living systems. I do not think that women would have had the knowledge, experience, or courage needed to stand up against the Catholic Church and use the pill, had they not previously practiced these skills while fighting for the vote. After all, the vote gave them the ability to make a choice as well, and I think it played a crucial role in giving women the courage to stand up for themselves yet again.
After reading some of my classmate’s arguments, I am blown away at the complexity of this question. However, I think I have come to the conclusion that the pill was what empowered women the most. In my first post, I argued that the vote gave women the experience and abilities that they needed in order to accept the pill, go against the Catholic Church, and have a right to use it. Though I still believe this to be completely true, I realize that it does not necessary answer the question of which empowered women more. I now believe that the pill empowered the women more, thanks to Erkina, Grace, Sara, and Crystal’s posts. Erkina wrote about Casey’s point that a mother with 10 kids would not have the time to go and vote, and I thought that this was a great argument. In a USA Today article, the pill is described as “a means of women escaping poverty.” Women didn’t have the money to raise their children and feed their families, and they certainly did not have the time to go and vote. This got me thinking, even if they did have the time, was the vote really empowering women? It obviously allowed them to get closer to equality politically, and it gave them some sort of say in the government. But, to this day, there has not been a woman president. For almost a century now, women (who had the time) have been voting on two men, one of which would become president. The vote gave them a much more distant choice that would not directly affect their lives. The pill, on the other hand, gave them immediate control over their personal lives, careers, and health.
ReplyDeleteFoster-
ReplyDeleteIt is not as much as the immediate effect of women in the Government, but rather the developmental. From Jeanette Rankin, the first woman in Congress, to Hillary Clinton, arguably the most powerful and influential women in the United States, it has not just been about the power. It is about the fact that women infiltrated what used to be an exclusively men’s sphere and were able to prosper in that environment. While I do congratulate you on pointing out that my prior post was “intellectually irresponsible”, it is not the so-called “social aspect” that empowered women. Perhaps you did not notice my initial point, but I did not argue that this one woman in Congress made women equal. While this may be a small step in an ongoing process, it is the mere first step that grew to something unimaginably larger. While this was the definitive moment that opened this world up to women, it is the emergent and current influence that I believe empowered women. Although women may not have reaped the benefits immediately, it is the evolution of the movement that is the most important factor to consider. In that sense, I think that you are incorrect, because I was not talking about the initial gain. You need not look any further than at the past election to see what I am talking about. In case you didn’t recall, Hillary Clinton ran for president. Although not elected, she was still a viable candidate. If women as a group can grow from having no political power to nearly being represented at the highest level in the United States, it is clear that this achievement is no feat to be dismissive of. In fact, it is a journey that should be highly admired and respected.
For the sake of refuting your challenge of my first post, I’d like to point out something that I disagree with in your post. You state that a woman being able to enjoy sex is on the same level as political power. What? I’m sorry, but a primal instinct has nothing to do with social development. It is actually somewhat unfathomable to consider that enjoying sex would make women equal. I don’t mean to just attack you here, but I intensely disagree with your point.
The continuing growth of women in politics is possibly the greatest achievement of American women. The actions of early female politicians set a precedent for some of the most influential women in our history, and without a doubt have empowered women exponentially more than either the pill or the vote. The vote may have given women some political say, but let’s be honest Foster, the final decision rested in the hands of men. The pill was a great medical achievement that revolutionized sex, but really wasn’t that phenomenal of a social equalizer. I’d like to also end with a quote, coincidentally from Simone de Beauvoir, like yours. She states, “Society, being codified by man, decrees that woman is inferior; she can do away with this inferiority only by destroying the male's superiority.”
George, the reason that Jeanette Rankin in 1917 was able to gain a position of power in the government was mainly attributed to the increasing political status of women as a result of the campaign for the vote, as well as the decreased population and increased reliance on women because of westward expansion. When you say that the election of one political leader who is a woman was an “introduction to the world of politics,” and that “women could now represent their ideals and have influence on the political decisions,” this is a pretty large overstatement. Foster was correct when he said that politics was, and is, still a male dominated arena, and having 58 women in government, in comparison to the vastness of the establishment, is not very great. Recently, though clearly the number of women in government has risen from 58, according to the WCF foundation “for the first time since 1987, the United States made no progress in electing more women to Congress” (“Women”). And, furthermore, women only hold 17% of seats in Congress, and only 22% of all statewide elective executive office positions are currently held by women (“Women”). The amount of women in office is distinctly still low, showing that the number of women who are affected by this so called empowering system is miniscule. In order for this to be more entitling for women, it would have to be much more widespread and equal with men. In the other cases, such as the vote and the pill, they were viewed as empowering because they fostered a sense of equality in the government; every man and woman has the right to vote, and both men and women have access to birth control, whereas before only men did. In government, the ratio of men to women is not and likely will not be equal for a long time, which is only a marginal improvement from having women not allowed in government.
ReplyDeleteFoster, I completely agree with your first paragraph response to George. However, in terms of your second paragraph, though I agree that the pill empowered women more than the small amount of women in the government, I think that it is a dramatization to say that women were no longer “considered as mere ‘child-bearers’ or subjected exclusively to the duties of the housewife.” As we have talked about in class, there is still huge gender inequity and stereotypes in terms of gender roles even today, and, as Dancz has said, people naturally believe that the women are the ones who will stay with the kids and cook and clean, as that is “their place.” Though women were able to control how many kids they had, no doubt they were still pressured to have children and take care of them, as society’s worst fears would come true if women stopped having babies as the pill’s popularity increased. Though you make some good arguments in terms of the increase in ability for women to control their bodies with birth control, there are some major overestimations in terms of the power of the pill.
The importance of birth control is something that is not easily overlooked, but it’s easier to forget its impact on the Catholic church, while it may have helped women’s rights, the Church took a big hit. Historically, people have been bound to the church in a restrictive way since the Middle Ages. And if you have ever watched the show “The Borgias” the amount of power clergymen of that time received was ridiculous (although maybe exaggerated). However, I’m not focusing on their corruptness, just their control. Once birth control came along it challenged the Church’s authority over women. If the Church wished to keep their followers they would need to adapt; however, that didn’t happen. Not long after it was introduced approximately the same percentage of Catholics and non-Catholics took the pill and the popularity of extreme Catholic faith dwindled.
ReplyDeleteJohn Rock tried to convince the Church that birth control was OK, and it was merely extending the “safe period” that was allowed by the Church. His efforts fell on deaf ears and the Church, to this day, does not believe in contraception. In Jennifer’s post she wrote, “the fight against the church and government was introduced by a “male spokesman” and the battle ended with is death” this, however, I feel to be partially untrue. The cause didn’t “die”… it simply didn’t matter anymore; women would take control of their bodies no matter what anyone said. Like when birth control’s side effects became more and more prevalent women fought the doctors that told them everything was all right and proved their control once again. The choice of women to disobey the Church was just one of the important beginnings of women finally taking control over themselves and prohibiting anyone else from doing so.
I had originally thought that the pill was more effective in getting equal rights for women, but after reading some of my classmate’s posts I can acknowledge the argument for suffrage. One thing that Gabby brought up that I thought was interesting was the fact that perhaps women might not have been able to take the pill had suffrage not been passed. I think that this is important because (debatably) a major part of suffrage was figuring out how to effectively run a protest, and figuring out what else works. In the documentary, “The Pill” by PBS, a clip of women speaking out at what looked like a government sanctioned hearing of sorts was shown. It could be argued that without the vote, women would never have been given the opportunity to learn these types of skills and be able to protest. Although reading these new opinions helped me to realize that the vote was a powerful tool, it did not change my opinion entirely. I still believe that the pill was the stronger tool in gaining equal rights for women.
ReplyDeleteI think that George brought up a great discussion too- the fact that there are other, potentially more significant forces affecting the equality of women. Although he did bring up some very interesting points, I think that one thing that needs to be considered is the fact that the arrival of women in politics is directly correlated with the vote- they would not have been able to be voted into government positions without women voting for them. In my opinion, George is essentially saying that the vote is more important with this point.
I completely agree with Michelle in her statement that both the vote and the pill were very important to the equality of women. Obviously, weighing them against each other is important in that it helps the student to better understand each event, but in reality it is their combined effect that has helped to get us where we are today.
In response to George's post:
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with George. I do believe that being elected into Congress was a huge step, but not nearly as big as the pill. This is because as George said, “in no way did women have a majority of power… the largest decisions in lawmaking and political policies rested in the hands of men.” Women had barely any power in Congress because there were so few of them and since they were women. Women’s place was considered to be in the home taking care of the children and men. So no matter how intelligent the women in Congress seemed or how powerful they tried to make themselves most man were not going to truly respect them or consider their opinion. So where being elected was a huge first step towards becoming independent and equal to men the pill is what actually caused the freedom. Even today only 17% of women holds a seat in Congress, 24% of state legislators are women and only 6/50 states have female governors (WCF Foundation). Since so few women were in Congress and they could only do so much with what little power they had it really did not affect equality between men and women as much as the pill did. The pill allowed most women to rise above their status as caretaker while Congress allowed very small amount of women to be on a slightly more equal level with men.
I agree with Michelle that the pill brought women together. I think this is an important point, that all women have a common need and want brought a sense of unity. I also agree with Gabbie that the vote had more long term effects while the pill brought more immediate effects to women’s lives. I think Michelle brought up great point when she said “Whereas the vote was a monumental triumph that left its victors at odds with each other within a few years as the Great Depression dawned, the Pill has allowed women to stay together and fight for other reproductive rights, such as abortion and the morning-after pill.” Following the pill, so many other types of birth control and contraception have been invented. Today, the needs of women when it comes to sexual health are at a high priority.
ReplyDeleteWhile I still believe that the pill had a greater impact, Gabbie elaborated on a point that had thought about, which I think deserves consideration. She went into depth on the idea that women would not have had the strength to fight for the pill had they not had that same experience fighting for the vote. It is kind of like a which came first, chicken or the egg type situation. I had not considered before how suffrage movement and all of the tribulations women went through would come into play when it came to them fighting against the Catholic Church, which was strongly against birth control and the pill. I had also not really thought to weigh the vote versus the pill when it came to what they stood for. While I agree that being able to control the number of children you have is crucial, I think that women having a voice in society is important too. I’ve had trouble sorting out which one should take priority, because they are both so important, but in different ways. What I think Foster and George were debating encompassed this, as it must be considered the role women have in politics today and how that would not have been possible without the suffrage movement and women eventually getting the vote.
We, as a class, seem to generally agree that it was indeed The Pill that produced power for women. However, we must take into consideration context. The Pill is something that is very prevalent in our lives as youths of the early 21st century. Our mothers, and I am sure some of us (females) are on the pill as well. As Betty Friedan mentions in the last paragraph of her chapter in Feminine Mystique, the word of mouth and power of overhearing conversations is tremendous. We all live in a world now where social media provide fast ways to find out and here conversations and information. The Pill and birth control can be a hot topic, among mothers, friends and doctors and patients. What I am saying that we must not ignor is what it must have been like to live in a time where women could not vote, and then fought by themselves to get it. That is something to not be ignored. So is it just our recent found knowledge of the pill that is causing us to say that we think it is that that raised power among women?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority of the class, that the pill was a greater source of empowerment for women than the suffrage movement. If I was asked to answer this question before having watched the film, The Pill, in class then I absolutely would have said that suffrage was more effective. I would’ve argued that the right to vote is a much more pressing matter than birth control, and that suffrage is ultimately of greater importance. Now, however, after watching the movie, I know that the pill is really more important.
ReplyDeleteIt could be argued that the suffrage movement is what gave women the confidence to fight for their right to obtain the pill, but the suffrage movement had little to no role in this. The suffrage movement effected only the upperclass women, who were educated enough and successful enough to be bothered with voting, and these women, of course, represent a very small portion of American women. This left the rest of the women population to fend for themselves, which obviously did not go very well. They were still looked down upon by their husbands and men in general, and were treated as incapable children who needed to be taken care of. Ironically, the women were NOT being taken care of. According to the film, “In the 1950’s, without an effective female-controlled contraceptive, a young woman faced the prospect of three decades of child bearing.” Quickly turning into the largest baby boom in history, this time period was dangerous for women. Unhealthy pregnancies and babies were a result of the constant pressure to be the perfect housewife, and women felt as if their only duty in life was to meet a decent man and have his children.
I think that the pill saved women. Suffrage may have given some women an option to vote, but the pill saved the majority of women’s lives.
In my opinion, the pill was what empowered women rather than the right to vote. Even though the vote gave women a say in what happens in the community, The pill gave women more of control over their lives and their bodies, which in the long run is more beneficial to women. With the pill the women had more opportunities to be more or less as sexually-free as men, without having to constantly worry about pregnancy. Also, like the bicycle, the pill showed women they could do things on their own, and they weren’t as fragile as society had made them out to be. The pill gave women more control over their bodies and a wider spectrum of choices.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading many of these posts, I still find that the argument that the vote was more important than the pill to be invalid, I would just like to address some other blog posts.
ReplyDeleteI can see the point that Gabby is making when she says that the pill might not come around had the suffrage movement been passed, but I think that this point is refutable. Yes the obtaining of the vote helped women in Congress and showed how protests could work, but this did not mean that women would gain control of their own lives. In fact, the pill was developed by a man, and through his research and the support of John Rock, a catholic, male doctor, the pill was born. It is true that women had pushed for the development of the pill but according the movie “The Pill” the doctor had already begun his research on a pill that would increase hormone levels and stop a woman’s period. By this logic, I see that the development of the pill was inevitable. Women obtaining the vote had very little impact on the development of the pill. Maybe the pill would have had a longer time being fully legalized in all states, due to the lack of protesting skills had the suffrage movement not happened, but other than that, I do not see much correlation.
Tommy, I completely see where you are coming from in your argument. I think that is clear that in today’s world, the pill has become a more commonly used entity than the vote. Until the most recent election, their had been an incredible decline in the amount of people voting, both men and women; birth control on the other hand has had a steady increase and continues to grow as the most popular method of contraception. To answer your question Tommy, I do not think that the pill has just recently raised power amount women. The pill has constantly provided women with an opportunity for women to control their lives and since it came out many women have infiltrated the work force of America. While the vote brought more equality, it did not directly help women obtain jobs.
Even after reading these posts, I still believe that the pill was more affective.
I believe that the pill significantly empowered women more than the vote. There's no doubt that both events contributed greatly to the cause, but I think that the pill liberated women on a broader spectrum in therms of different aspects of life. In addition, the pill added a massive amount of momentum to the women's rights movement that allowed for further liberations of women's role in society, and it is here that I agree with Michelle. While the vote did allow women to play a role in the electoral process and therefore in the process of policy making, the vote did not have as much of a direct or immediate impact as the pill either. In fact, after suffrage was attained, Zinn argues that "no feminist spark left among American women” (504). In this way, the vote liberated women's political ideas, whereas the pill liberated women in almost all other aspects of life.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when the pill gave women control over their child-bearing capabilities, opportunities in the workplace were opened up so that women had more options in exploring their ambitions. Where women were previously unable to work in time-consuming fields and high-tension occupations (such as law) because of the lurking threat of a pregnancy, they were now free to. In addition, women in college no longer had to get an "MRS" degree ("The Pill", PBS) and marry a successful man because women now had the opportunity to pursue their dreams through education and become self-supporting units of society. In fact, the pill was a complete game-changer for the society that women were living in.
In a certain way, the pill shrunk the class disparity between women. Poor women were now able to control their pregnancies just like rich women, and so in a way the playing-field was somewhat leveled in quality of life and opportunities for social mobility through deliberate and conscious action. It is here that I agree with Foster and his quote from Simone de Beauvoir, in which she states, “However gifted an individual is at the outset, if his or her talents cannot be developed because of his or her social condition, because of the surrounding circumstances, these talents will be still-born.” It could also be said that the vote performed a similar function in leveling the political field, however, the more immediate, direct, and all-inclusive effect of the pill made the pill a much more significant step in the liberation of women.
The pill also encouraged women to make decisions for themselves, and self-advocate in a world where men had been making the decisions for women. For example, women now were able to question their physicians on health-related issues, whereas before it was proper to do as the doctor said without hesitation.
The increase of opportunities in the workplace, the bridging of the social gap, and the encouragement of self-advocacy are the key components of how the pill liberated women on a broad and direct level. The accomplishments of suffrage played a major role in the women's rights movement, but it was a small feat in the shadow of the pill.
I agree with Foster that, in perspective, control of one's own body is the most important civil and human right. If for none other reason, the pill must surely be the most significant because this is exactly what it did.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree with Crystal when she alludes to Zinn: "Even where the law was helpful it was helpful only if backed by action” (511). Suffrage was a milestone for breaking down political barriers, but it only affected the every-day life of a woman fractionally as much as the pill did. The pill did much more in the way of changing common perspective on the equality of men and women in this respect. As I previously touched on, the pill added much more action to the fight for women's liberation, which opened the door to more movements in the future. In this way, the pill had a much more immediate and long effect on women's rights, whereas suffrage took longer to create tangible change.
While reading all of the blog posts, I think that most of the people here agree that the Pill was significantly more important to the equal treatment of women than the vote was. I don’t remember who said it, but someone said that without women gaining the right to vote, the pill wouldn’t be around. I would have to say that I disagree with that, because the right to vote is strictly political and the development of a pill that can prevent the birth of excessive babies in strictly scientific. Even though women would not have a say in the government, it would not stop the expanse of science and would certainly not prevent men from developing new technology. Another point that I wanted to bring up was in the movie, there were several black women who were talking about how they though the pill was a subtle way of racial sterilization. In the movie they mentioned how the pill was more readily available to them than any other medication. So while they didn’t have access to Tylenol or Advil, the Pill was always available. I had a tough time distinguishing whether it actually was a subtle way of trying to sterilize the women, or it just seemed like that from their perspective. In a way it kind of makes sense that the government would do that, considering even president have said that they want an American that is a “perfect white” nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Olivia when she says that even though women had the right to vote they Congress there were barely any women in Congress so they weren’t really represented. As long as women didn’t have a position of power in Congress or the House of Representatives, their positions are still a minority over the power of the men representatives.
In reply to George:
ReplyDeleteI think your idea that there are other factors influencing the journey towards gender equity is valid. But I have to disagree with you when you say that the entry of women into Congress in the early 1900’s had anywhere near the influence that the pill or the vote itself had. In your second post, you said “women infiltrated what used to be an exclusively men’s sphere.” I understand that these developments are important, but the infiltration was to such a small degree that I do not believe it had the same level of effect as the liberation the pill brought. By 1967 women only “held 4 percent of the state legislative seats, and 2 percent of the judgeships” (Zinn). The vote, while important, did not ensure equal representation, and because of this lack of equal representation, I don’t believe that the entrance of women into Congress had a huge effect on the women’s rights movement.
After reading my classmates posts, my beliefs that the pill was the most influential have been reaffirmed. Maddy brought up a point that I think deserves recognition. Prior to the introduction – and acceptance – of the pill into American society, the Catholic Church had an immense amount of control over a good part of the American people. In the documentary we watched in class, I remembered the part where the Minister gave a sermon dictating that if anyone used birth control “the faces of their unborn children would haunt them on their death beds” (The Pill Transcript). The Church’s power was so complete that there were five new babies in the area that year. This power paled in the face of the pill though, and when it came out, by the end of the first year Catholic women were using it in the same numbers as non-Catholics. The Pill gave the women control over their own bodies, but it also opened their mind to making decisions based on their needs and desires, not their Church’s.
Women’s suffrage, while a worthy cause, did not empower females in the long term, as Jennifer says. In the 1950’s, only 31 years since the Susan B. Anthony amendment was passed, female social subjugation was so extreme that the contestants of the Mrs. America pageant were advertised by saying, “Enchanting entries in the Mrs. American race not only look swell...they cook well, and they sew darnit, and they mop and peel potatoes, and tend to other chores” (Transcript). Women were looked at as household servants, supposed to clean, cook, sew, and raise children while the man went out and worked to support the family. This obviously does not imply that there was any sort of meaningful social change in women’s situation as a result of the vote, since just a few decades later the hierarchy was back to the way it had been. To see the effect that the vote has had on modern society, one should look at the ratio of male to female members of Congress, which stands at 445 males to 93 females, a ratio of a bit over five to one (Congress.org). If real social and political reform had been a result of the vote, this ratio would be much higher than five to one. In addition, it took a whole other movement, quite separate from the suffragettes, to fully empower women to the state that they are at today (I’m not saying that it’s perfect yet). As Maureen Flanagan, writer for the Encyclopedia of Chicago, says, “Feminist movements waned in Chicago [after the 1928 Women’s World Fair], as they did across the country, reviving during the 1960s… In 1967, feminists met in Chicago to organize chapters of the National Organization for Women, whose recently adopted Bill of Rights called for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, maternity rights in employment and Social Security benefits, equal job training opportunities, and women's right to control their reproductive capacities” (Flanagan). Serious women’s rights movements after the suffrage campaign of the 1910’s only lasted for eight years before stopping almost completely, and only picked up in the 1960’s, directly AFTER the pill was first distributed. Women’s suffrage, while important, did not create the change in American society that we see the results of today.
ReplyDeleteBecause I am one of the last posters, I will respond to the allegations from other people about the pill’s significance on women in America directly after my first post, which only talked about why the vote was unimportant anyway.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Crystal, Max, and most others in the class have said about the pill and its positive cultural effect on women, but to understand what a monumental change the pill, and contraceptives in general, actually had, the situation that women had had previously must first be understood, in my opinion. As Joan McCracken said during her interview for the documentary The Pill, “The 1950s was also a time when it was expected that when you did go to college, you would find a husband. And it was that old ‘What are you graduating with,’ and you hoped it was that ‘Mrs. degree’” (Transcript). College for women was not a place to get educated so that they could move into the world and get a job, but rather to find a husband to take care of the money while they raised the kids. It was just a fact of life, an irrefutable convention of society, that women would go to college and get their “Mrs. degree” in order to have a chance to survive once they left college. However, when the pill was introduced, women had the opportunity to get a real job and go to college for an education, to be a member of the higher levels of society and create a life for themselves. As Loretta McLaughlin said in an interview, “Women became lawyers because law firms no longer had to worry that the woman was going to get pregnant in the middle of a big case. Women became doctors because they could space their children so that they had time to do the internships and the residencies. Women went to work” (Transcript). The pill immediately created social change that affected how women everywhere viewed their lives. In the span of just a few years, women’s life goals went from “I want to find a husband” to “I want to get a career.” This revolution of thinking paved the way for true women’s rights in America, maybe even equality. This change can be seen today as well, in the form of my mother. My mother, Tammy Jersey, is a self-made businesswoman with her own company, TKJ Associates, some employees, and a reputation as one of the finest coaches and executive recruiters in the business. She went into the world entirely unsupported and made a name and a place for herself, allowing her to take control over her own life. What she is doing would have been not only impossible in the 1950’s, but entirely laughable as well. The social dynamic has been altered in the favor of women, allowing them to become self-sufficient. This is real, tangible change that we are seeing in this country’s women, and this change came from the pill.
I agree, along with the majority of the class, that the pill liberated women more so than suffrage. The chance of being able to vote is a privilege which women had not had before August 26, 1920 and “as a symbol, condensed a wide spectrum of female discontents” (Born for Liberty). Suffrage gave women the chance to partake in government, have a say in who would lead their country, and sparked, although temporary, women’s liberation. All of these privileges were rights of citizens, but the pill was a simple right as a human. It should be no question that a woman should have total control over her own body. Women being able to vote is similar to them giving input or becoming equal with men in the voting booth, but the pill went a step further and granted women power over men. The final decision as to whether a woman would continue to bear children was up to her and only her. The pill, such a small object, became a symbol that inspired women to look way past pregnancy and begin to think of even larger improvements, “The rethinking of roles, the rejection of inferiority, the confidence in self, a bond of sisterhood, a new solidarity of mother and daughter” (Zinn). Before the pill, having a husband was a necessity, not a choice, but the new value of sisterhood and mother-daughter relationships encouraged women to rely on men less and less, “And they don't seem to be concerned whether they have a guy or not. They don't seem to be concerned whether they have an MRS degree or not. And it was...it was revolutionary to me” (Pill Transcript). Being that there are only two sexes in the world, women having the chance to finally say “no” to the people who have controlled them for so long, is direct opposition to men.
ReplyDeleteI agree with almost everything that you have said here but was particularly interested in what you said about women gaining power over men. I thought that this was a valid point and it made me think about how the pill allowed for this where as the vote did not. By achieving the vote women were merely were brought even with men, while this was obviously a monumental achievement it did not allow them to do anything men could not. By giving them a method to control birth they were given a power to determine when a baby would be born allowing them to be in a position of power in the relationship. This was a sort of gender role reversal because now women had the power where as in the past it had always been men who had always had the control.
DeletePersonally I have found the pill to be more productive to women than the vote. I see this because it has provided a more evident change in their day to day existence than the vote has. This can be seen in any number of things but first I'd like to state the obvious. The pill allowed for women for the first time to, as the movie stated "truly enjoy sex the way men did". There are 365 days in a year, and on any given day a women could choose to have sex with a man where as in only 1 of those 365 days will a woman vote. The advantage here is obvious, sex will usually occur to a woman who the pill would appeal to many more times than voting would, causing it to at least have the potential to have a far greater effect on their world. Another reason why this is true is that after women got the vote they were not politically motivated to accomplish anything, for them it was like okay cool we got the vote mission accomplished, this was however not the case with the pill. The pill got them back into the workforce as well as back into the political stratosphere so to speak. After they found out that the pill was killing many women, activists and even normal women got back into the business of fighting for their rights, a practice which had not really been seen since the 20's when the vote had been acquired. These palpable changes were only possible due to the newfound power and freedom women had thanks to the pill.
ReplyDeleteAfter scrolling through previous blog posts, I noticed an important idea that Crystal had brought up in her first comment. She quoted Zinn when he wrote, “Even where the law was helpful it was helpful only if backed by action.” Both the suffrage movement, and the creation of the pill, freed women immensely from the sexist chains of society as women in both scenarios were able to overcome what they were told was impossible. Reading Crystal’s idea on how women’s suffrage was not enforced brought me to my other reason why the pill outweighs the vote. By voting and becoming involved with the government, women were able to voice their opinions and “become more modern in the sense of greater detachment from tradition and community” (Born for Liberty). However, in the next generation, the feminist momentum slowed and once again, “a man’s wife is the show window where he exhibits the measure of his achievement” wrote Dorothy Dix in her famed advice column. Women won the right to vote, but their oppressed condition remained the same.
ReplyDeleteThe situation with the pill was dealt differently and unremittingly. In the late 1960s doctors and gynecologists were being flooded with patients complaints about the pill. It had been passed, yet women were still left in the dark and suffered from torturous side effects; a few even died. Women remained inferior and ignored, “a male gynecologist dominated women patients without question… Our judgment about all matters reproductive were never to be questioned” said Dr. Richard Hauskenecht, a previous gynecologist from The Pill. They refused to be set aside though and eventually women brought their demands and well deserved aggression into the Senate Chamber. After one doctor admitted, “Fertilizer is to wheat what estrogen is to cancer” (Pill Transcript), it was clear the feminist protestors would stop for nothing, “We are not just going to sit quietly any longer. You are murdering us for your profit and convenience!” (Pill Transcript). With the determination of protest and refusal to accept second hand treatment, women forced hormones to be reduced (decreasing side effects) and potential risks to be labeled on the pill packaging.
The vote gave women the vote and their goals stopped there, but for the pill, women pushed the limits and accepted nothing less than a safe product and informed patients. The law was enforced because women demanded it to be, no one else fought for them, but themselves.
While woman were motivated and eager to get the vote, I believe that they were even more motivated and eager to get the pill. Although woman achieved the vote, it still did not place them even to men in the eyes of society then, and even now in society today woman are making .75c to the mans $1.00. At the time I believe that woman thought that getting the vote would give them equality, but only the woman who didn’t have 8 kids and had to work all day would have the time and knowledge to go and vote. I think what woman did not realize during that time was that the pill would not only empower them and help remove them from their household lives as it prevented the continuation of fertilization but allow them to become more politically, and socially involved with men by finally allowing them to control when they wanted to be pregnant—further allowing them to enjoy sex. “By 1960, 36 % of all women sixteen and older- 23 million women, worked for paid wages”(Zinn)
ReplyDeleteThere was definitely some uncertainty behind using the pill at first, the greatly followed Catholic Church was steering woman clear of “the Pill” as they said that when the woman using the pill died they would see the faces of their unborn children, and also the pressure of woman in society to have the perfect family, with as many children as they want, all so perfectly groomed. The woman who believe in both of these ideologies were mainly upper class woman who could afford to have multiple kids while still maintaining their health and economically situation. It was the lower class woman though who were not aware the more fertile times of the month where it was more likely for them to get pregnant and then would get pregnant more times than they intended therefore leading to the death of their babies because of ignorance and negligence. “Nine children died during infant, or under two years of age…All who loved through the first year were more or less enfeeble by being kept at the breast long after the milk had lost its value as nourishment…The woman of poorer classes hope to escape pregnancy –an erroneous method of birth control”(Sanger). Therefore the poorer woman were uneducated about the anatomy of their bodies which therefore allowed them to get pregnant more frequently than upper class woman— as a result the Pill gave woman completely more of a choice about their body and the confidence to leave the home life.
For women, I believe achieving the vote was indeed a huge political success. However, being able to use the pill was not only a political success, but it was also an economic success and a social success. From a political standpoint, when woman started going on the pill—there were many dangers to taking it including heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots’ because of the amount of hormones a woman would experience by taking it. Woman were outraged that their doctors wouldn’t explain what was happening to them, to when woman sat in a court meeting demanding for the court(which was also judged by all men—the people who were the antithesis of knowing what the pill did to the body) and they stood up for themselves in a court of law. Woman began to feel the power that they could indeed stand up for themselves and demand an explanation for what was happening to their bodies. From a social standpoint, the use of the pill allowed woman to not just be the 1950’s housewife who cared, cleaned, and cooked for her 8 children everyday. She would be able to manage how many kids she had, and at the same time become most of a person in the society outside of her house. Economically this freedom from the home life made it easier for woman to get jobs, and better provide for their family’s. The problem prior to the pill was that the upper class woman would be able to control when they had sex so they would not get pregnant, while the lower class woman(the people who could not afford the extra children) were the ones who were getting bombed with 7 or so children. This was not only unhealthy for the woman—as it is extremely tiresome, but this was a horrible environment for the children to be living. In a lot of cases, woman would perform unhealthy abortions or in an extreme scenario, throw themselves down the stares in order to get rid of the baby. Sanger writes in her “Hard Facts” that “A woman had 5 living children out of 11 pregnancies. Of the living children, one is mentally deficient, and not one of the five is sound physically. Three died during infancy, and three criminal abortions were performed. At the present time she is in a very unhealthy condition and barely escaped death after the last abortion”(Sanger). Therefore the vote and the pill were both extremely important to the equity of woman and men, but I believe that for woman the pill did more than just political, social, and economic, it also prevented unnecessary death and abuse, and at the same time it “Recently, in 2010, only 46.2 percent of women over the age of eighteen voted in the election, while in 2008 63 percent of sexually active women reported having used the pill at least once in their life as a method of contraception.” There the pill brought woman together in a way that the vote did not, because it allowed woman to be less afraid of what they wanted, now they were protected against unwanted pregnancy and would be able to enjoy their lives as a whole more.
ReplyDelete