This video was taken down from my FB page last week and we will post it again because we want to address what is a vital issue presented in this video.
Remember, this video was created by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS -----KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH with goals of civil unrest civil war population tension.
My NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal surveillance and streaming video PORN happen to be black and Jewish PORN MULES but the attack on US women is broad---black, white, and brown women are being SEXUALLY ASSAULTED as too men and children. So, this is FIRST----a black market MONEY-MAKING operation-----it SECONDLY ---is being used to target specific groups to RUIN.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG play this black market SEX TRADE like they would a PAINT GUN GAME---or a WARRIOR VIDEO GAME.
Since I am neither black or Jewish this is a personal statement. Hannah Arendt was what we call today a global banking freemason LITERARY STAR------writing about the aftermath of WW2. I am writing about the aftermath of sacking and looting my civil society in what is a war platform via global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS as well. The difference between HANNAH and I is------I am not trying to be a global banking freemason LITERARY STAR-----
I WRITE WHAT IS REAL INFORMATION.
Hannah was a strong woman and symbolizes the Jewish women who were leader of the same WOMEN'S FEMINISM as CADY STANTON and MOTT being Protestant women.
'Faculty at Bard College - languageandthinking.bard.edu
languageandthinking.bard.edu/faculty
This past spring, under the auspices of the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and the Humanities at Bard College (with a grant from the Bertha Effron Fund), she curated the inaugural concert/lecture series, "Music in the Holocaust, Jewish Identity and Cosmopolitanism." '
When REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES fight to keep a voting block tied to several centuries of I AM MAN AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT----CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL------the division of each population group as here between black and white citizens---black women and white women come to surface as MOVING FORWARD brings SLAVERY back to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
They Mistook a Backlash for a Movement: Black Men and the Doom of Western Civilization
•Published on Feb 14, 2018
Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College
February 13, 2018, 6pm, Faculty Dining Room, Kline Commons, Bard College campus
This talk was presented as a part of The Hannah Arendt Center's Tough Talk Lecture Series, organized by Bard student Mark Williams, Jr.. Introductions by Roger Berkowitz, Director and Founder of the Hannah Arendt Center, and Mark Williams, Jr.. Discussion moderated by Bard alum, Dana Miranda '14. The emancipation of Black Americans from slavery reorganized the ethnological thinking of the 19th century. Black men became the largest threat to the order of American civilization almost overnight. Whereas many political theorists, philosophers, and educators suggest that the “end” of slavery was one moment in the natural expansion of democracy toward freedom, history tells a different story. The emancipation of the Negro birthed the rapist. When he was allowed access to the ballot, suffragettes condemned this symbolic gesture as evidence of a Black manhood and forewarned that free Black men would not only destroy civilization but womanhood itself. Contrary to our intersectional theories concerning race and gender, this presentation argues that feminism was an evolution of patriarchy—its attempt to racially perfect itself--dedicated to the subjugation of Black men within America’s borders (their permanent exclusion from America’s public and ultimately its social life), and the colonization of darker men the world over. I will argue that these old ideas not only dictate our views and interpretations of Black men and boys but also the xenophobia we have of racialized (Black, Brown, Muslim, etc.) males even today.
_____________________________________________
In this case as with the VIDEO from BARD COLLEGE-----black men are presenting some REVISIONIST HISTORY about our US WOMEN'S MOVEMENT. We are sure other population groups are REVISING as well.
STANTON AND MOTT back in early-mid 1800s related to men who were CONGRESSIONAL/JUDGES relatively wealthy----and they were what today we call GLOBAL BANKING 5% freemason/Greek players. It was not these WOMEN who decided it was time for women to go to WORK-----it was global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS ----THOSE DASTARDLY MEN-------preparing for the coming 2nd industrial revolution. For the same reason as THE US CIVIL WAR------it was the MANIFEST DESTINY and plans of hyper-industrialization which sent STANTON AND MOTT out as women's rights leaders. That does not mean these wealthy women were not working for their own rights------but, they were not the 99% POPULIST women's movement. This was the time the identification of US CITIZEN-----was broadening. White men being unlanded were gaining voting rights----these wealthy women wanted property rights ------rights to accumulate and manage wealth. They could not do that without the backing of 99% WE THE WOMEN. Back then our 99% of black citizens had not achieved this CITIZENSHIP.
The CIVIL WAR goals of breaking apart agricultural economies of south to advance INDUSTRIALISM across US had the goal as well to bring a pool of industrial workers as former slaves.
It was the advent of continuous wars-----WW1 AND 2 that pushed our 99% WE THE WOMEN into the workforce. It was the ROARING 20s ROBBER BARON sacking and looting that prompted these wars.
ALL THIS WAS DONE BY GLOBAL BANKING 1% OF MEN-----
Hannah Arendt would fall into the category of wealthy woman like STANTON AND MOTT. The 99% WE THE WOMEN'S movement was filled with PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, AND JEWISH women--------our 99% of black women not then ENFRANCHISED.
Please be careful with REVISIONIST HISTORY-------remember, these STARS are always tied to wealthy families----but they do get these movements started.
'As shown by her stance in the first document, Lucy Stone's feminism was intrinsically linked to her dedication to equal rights for African Americans. In 1866, Stone partnered with feminists and abolitionists Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton to found the American Equal Rights Association (AERA). The AERA defined their mission as advocating for the equal rights of all American citizens regardless of race or sex. Soon, however, questions of priorities began to emerge'.
'Split within the women's movement
The immediate cause of the split was the proposed Fifteenth Amendment, which would prohibit the denial of suffrage because of race. In one of their most controversial moves, Anthony and Stanton campaigned against the amendment, insisting that women and African Americans should be enfranchised at the same time. They said that by effectively enfranchising all men while excluding all women, the amendment would create an "aristocracy of sex" by giving constitutional authority to the idea that men were superior to women'.
DID THIS WOMEN'S MOVEMENT LEAVE BLACK WOMEN BEHIND? THE ANSWER IS ----NO. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO WAY TO ACHIEVE ENFRANCHISEMENT OF BLACK WOMEN WHEN THE ENFRANCHISEMENT OF BLACK MEN WAS NOT YET IN PLACE.
As a REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE who embraces what STANTON AND MOTT promoted----they both were ABOLITIONISTS/anti-slavery and both were anti-eugenics----this was the background of ending these stereotypes of people from different cultures.
STANTON AND MOTT as women from wealthy families were moving policy for global banking industrial tycoons----but, they opened the door for not only 99% of WE THE WOMEN but for 99% of WE THE BLACK CITIZENS to push for enfranchisement.
Opinion
How the Suffrage Movement Betrayed Black Women
By Brent Staples
Mr. Staples is a member of the editorial board.
July 28, 2018
The suffragist heroes Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony seized control of the feminist narrative of the 19th century. Their influential history of the movement still governs popular understanding of the struggle for women’s rights and will no doubt serve as a touchstone for commemorations that will unfold across the United States around the centennial of the 19th Amendment in 2020.
That narrative, in the six-volume “History of Women’s Suffrage,” betrays more than a hint of vanity when it credits the Stanton-Anthony cohort with starting a movement that actually had diverse origins and many mothers. Its worst offenses may be that it rendered nearly invisible the black women who labored in the suffragist vineyard and that it looked away from the racism that tightened its grip on the fight for the women’s vote in the years after the Civil War.
Historians who are not inclined to hero worship — including Elsa Barkley Brown, Lori Ginzberg and Rosalyn Terborg-Penn — have recently provided an unsparing portrait of this once-neglected period. Stripped of her halo, Stanton, the campaign’s principal philosopher, is exposed as a classic liberal racist who embraced fairness in the abstract while publicly enunciating bigoted views of African-American men, whom she characterized as “Sambos” and incipient rapists in the period just after the war. The suffrage struggle itself took on a similar flavor, acquiescing to white supremacy — and selling out the interests of African-American women — when it became politically expedient to do so. This betrayal of trust opened a rift between black and white feminists that persists to this day.
WE RECOGNIZE BROWN, GINZBERG, AND PENN TODAY AS THE SAME WEALTHY GLOBAL BANKING 5% HAVING THE SAME COMPROMISES TIED TO WEALTH AS STANTON AND MOTT.
This toxic legacy looms especially large as cities, including New York, prepare monuments and educational programs to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, which barred the states from denying voting rights based on gender. Black feminists in particular are eager to see if these remembrances own up to the real history of the fight for the vote — and whether black suffragists appear in them.
The famous suffrage convention convened in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1848 featured Stanton and her partner-in-arms, Lucretia Mott, in addition to the towering figure of Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist and dyed-in-the-wool supporter of women’s rights who was on his way to becoming one of the most famous speakers of the century. Were it not for Douglass’s oratory, the historian Lisa Tetrault tells us in “The Myth of Seneca Falls,” the “controversial” resolution demanding the vote for women might actually have failed.
It became clear after the Civil War that black and white women had different views of why the right to vote was essential. White women were seeking the vote as a symbol of parity with their husbands and brothers. Black women, most of whom lived in the South, were seeking the ballot for themselves and their men, as a means of empowering black communities besieged by the reign of racial terror that erupted after Emancipation.
The tension escalated in the run-up to the 15th Amendment, a provision that ostensibly barred the states from denying Negro men the right to vote. Reasonable people could, of course, disagree on the merits of who should first be given the vote — women or black men. Stanton, instead, embarked on a Klan-like tirade against the amendment. She warned that white woman would be degraded if Negro men preceded them into the franchise. Admiring historians have dismissed this as an unfortunate interlude in an exemplary life. By contrast, the historian Lori Ginzberg argues persuasively that racism and elitism were enduring features of the great suffragist’s makeup and philosophy.
Similarly, the historian Faye Dudden wrote that Stanton “dipped her pen into a tincture of white racism and sketched a reference to a nightmarish figure, the black rapist,” and lashed out from the pages of the suffragist paper that she and Anthony published. Her message — that passage of the 15th Amendment would mean only degradation for women at the hands of Negro men — must have cheered the Ku Klux Klan as it terrorized the black South.
Douglass was clearly wounded by what he described as the “employment of certain names, such as ‘Sambo,’ and the gardener, and the bootblack … and all the rest,” but gracefully declined to answer insult with insult. Instead, he summarized in dramatic fashion the differences between the interests of black and white suffragists — and the case for federal protection of black voters.
“When women, because they are women,” he said, “are hunted down through the cities of New York and New Orleans; when they are dragged from their houses and hung upon lampposts; when their children are torn from their arms and their brains dashed out upon the pavement; when they are objects of insult and outrage at every turn; when they are in danger of having their homes burnt down over their heads; when their children are not allowed to enter schools; then they will have an urgency to obtain the ballot equal to our own.”
Douglass cut to the central fallacy of the white suffragist push -- that African-American women could magically separate their blackness from their femaleness.
The 15th Amendment was, of course, ratified. Women would wait another 50 years for the 19th. Racism intensified among suffragists as they neared their goals. African-American luminaries like the noted anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells and the civil rights leader Mary Church Terrell became more deeply and publicly engaged.
As in other instances, suffragists outside the South used the racism in the Jim Crow states as an excuse for their discriminatory treatment of their black suffragist sisters. Black women’s suffrage clubs that sought formal affiliation with the national white suffrage movement were discouraged from doing so on the grounds that admitting them might anger white Southerners. It has since become clear that this was a ruse Northern whites used to obscure their own discriminatory policies.
The most blatant example of accommodationism came in 1913 when organizers of a huge suffragist parade in Washington demanded that black participants march in an all-black assembly at the back of the parade instead of with their state delegations. Wells famously refused. Terrell, who marched in a colored delegation as requested, believed at the time that white suffragists would exclude black women from the 19th Amendment — nicknamed the Anthony Amendment — if they thought they could get away with it. These episodes fueled within the African-American community a lasting suspicion of white suffragists and of the very idea of political cooperation across racial lines.
Historians are rightly warning groups involved in suffrage commemorations not to overstate the significance of the 19th Amendment. It covered the needs of middle-class white women quite nicely. But it meant very little to black women in the South, where most lived at the time and where election officials were well practiced in the art of obstructing black access to the ballot box. As African-American women streamed in to register, Southern officials merely stepped up the level of fraud and intimidation.
By this time, the former suffragists of the North were celebrating the amendment and were uninterested in fighting discrimination against women who were suffering racial, as opposed to gender, discrimination. As the historian Rosalyn Terborg-Penn writes: “Within a few years, white supremacy was victorious throughout the South. Unlike Black men, who had been disenfranchised within 20 years after the ratification of the 15th Amendment, Black women had lost the vote in less than a decade.” It would take another half-century — and a new suffrage campaign, with black women in a leading role — before that black community was fully enfranchised, through the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The recent uproar over the monuments to white supremacy that dominate public spaces in the South has put civic groups on notice that memorials often convey pernicious messages and perpetuate historical wrongs. Organizers need to keep that in mind as they commemorate a movement in which racism clearly played a central role.
___________________________________________
The sufferagettes were working class women------they were again---PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, AND JEWISH and they fought for FACTORY JOBS----so, this idea of the women's movement being strictly MIDDLE-CLASS is BOGUS---REVISIONIST history.
Again, the statement below wants everyone to believe that a WOMEN'S MOVEMENT of white women could change the entire course of enfranchisement for all 99% OF BLACK CITIZENS.
WOMEN BACK THEN DID NOT HAVE THAT POWER.
We shout loudly----BEWARE of global banking 1% trying to sell the idea that a US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT tied to bringing RIGHTS TO WOMEN would be BAD for any 99% of WE THE WOMEN OF COLOR.
THAT WOULD BE FAKE NEWS.
'Historians are rightly warning groups involved in suffrage commemorations not to overstate the significance of the 19th Amendment. It covered the needs of middle-class white women quite nicely. But it meant very little to black women in the South, where most lived at the time and where election officials were well practiced in the art of obstructing black access to the ballot box'.
When anyone uses the term WHITE WOMEN-----it has a RELATIVE MEANING. 'WHITE' generally means EUROPEAN-----our JEWISH citizens may consider themselves WHITE or they may identify as JUDAIC---meaning culturally from NEAR EAST.
The point is this: our JEWISH citizens have their global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----in the TRIBE OF JUDAH. HANNAH ARENDT worked for the global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS TRIBE OF JUDAH just as STANTON AND MOTT worked for OLD WORLD EUROPEAN KINGS in the 2ND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
Below we see how active JEWISH WOMEN were in the US LABOR MOVEMENT alongside 99% of white women. The movement of MIDDLE AND MERELY RICH WOMEN into universities and professional positions happened at the same time---again, JEWISH AND WHITE WOMEN both benefited from this.
Our US BLACK 99% of citizens were simply making an adjustment from the freedom brought by CIVIL WAR. They were working in factories as all 99% of factory workers were mistreated-------abused by corporations.
Again, the US CONSTITUTIONAL 19TH AMENDMENT is critical today and it is indeed being ATTACKED AND DISMANTLED by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----those dastardly men.
Here we see as with the BARD VIDEO featuring a black leader condemning the WOMEN'S MOVEMENT--------so too in JEWISH arena as stated tied to FAR-RIGHT ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE views. Jewish 99% led in social justice today they are captured by far-right as too our 99% of white and black citizens...MEN AND WOMEN
.'As Jews shrink as a percentage of US population, and right leaning orthodox Jews growing in number, it is uncertain whether Jews will continue to distinguish themselves as advocates for the labor movement and social justice'.
Jews in the American Labor Movement: By Bennett Muraskin
German-speaking Jews who arrived in the US in the mid-19th century spread across the US and tended to be merchants and shop keepers. Yiddish speaking Jews from Eastern Europe who arrived in the US beginning in the 1880s settled in the big cities and tended to be workers. The conditions they faced were daunting. Low wages, long hours, unsafe workplaces and overcrowded and unsanitary tenement housing were the norm. Most of these Jewish immigrants came from small towns and were not prepared for the noise, dirt, congestion, disease and crime rampant in the great American cities of that period. Some even turned to crime and prostitution. However, they were free of the anti-Semitic laws and violence that plagued them in Eastern Europe. Their children were entitled to a free public education and once they became citizens, they could vote and participate in the political process.
At first, many were pre-occupied with earning enough money to send for relatives they left behind in Europe. From the beginning, Jews gravitated to the garment industry in part because they had experience as tailors in Eastern Europe. It did not take long before they began to see trade unions as the path their economic and social progress.
However, before going any further, it is necessary to recognize one of the most important Jewish personalities in the history of the American labor movement, Samuel Gompers.
Gompers came to US from England in 1863. His parents came from Holland, with ancestry dating back to Spain. In other words, he was a Sephardic Jew. Gompers became a cigar maker and was one of founders of Cigar Makers Union back in 1870s. He was integral to the founding of the American Federation of Labor in the 1880s and led it until 1924, but he did not share language, culture or politics of East European Jews. Gompers is considered a conservative influence because of his devotion to craft unionism, hostility toward socialism and opposition to immigration.
By 1888 there was already a Jewish labor movement called the United Hebrew Trades, originally conceived by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals and revolutionaries who frowned on Yiddish as inferior language of the shtetl. Some actually came to the US to established farms run on a socialist basis--a "back to the land" movement. But these projects soon fizzled and they moved to the big cities among other Jewish immigrants. As committed anarchists and socialists, they sought to organize the Jewish working class, but in order to do so, they first had to master Yiddish.
At this early stage, Yiddish was a means to an end, not an instrument for cultural development. Their propaganda, though, used religious imagery to inspire the workers--passages from the Prophets on social justice, references to modern day Pharoahs and to the Israelites’ liberation from Egyptian slavery etc.
The best known "sweatshop poet" Morris Rosenfeld, who arrived in this country from London in 1886, but grew up in Poland, wrote this verse:
Jews still have their Bernie Sanders and Robert Reichs and the labor leaders cited in this essay, but we also have our Walter Annenbergs, Sheldon Adelsons and Bernard Madoffs. As Jews shrink as a percentage of US population, and right leaning orthodox Jews growing in number, it is uncertain whether Jews will continue to distinguish themselves as advocates for the labor movement and social justice. To quote a quondam progressive Jew, "The answer is blowin' in the wind."
_______________________________________
Our US 99% of BLACK AND BROWN WOMEN need to be aware that today's FAKE NEWS AND PROPAGANDA over this CRITICAL CIVIL RIGHTS WIN for WOMEN--------was necessary before the expansion to all women.
Every population group black, white, and brown ---PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, JEWISH, MUSLIM, HINDI-BUDDHIST has its RACISTS-----there may have indeed been wealthy women in these movements who did say negative things-----across all population groups.
What was important back then as TODAY----is that 99% OF WE THE WOMEN came together to win these rights.....whether merely rich or poor.
MAKE NO MISTAKE---THESE VIDEOS AND ARTICLES REVISING THIS WOMEN'S MOVEMENT HISTORY HAVE GOALS OF ENDING RIGHTS FOR WOMEN JUST AS RIGHTS FOR ALL MEN NOT GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% -----
'It wasn’t until 1943 that Chinese Americans were first permitted to become citizens, after the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed. For Filipinos, it wasn’t until 1946; for Japanese Americans and other Asian Americans, this did not come until 1952'.
HerStory: The Women Behind the 19th Amendment
On August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, was formally adopted into the U.S. Constitution. Here is a look at the events surrounding this important chapter in U.S. history and the women who made change happen.
Greg Timmons
Updated:
Jun 24, 2019
Original:
On a warm August evening, Tennessee became the 36th state to ratify the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting women the right to vote. It was the culmination of a 144-year odyssey from the Declaration of Independence and clarified once and for all, the meaning of “all men are created equal.” As was the case throughout this journey, the final vote did not come easy.
It all came down to one man, 24-year-old state legislator Harry Burn. On the morning of August 18, 1920, Mr. Burn, who had been against ratification, received a letter from his mother which stated, “Dear son… Vote for suffrage and don’t keep them in doubt… Don’t forget to be a good boy…”
As the roll call neared his name, he clutched the letter from his mother in his hand.
“Mr. Burns…” the assembly clerk called his name.
“Yea.”
And then, it was done. The painful struggle was over. American women had the right to vote and with it, full citizenship. The arduous work of thousands of women—and men—had finally been rewarded. However, to truly appreciate this achievement, one has to understand how far American attitudes towards women had evolved from the previous century.
A suffrage parade in New York City in 1912. (Photo: Library of Congress [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
"All Men and Women Are Created Equal"
By the early 19th century, American society had fully embraced the “Cult of True Womanhood,” an ideology that claimed women were best suited in the home, serving as the family’s moral guide. This protected-class status was intended to shield women from being sullied by the nefarious influences of work, politics and making war. In reality, the custom paved the way for laws banning women from attending colleges, entering professional work, voting, serving on juries and testifying in court. Many states outlawed women from owning property or entering into contracts. From an early age, women were placed on the path of marriage and motherhood. For single women, options were limited to teaching or nursing, with the social label of being an “old maid.”
However, during this time the United States was also going through a tremendous transformation. Industry was surpassing agriculture in productivity and profitability. Slavery’s days were numbered, though its demise would only happen through civil war. Religious enlightenment was engaging Americans to think of themselves as a chosen people with a mission to improve society. The political climate was ripe and in need of women’s moral guidance. At the top of the list was the abolition of slavery. Two sisters from a South Carolina planation, Angelina and Sara Grimke, wrote and spoke fervently to end slavery. The subsequent disapproval by some clergymen of their activities led them to expand their efforts towards women’s rights.
Mary Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" inspired many women to push for greater rights. (Image: John Opie [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
Fueled by the writings of 18th century women’s rights activist Mary Wollstonecraft, whose book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, many women began to push for greater rights. The seminal moment for Elizabeth Cady Stanton came while attending the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London when she, and the other women attending, were banned from participating in the proceedings.
When Stanton returned to her hometown of Seneca Falls, New York, she and her friend Lucretia Mott organized the first women’s right convention, held on July 19-20, 1848. There she introduced a “Declaration of Rights and Sentiments” modeled after the Declaration of Independence. As she stood before the delegation, she nervously read from the document,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
The convention delegates nodded approvingly, hearing the familiar words spoken. Emboldened, Stanton introduced several resolutions, the last advocating a woman’s right to vote. Many delegates, both men and women, were appalled at the audacity. Some doubted whether women were qualified to vote, while others felt that such a right was unnecessary as most women would likely vote with their husbands. After a stirring speech by African American abolitionist Frederick Douglass, the resolution passed. The partnership between abolition and suffrage had been solidified and, it seemed, the two movements would achieve their respective goals together.
A Divided Movement
African American abolitionist Frederick Douglass. (Photo: National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
The next pivotal battle for women’s equality took place in 1868 during Congressional debates on the 15th Amendment, guaranteeing the right to vote. Women had worked hard over the past 20 years for black freedom and enfranchisement and expected they would be included in this goal. While many abolitionists were initially supportive of suffrage for both African Americans and women, leaders felt that it was now “the Negro’s hour” and to ask for more would jeopardize the cause. In an unexpected turnaround, Frederick Douglass made an impassioned plea at the American Equal Rights Association convention to let the black man go first, turning the effort away from enfranchising women.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony saw this as a betrayal and campaigned against any amendment that denied women the right to vote. This caused a breach in the women’s movement and led to Stanton and Anthony forming the National Women’s Suffrage Association (NWSA), while Lucy Stone, her husband Henry Blackwell, and Julia Ward Howe founded the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA), which supported the 15th Amendment.
Many African American women also pushed for women’s rights, beginning with Sojourner Truth, who in 1851 made her impassioned “Ain’t I a Woman” speech. Other African American women, such as Mary Anne Shadd Cary and Charlotte Forten Grimke (the niece of two abolitionists/suffragists Margaretta and Harriet Forten) participated in suffrage organizations. Unfortunately, as was the case in society, oftentimes African American women weren’t always welcomed by white suffragists and had to participate in separate organizations. In 1896, many black women’s clubs affiliated to form the National Association of Colored Women with Mary Church Terrell as president.
Through the second half of the 19th century, the suffrage movement remained divided. In the 1870s, some women used the language of the 14th Amendment to try to vote. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony was arrested when she illegally voted in a presidential election. She was fined $100, which she never paid, and moved on. This tactic of invoking the 14th Amendment to enfranchise women was permanently squashed when the Supreme Court ruled in Minor v. Happersett (1875) that the 14th Amendment did not grant women the right to vote.
In 1874, Francis Willard founded the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) which soon became the largest and most powerful women’s movement in the country. Its hundreds of thousands of members helped support the suffrage movement, but linking suffrage to prohibition was strongly opposed by many who were not against alcohol and weakening the effort.
By the 1890s, the acrimony between the two women’s suffrage associations had subsided and they merged into the National American Suffrage Association (NAWSA). With the passing of Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1902 and Susan B. Anthony in 1906, a new generation of leaders assumed control of the women’s movement. NAWSA president Carrie Chapman Catt pursued a state-by-state strategy to win the vote for women, which by 1896, proved successful in four states—Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and Colorado. Still, the goal of national suffrage was a long way off. However, Catt left the organization tired of the internal squabbling.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Progressive movement emerged to address issues associated with industrialization, immigration and urbanization. Many in the labor movement saw women as allies and potential voters for their cause. In 1906, Harriot Stanton Blatch, Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s daughter, founded the Equality League of Self-Supporting Women to organize working-class suffragists. In 1910, they conducted the first large-scale suffrage march in the United States. In addition, black women founded clubs that worked exclusively for woman’s suffrage, such as the Alpha Suffrage Club of Chicago, founded by Ida B. Wells in 1913.
_____________________________________
Just as STANTON AND MOTT from mid-1800s working for global 1% industrialists wanting women in workforce as 2nd industrial revolution was starting----today global 1% are KILLING JOBS---KILLING the workforce----and bringing US down to third world status in wages and quality of life----ELIMINATING ALL THOSE right won by both US 99% OF MEN AND WOMEN----black, white, and brown citizens.
THE DAILY BEAST is a raging global banking 1% CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL MEDIA OUTLET. That is why this article was written.
HANNAH ARENDT left Europe as PRE-WEIMAR GERMANY was becoming HITLER MADMAN and came to UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO-----where as we discuss OFTEN-------LEO STRAUSS of NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMICS fame was setting the stage to do in US what was done in EUROPE---taking our US REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CAPITALISM with all that COMMON LAW AND I AM MAN AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT------back to DARK AGES.
LEO STRAUSS AND ARENDT were global banking 5% freemason/greek players for OLD WORLD TRIBE OF JUDAH-----just as CLINTON/REAGAN/BUSH/OBAMA were the same for global banking 1% OLD WORLD EUROPEAN KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA.
These has always been a right wing religious stance against WOMEN WORKING------they were a small percentage through the 20th century. Today, with FAR-RIGHT WING ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE religious stances being installed by global banking 1%-------this is where
HITTING ME ---HITTING ME HARD---SO HARD I CANNOT COME OUT OF MY HOUSE----TO KEEP ME SILENT-----NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG--------WORKING TO GET THIS POPULATION GROUP AND THAT POPULATION GROUP OUT OF THE US WORKFORCE.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG who are women said in FEEDBACK ---why are you HITTING her------BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD TO...............
Retro Marriage
One Reason Women Stay Home:
Because It's Easier on EveryoneTwo career couples must constantly negotiate who does what.
Megan McArdle
Updated 07.11.17 8:33PM ET / Published 03.18.13 9:40AM ET
M. Spencer Green/AP,M. Spencer Green
This article on women who stay home is undoubtedly going to trigger a lot of commentary on the internet. Stay-at-home Moms, Lisa Miller argues, reduce the amount of stress on the marriage:
The explanation for the disconnect, the researchers surmised, was that French people, like Americans, lie to themselves about what they want. French women (like their American counterparts) do the bulk of the domestic work, and the majority also work full time. Quoting from colleagues’ earlier work, the sociologists showed that sexism in France is as much a part of the culture as great bread, wine, and a long lunch hour. In France, “there were numerous men who were available to look after children during the week when their partner was employed … but nevertheless did not take responsibility for child care even when they were free.” They were saying one thing and doing another, which in marriage, says the historian Stephanie Coontz, is “a recipe for instability and unhappiness.”
That same year, an American sociologist published a paper describing similar results. Predictors of marital unhappiness, found Bradford Wilcox at the University of Virginia, included wives who earned a large share of household income and wives who perceived the division of labor at home as unfair. Predictors of marital happiness were couples who shared a commitment to the institutional idea of marriage and couples who went to religious services together. “Our findings suggest,” he wrote, “that increased departures from a male-breadwinning-female-homemaking model may also account for declines in marital quality, insofar as men and women continue to tacitly value gendered patterns of behavior in marriage.” It’s an idea that thrives especially in conservative religious circles: The things that specific men and women may selfishly want for themselves (sex, money, status, notoriety) must for the good of the family be put aside. Feminists widely critiqued Wilcox’s findings, saying it puts the onus on women to suck it up in marriage, when men should be under more pressure to change. But these days you’ll find echoes of Wilcox’s thesis in unlikely places. “We look at straight people,” a gay friend said to me recently as we were comparing anecdotes about husbands, “and we think marriage must be so much easier for them.”
When I look at Kelly and Alvin Makino, I feel the same way. I have worked full time for almost all my daughter’s nine years, and only very rarely have I ever felt that nature required anything else of me. I love my job and have found work to be gratifying and even calming during periods when other parts of my life are far less so. Like 65 percent of American couples, my husband and I both work to pay our bills, but my commitment to my career extends way beyond financial necessity. My self-sufficiency sets a good example for my daughter (or so we tell ourselves), which is one reason why even if we were to win the lotto, staying at home would not likely be a course I’d choose.
And yet. I am not immune to the notion that I have powers and responsibilities as a mother that my husband does not have. I prepare our daughter’s lunch box every morning with ritualistic care, as if sending her off to school with a bologna sandwich made by me can work as an amulet against all the pain of my irregular, inevitable absences. I believe that I have a special gift for arranging playdates, pediatrician appointments, and piano lessons, and I yearn sometimes for the vast swaths of time Kelly Makino has given herself to keep her family’s affairs in order. In an egalitarian marriage, every aspect of home life is open to renegotiation. When two people need to leave the house at 6 a.m., who gets the children ready for school? When two people have to work late, who will meet that inflexible day-care pickup time? And who, finally, has the energy for those constant transactions?
Economist Ronald Coase won the Nobel Prize for developing a theory of the firm: an explanation for why we have companies with employees at all, rather than simply having an owner contract for services on an ad-hoc basis. They formed companies, Coase theorized, because it allowed them to reduce the transactions costs of doing business: it's time consuming and costly to figure out how much you want to pay someone to serve as an occasional CFO. Easier to put them on staff and pay them a flat rate for doing all the CFO stuff.
Miller is suggesting that the traditionally gendered marriage also reduced transaction costs. Gay couples I know who've adopted children generally report that one parent ends up as "Dad" and one parent as "Mom". One person ends up in charge of the doctors appointments, the playdates and the ballet recitals; the other may help, but only one is the executive. And I gather that it's not just because we have some sort of social expectation that someone will be "Mom"; it's because the costs of sharing the duties outweigh the benefits. If two people are in charge of scheduling playdates and planning birthday parties, then you have to spend an enormous amount of time sharing information about these things. Moreover, you need to spend more time developing a joint policy on playdates and birthday parties: what sort of kids? How many? Who gets struck off the permitted list, and for what offenses? This is not only time consuming, but also, creates opportunities for spousal arguments.
This is what Miller is describing among the two career couples: constant negotiation over who will do what. This may contribute to the decreased satisfaction with their marriages and their lives that people report after they have children.
If the division of labor is a more efficient, less bothersome, way to handle the duties of childrearing, then it may be that gendering that division also has benefits. Leave aside arguments about whether women have innate tendencies in one direction or another; even a 100% culturally conditioned gender division might have benefits that lead to its adoption. Assigning the home tasks to one gender means that you don't need to negotiate who will stay home, reducing marital conflict. It also eases any regret that the stay-at-home partner might feel over their decision.
It also makes it easier to agree on the legal institutions that surround marriage. To take just one example, a divorced woman in 1960 could expect to be awarded a substantial portion of her husband's income until she remarried, because the expectation was that she had contributed to his success by taking care of all the home production--and sacrificing any earning power she might have had.
Now, she's much more likely to be given a few years worth of alimony while she gets back on her feet and finds a job. Which makes the decision to stay home a very risky financial bet. My understanding is that the feminists who pushed to change the rules in teh 1970s saw this as a feature, rather than a bug: they wanted women to have good reason to stay self-supporting. But with some women staying home, and others not, it's hard for the divorce laws to be fair for everyone.
Of course, that doesn't mean that we should return to the old-style Mom's-home-Dad-works marriage. There are also costs to such arrangements, which have been well-enumerated by the feminist movement over the years. But if you think about staying home not just as a way to invest more in your children, but also as a way to reduce conflict (for yourself and everyone else), it gets easier and easier to understand the appeal.
__________________________________________
Today, what was a united 99% of WE THE WOMEN---or WE TH E US WORKERS as been attacked and dismantled by GLOBAL BANKING 1% and NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMICS staged at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO------courtesy of LEO STRAUSS AND HANNAH ARENDT. Since WW2 and HITLER/STALIN as madmen------the European and US nations have been captured to what WORLD BANK/IMF calls NEO-LIBERAL/MARXIST economic cycles.
REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES included our JEWISH labor union members as labor unions were indeed working to HOLD CORPORATIONS ACCOUNTABLE TO WORKERS. Today, US LABOR UNION LEADERS are partnered with GLOBAL BANKING OLD WORLD KINGS----WORLD BANK/IMF------working as INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION promoting MARXISM-----the OPPOSITE of left social progressive capitalism.
As the article posted earlier on Jewish labor movement said---today's global banking 5% freemason/Greek JEWISH PLAYERS are killing the 99% of REAL Jewish workers as well as every population group in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
We call FAKE NEWS the identification of ROBERT REICH AND BERNIE SANDERS as LABOR RIGHTS politicians-----
'Even in the developing world, the better-off countries are more likely than the poorest to conform to ILO labor standards. In countries with per capita income of $500 a year or less, 30—60 percent of children between the ages of 10 and 14 work'.
Above is what MOVING FORWARD has as a goal-----and these STATS make it appear only a 30% or THIS POPULATION GROUP or that will face these third world wages and living standards when MOVING FORWARD FINAL SOLUTION will take ALL 99% of US citizens men and women black, white, and brown down to these 3000BC Hindi -Brahmin standards.
THE UNITED NATIONS/WORLD BANK/IMF IS COMPOSED OF ONLY CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS/BUSH NEO-CONS-------THERE ARE NO REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES WORKING FOR AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN.
The TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT does not allow global corporations to lose PROFITS dealing with LABOR ISSUES.
'Putting Teeth into Standards Enforcement
Labor advocates favor strengthening enforcement by expanding the role of the World Trade Organization or using bilateral trade agreements'.
Please don't fall for POPULATION GROUP TENSION-----don't be PLAYED-----our US 99% whether men or women attained the quality of life they did these 300 years because they STUCK TOGETHER.
Brookings Institute FAKE NEWS media outlet -----far-right wing global banking 1% NEO-LIBERAL think tank.
Article
Workers’ Rights: Labor standards and global trade
Gary Burtless Saturday, September 1, 2001
Of all the debates surrounding globalization, one of the most contentious involves trade and workers’ rights.
Proponents of workers’ rights argue that trading nations should be held to strict labor standards—and they offer two quite different justifications for their view. The first is a moral argument whose premise is that many labor standards, such as freedom of association and the prohibition of forced labor, protect basic human rights. Foreign nations that wish to be granted free access to the world’s biggest and richest markets should be required to observe fundamental human values, including labor rights. In short, the lure of market access to the United States and the European Union should be used to expand the domain of human rights.
The key consideration here is the efficacy of labor standards policies. Will they improve human rights among would-be trading partners? Or will they slow progress toward human rights by keeping politically powerless workers mired in poverty? Some countries, including China, might reject otherwise appealing trade deals that contain enforceable labor standards. By insisting on tough labor standards, the wealthy democracies could lay claim to the moral high ground. But they might have to forgo a trade pact that could help their own producers and consumers while boosting the incomes and political power of impoverished Chinese workers.
The second argument for strict labor standards stresses not the welfare of poor workers, but simple economic self-interest. A trading partner that fails to enforce basic protections for its workers can gain an unfair trade advantage, boosting its market competitiveness against countries with stronger labor safeguards. Including labor standards in trade deals can encourage countries in a free trade zone to maintain worker protections rather than abandoning them in a race to the bottom. If each country must observe a common set of minimum standards, member countries can offer and enforce worker protections at a more nearly optimal level. This second argument, unlike the first, can be assessed with economic theory and evidence.
Evaluating these arguments requires answering three questions. First, what labor standards are important to U.S. trade and foreign policy? Second, how can labor standards, once negotiated, be enforced? Finally, does it make sense to insist that our trade partners adhere to a common set of core labor standards?and if so, which standards?
Citizens in developing countries might be less confident that their laws and enforcement procedures will meet the tests implied by the ILO conventions, especially as construed by observers from affluent countries. Interpretations devised in the drawing rooms of Paris or the recreation rooms of suburban Washington might seem out of touch with conditions in countries where half or more of the population lives on less than $2 a day.
___________________________________________
When NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal surveillance and PORN sought to RUIN me with PSYCHO-SEXUAL TORTURE to include citywide public surveillance hacking following me everywhere I went saying SHE'S A SEX SLAVE-----WE OWN HER------SHE NEEDS TO STAY AT HOME AND BE SILENT-------and this done by both MEN AND WOMEN NOSY NEIGHBORS------this is what fuels those feelings---yet another global banking 1% freemason/STAR MOVIE meant to create A FAD.
If we thought MOVING FORWARD goals were to EMPOWER ANYONE other than global banking 1% of MEN-----we would understand this idea of REPARATIONS using US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE as black market criminal video PORN------bringing money from US citizens being SOLD following SACKING AND LOOTING RAPING AND PILLAGING by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS---KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH.
That is not the goal---the goal is to eliminate all of the gains of all of the US 99% WE THE PEOPLE---men and women----black, white, and brown citizens-----REAL 99% JEWISH, MUSLIM, PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, HINDI-BUDDHIST.
While we watch as global banking 1% place HILLARY NASTY LADIES especially women of color in political positions we are watching as those women are USED to bring down all the gains of US WOMEN'S MOVEMENT. The US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE goals of global 2% of families as US politicians will end as well ------so, no one wins in MOVING FORWARD.
THE FINAL SOLUTION WILL HAVE GLOBAL 1% OF MEN USING AVATARS-------ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS POLITICIANS AND CIVIC LEADERS ---NO HUMANS NEED APPLY.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG IN MY CASE BEING BLACK AND JEWISH WILL NOT BE WINNERS AS THEY WORK TO RUIN AND SILENCE A REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC WOMAN.
'As shown by her stance in the first document, Lucy Stone's feminism was intrinsically linked to her dedication to equal rights for African Americans. In 1866, Stone partnered with feminists and abolitionists Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton to found the American Equal Rights Association (AERA). The AERA defined their mission as advocating for the equal rights of all American citizens regardless of race or sex. Soon, however, questions of priorities began to emerge'.
'Split within the women's movement
The immediate cause of the split was the proposed Fifteenth Amendment, which would prohibit the denial of suffrage because of race. In one of their most controversial moves, Anthony and Stanton campaigned against the amendment, insisting that women and African Americans should be enfranchised at the same time. They said that by effectively enfranchising all men while excluding all women, the amendment would create an "aristocracy of sex" by giving constitutional authority to the idea that men were superior to women'.
I am told I am THE HELP------GRANNY NOSY NEIGHBOR says-----THE GUYS ARE JUST HAVING SOME FUN. Each region in US had its own cultural identities which evolved-----don't set eyes upon just ONE.
I liked the MOVIE----not so much NOSY NEIGHBORS making PORN of any 99% of people found unaware of these illegal surveillance structures...it is NOT empowering to anyone.
The Help | A Social Awakening
•Published on Feb 9, 2012
What's the story?
Skeeter (Emma Stone) is one of the few young women in her upper-crust circle to actually graduate from college. She returns home to Jackson, Miss., where all of her friends are married young mothers who let their African-American maids do the heavy lifting while they gather for bridge games, gossip, and charity-ball planning. Unfulfilled with her job as a household-tips columnist, Skeeter pitches a book idea to a New York city editor (Mary Steenburgen): She'll write a collection of stories about THE HELP, from their point of view. But first Skeeter must convince her friends' housekeepers -- starting with Aibileen (Viola Davis) -- to be interviewed for the project. Hesitant at first, Aibileen eventually relents and nudges her best friend, the recently fired Minny (Octavia Spencer), to tell the truth about raising and loving white children who grow up to be just as racist as their parents.
Remember, this video was created by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS -----KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH with goals of civil unrest civil war population tension.
My NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal surveillance and streaming video PORN happen to be black and Jewish PORN MULES but the attack on US women is broad---black, white, and brown women are being SEXUALLY ASSAULTED as too men and children. So, this is FIRST----a black market MONEY-MAKING operation-----it SECONDLY ---is being used to target specific groups to RUIN.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG play this black market SEX TRADE like they would a PAINT GUN GAME---or a WARRIOR VIDEO GAME.
Since I am neither black or Jewish this is a personal statement. Hannah Arendt was what we call today a global banking freemason LITERARY STAR------writing about the aftermath of WW2. I am writing about the aftermath of sacking and looting my civil society in what is a war platform via global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS as well. The difference between HANNAH and I is------I am not trying to be a global banking freemason LITERARY STAR-----
I WRITE WHAT IS REAL INFORMATION.
Hannah was a strong woman and symbolizes the Jewish women who were leader of the same WOMEN'S FEMINISM as CADY STANTON and MOTT being Protestant women.
'Faculty at Bard College - languageandthinking.bard.edu
languageandthinking.bard.edu/faculty
This past spring, under the auspices of the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and the Humanities at Bard College (with a grant from the Bertha Effron Fund), she curated the inaugural concert/lecture series, "Music in the Holocaust, Jewish Identity and Cosmopolitanism." '
When REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES fight to keep a voting block tied to several centuries of I AM MAN AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT----CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL------the division of each population group as here between black and white citizens---black women and white women come to surface as MOVING FORWARD brings SLAVERY back to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
They Mistook a Backlash for a Movement: Black Men and the Doom of Western Civilization
•Published on Feb 14, 2018
Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College
February 13, 2018, 6pm, Faculty Dining Room, Kline Commons, Bard College campus
This talk was presented as a part of The Hannah Arendt Center's Tough Talk Lecture Series, organized by Bard student Mark Williams, Jr.. Introductions by Roger Berkowitz, Director and Founder of the Hannah Arendt Center, and Mark Williams, Jr.. Discussion moderated by Bard alum, Dana Miranda '14. The emancipation of Black Americans from slavery reorganized the ethnological thinking of the 19th century. Black men became the largest threat to the order of American civilization almost overnight. Whereas many political theorists, philosophers, and educators suggest that the “end” of slavery was one moment in the natural expansion of democracy toward freedom, history tells a different story. The emancipation of the Negro birthed the rapist. When he was allowed access to the ballot, suffragettes condemned this symbolic gesture as evidence of a Black manhood and forewarned that free Black men would not only destroy civilization but womanhood itself. Contrary to our intersectional theories concerning race and gender, this presentation argues that feminism was an evolution of patriarchy—its attempt to racially perfect itself--dedicated to the subjugation of Black men within America’s borders (their permanent exclusion from America’s public and ultimately its social life), and the colonization of darker men the world over. I will argue that these old ideas not only dictate our views and interpretations of Black men and boys but also the xenophobia we have of racialized (Black, Brown, Muslim, etc.) males even today.
_____________________________________________
In this case as with the VIDEO from BARD COLLEGE-----black men are presenting some REVISIONIST HISTORY about our US WOMEN'S MOVEMENT. We are sure other population groups are REVISING as well.
STANTON AND MOTT back in early-mid 1800s related to men who were CONGRESSIONAL/JUDGES relatively wealthy----and they were what today we call GLOBAL BANKING 5% freemason/Greek players. It was not these WOMEN who decided it was time for women to go to WORK-----it was global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS ----THOSE DASTARDLY MEN-------preparing for the coming 2nd industrial revolution. For the same reason as THE US CIVIL WAR------it was the MANIFEST DESTINY and plans of hyper-industrialization which sent STANTON AND MOTT out as women's rights leaders. That does not mean these wealthy women were not working for their own rights------but, they were not the 99% POPULIST women's movement. This was the time the identification of US CITIZEN-----was broadening. White men being unlanded were gaining voting rights----these wealthy women wanted property rights ------rights to accumulate and manage wealth. They could not do that without the backing of 99% WE THE WOMEN. Back then our 99% of black citizens had not achieved this CITIZENSHIP.
The CIVIL WAR goals of breaking apart agricultural economies of south to advance INDUSTRIALISM across US had the goal as well to bring a pool of industrial workers as former slaves.
It was the advent of continuous wars-----WW1 AND 2 that pushed our 99% WE THE WOMEN into the workforce. It was the ROARING 20s ROBBER BARON sacking and looting that prompted these wars.
ALL THIS WAS DONE BY GLOBAL BANKING 1% OF MEN-----
Hannah Arendt would fall into the category of wealthy woman like STANTON AND MOTT. The 99% WE THE WOMEN'S movement was filled with PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, AND JEWISH women--------our 99% of black women not then ENFRANCHISED.
Please be careful with REVISIONIST HISTORY-------remember, these STARS are always tied to wealthy families----but they do get these movements started.
'As shown by her stance in the first document, Lucy Stone's feminism was intrinsically linked to her dedication to equal rights for African Americans. In 1866, Stone partnered with feminists and abolitionists Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton to found the American Equal Rights Association (AERA). The AERA defined their mission as advocating for the equal rights of all American citizens regardless of race or sex. Soon, however, questions of priorities began to emerge'.
'Split within the women's movement
The immediate cause of the split was the proposed Fifteenth Amendment, which would prohibit the denial of suffrage because of race. In one of their most controversial moves, Anthony and Stanton campaigned against the amendment, insisting that women and African Americans should be enfranchised at the same time. They said that by effectively enfranchising all men while excluding all women, the amendment would create an "aristocracy of sex" by giving constitutional authority to the idea that men were superior to women'.
DID THIS WOMEN'S MOVEMENT LEAVE BLACK WOMEN BEHIND? THE ANSWER IS ----NO. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO WAY TO ACHIEVE ENFRANCHISEMENT OF BLACK WOMEN WHEN THE ENFRANCHISEMENT OF BLACK MEN WAS NOT YET IN PLACE.
As a REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE who embraces what STANTON AND MOTT promoted----they both were ABOLITIONISTS/anti-slavery and both were anti-eugenics----this was the background of ending these stereotypes of people from different cultures.
STANTON AND MOTT as women from wealthy families were moving policy for global banking industrial tycoons----but, they opened the door for not only 99% of WE THE WOMEN but for 99% of WE THE BLACK CITIZENS to push for enfranchisement.
Opinion
How the Suffrage Movement Betrayed Black Women
By Brent Staples
Mr. Staples is a member of the editorial board.
July 28, 2018
The suffragist heroes Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony seized control of the feminist narrative of the 19th century. Their influential history of the movement still governs popular understanding of the struggle for women’s rights and will no doubt serve as a touchstone for commemorations that will unfold across the United States around the centennial of the 19th Amendment in 2020.
That narrative, in the six-volume “History of Women’s Suffrage,” betrays more than a hint of vanity when it credits the Stanton-Anthony cohort with starting a movement that actually had diverse origins and many mothers. Its worst offenses may be that it rendered nearly invisible the black women who labored in the suffragist vineyard and that it looked away from the racism that tightened its grip on the fight for the women’s vote in the years after the Civil War.
Historians who are not inclined to hero worship — including Elsa Barkley Brown, Lori Ginzberg and Rosalyn Terborg-Penn — have recently provided an unsparing portrait of this once-neglected period. Stripped of her halo, Stanton, the campaign’s principal philosopher, is exposed as a classic liberal racist who embraced fairness in the abstract while publicly enunciating bigoted views of African-American men, whom she characterized as “Sambos” and incipient rapists in the period just after the war. The suffrage struggle itself took on a similar flavor, acquiescing to white supremacy — and selling out the interests of African-American women — when it became politically expedient to do so. This betrayal of trust opened a rift between black and white feminists that persists to this day.
WE RECOGNIZE BROWN, GINZBERG, AND PENN TODAY AS THE SAME WEALTHY GLOBAL BANKING 5% HAVING THE SAME COMPROMISES TIED TO WEALTH AS STANTON AND MOTT.
This toxic legacy looms especially large as cities, including New York, prepare monuments and educational programs to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, which barred the states from denying voting rights based on gender. Black feminists in particular are eager to see if these remembrances own up to the real history of the fight for the vote — and whether black suffragists appear in them.
The famous suffrage convention convened in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1848 featured Stanton and her partner-in-arms, Lucretia Mott, in addition to the towering figure of Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist and dyed-in-the-wool supporter of women’s rights who was on his way to becoming one of the most famous speakers of the century. Were it not for Douglass’s oratory, the historian Lisa Tetrault tells us in “The Myth of Seneca Falls,” the “controversial” resolution demanding the vote for women might actually have failed.
It became clear after the Civil War that black and white women had different views of why the right to vote was essential. White women were seeking the vote as a symbol of parity with their husbands and brothers. Black women, most of whom lived in the South, were seeking the ballot for themselves and their men, as a means of empowering black communities besieged by the reign of racial terror that erupted after Emancipation.
The tension escalated in the run-up to the 15th Amendment, a provision that ostensibly barred the states from denying Negro men the right to vote. Reasonable people could, of course, disagree on the merits of who should first be given the vote — women or black men. Stanton, instead, embarked on a Klan-like tirade against the amendment. She warned that white woman would be degraded if Negro men preceded them into the franchise. Admiring historians have dismissed this as an unfortunate interlude in an exemplary life. By contrast, the historian Lori Ginzberg argues persuasively that racism and elitism were enduring features of the great suffragist’s makeup and philosophy.
Similarly, the historian Faye Dudden wrote that Stanton “dipped her pen into a tincture of white racism and sketched a reference to a nightmarish figure, the black rapist,” and lashed out from the pages of the suffragist paper that she and Anthony published. Her message — that passage of the 15th Amendment would mean only degradation for women at the hands of Negro men — must have cheered the Ku Klux Klan as it terrorized the black South.
Douglass was clearly wounded by what he described as the “employment of certain names, such as ‘Sambo,’ and the gardener, and the bootblack … and all the rest,” but gracefully declined to answer insult with insult. Instead, he summarized in dramatic fashion the differences between the interests of black and white suffragists — and the case for federal protection of black voters.
“When women, because they are women,” he said, “are hunted down through the cities of New York and New Orleans; when they are dragged from their houses and hung upon lampposts; when their children are torn from their arms and their brains dashed out upon the pavement; when they are objects of insult and outrage at every turn; when they are in danger of having their homes burnt down over their heads; when their children are not allowed to enter schools; then they will have an urgency to obtain the ballot equal to our own.”
Douglass cut to the central fallacy of the white suffragist push -- that African-American women could magically separate their blackness from their femaleness.
The 15th Amendment was, of course, ratified. Women would wait another 50 years for the 19th. Racism intensified among suffragists as they neared their goals. African-American luminaries like the noted anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells and the civil rights leader Mary Church Terrell became more deeply and publicly engaged.
As in other instances, suffragists outside the South used the racism in the Jim Crow states as an excuse for their discriminatory treatment of their black suffragist sisters. Black women’s suffrage clubs that sought formal affiliation with the national white suffrage movement were discouraged from doing so on the grounds that admitting them might anger white Southerners. It has since become clear that this was a ruse Northern whites used to obscure their own discriminatory policies.
The most blatant example of accommodationism came in 1913 when organizers of a huge suffragist parade in Washington demanded that black participants march in an all-black assembly at the back of the parade instead of with their state delegations. Wells famously refused. Terrell, who marched in a colored delegation as requested, believed at the time that white suffragists would exclude black women from the 19th Amendment — nicknamed the Anthony Amendment — if they thought they could get away with it. These episodes fueled within the African-American community a lasting suspicion of white suffragists and of the very idea of political cooperation across racial lines.
Historians are rightly warning groups involved in suffrage commemorations not to overstate the significance of the 19th Amendment. It covered the needs of middle-class white women quite nicely. But it meant very little to black women in the South, where most lived at the time and where election officials were well practiced in the art of obstructing black access to the ballot box. As African-American women streamed in to register, Southern officials merely stepped up the level of fraud and intimidation.
By this time, the former suffragists of the North were celebrating the amendment and were uninterested in fighting discrimination against women who were suffering racial, as opposed to gender, discrimination. As the historian Rosalyn Terborg-Penn writes: “Within a few years, white supremacy was victorious throughout the South. Unlike Black men, who had been disenfranchised within 20 years after the ratification of the 15th Amendment, Black women had lost the vote in less than a decade.” It would take another half-century — and a new suffrage campaign, with black women in a leading role — before that black community was fully enfranchised, through the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The recent uproar over the monuments to white supremacy that dominate public spaces in the South has put civic groups on notice that memorials often convey pernicious messages and perpetuate historical wrongs. Organizers need to keep that in mind as they commemorate a movement in which racism clearly played a central role.
___________________________________________
The sufferagettes were working class women------they were again---PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, AND JEWISH and they fought for FACTORY JOBS----so, this idea of the women's movement being strictly MIDDLE-CLASS is BOGUS---REVISIONIST history.
Again, the statement below wants everyone to believe that a WOMEN'S MOVEMENT of white women could change the entire course of enfranchisement for all 99% OF BLACK CITIZENS.
WOMEN BACK THEN DID NOT HAVE THAT POWER.
We shout loudly----BEWARE of global banking 1% trying to sell the idea that a US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT tied to bringing RIGHTS TO WOMEN would be BAD for any 99% of WE THE WOMEN OF COLOR.
THAT WOULD BE FAKE NEWS.
'Historians are rightly warning groups involved in suffrage commemorations not to overstate the significance of the 19th Amendment. It covered the needs of middle-class white women quite nicely. But it meant very little to black women in the South, where most lived at the time and where election officials were well practiced in the art of obstructing black access to the ballot box'.
When anyone uses the term WHITE WOMEN-----it has a RELATIVE MEANING. 'WHITE' generally means EUROPEAN-----our JEWISH citizens may consider themselves WHITE or they may identify as JUDAIC---meaning culturally from NEAR EAST.
The point is this: our JEWISH citizens have their global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----in the TRIBE OF JUDAH. HANNAH ARENDT worked for the global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS TRIBE OF JUDAH just as STANTON AND MOTT worked for OLD WORLD EUROPEAN KINGS in the 2ND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
Below we see how active JEWISH WOMEN were in the US LABOR MOVEMENT alongside 99% of white women. The movement of MIDDLE AND MERELY RICH WOMEN into universities and professional positions happened at the same time---again, JEWISH AND WHITE WOMEN both benefited from this.
Our US BLACK 99% of citizens were simply making an adjustment from the freedom brought by CIVIL WAR. They were working in factories as all 99% of factory workers were mistreated-------abused by corporations.
Again, the US CONSTITUTIONAL 19TH AMENDMENT is critical today and it is indeed being ATTACKED AND DISMANTLED by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----those dastardly men.
Here we see as with the BARD VIDEO featuring a black leader condemning the WOMEN'S MOVEMENT--------so too in JEWISH arena as stated tied to FAR-RIGHT ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE views. Jewish 99% led in social justice today they are captured by far-right as too our 99% of white and black citizens...MEN AND WOMEN
.'As Jews shrink as a percentage of US population, and right leaning orthodox Jews growing in number, it is uncertain whether Jews will continue to distinguish themselves as advocates for the labor movement and social justice'.
Jews in the American Labor Movement: By Bennett Muraskin
German-speaking Jews who arrived in the US in the mid-19th century spread across the US and tended to be merchants and shop keepers. Yiddish speaking Jews from Eastern Europe who arrived in the US beginning in the 1880s settled in the big cities and tended to be workers. The conditions they faced were daunting. Low wages, long hours, unsafe workplaces and overcrowded and unsanitary tenement housing were the norm. Most of these Jewish immigrants came from small towns and were not prepared for the noise, dirt, congestion, disease and crime rampant in the great American cities of that period. Some even turned to crime and prostitution. However, they were free of the anti-Semitic laws and violence that plagued them in Eastern Europe. Their children were entitled to a free public education and once they became citizens, they could vote and participate in the political process.
At first, many were pre-occupied with earning enough money to send for relatives they left behind in Europe. From the beginning, Jews gravitated to the garment industry in part because they had experience as tailors in Eastern Europe. It did not take long before they began to see trade unions as the path their economic and social progress.
However, before going any further, it is necessary to recognize one of the most important Jewish personalities in the history of the American labor movement, Samuel Gompers.
Gompers came to US from England in 1863. His parents came from Holland, with ancestry dating back to Spain. In other words, he was a Sephardic Jew. Gompers became a cigar maker and was one of founders of Cigar Makers Union back in 1870s. He was integral to the founding of the American Federation of Labor in the 1880s and led it until 1924, but he did not share language, culture or politics of East European Jews. Gompers is considered a conservative influence because of his devotion to craft unionism, hostility toward socialism and opposition to immigration.
By 1888 there was already a Jewish labor movement called the United Hebrew Trades, originally conceived by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals and revolutionaries who frowned on Yiddish as inferior language of the shtetl. Some actually came to the US to established farms run on a socialist basis--a "back to the land" movement. But these projects soon fizzled and they moved to the big cities among other Jewish immigrants. As committed anarchists and socialists, they sought to organize the Jewish working class, but in order to do so, they first had to master Yiddish.
At this early stage, Yiddish was a means to an end, not an instrument for cultural development. Their propaganda, though, used religious imagery to inspire the workers--passages from the Prophets on social justice, references to modern day Pharoahs and to the Israelites’ liberation from Egyptian slavery etc.
The best known "sweatshop poet" Morris Rosenfeld, who arrived in this country from London in 1886, but grew up in Poland, wrote this verse:
- The sweatshop at midday--I will draw you a picture;
- A battlefield bloody; the conflict at rest;
- Around and about me the corpses are lying;
- The blood cries aloud from the earth's gory breast.
- A moment...and hark! The loud signal is sounded,
- And dead rise again and renewed in their fight...
- They struggle, these corpses; for strangers, for strangers!
- They struggle, they fall and they sink into the night.
Jews still have their Bernie Sanders and Robert Reichs and the labor leaders cited in this essay, but we also have our Walter Annenbergs, Sheldon Adelsons and Bernard Madoffs. As Jews shrink as a percentage of US population, and right leaning orthodox Jews growing in number, it is uncertain whether Jews will continue to distinguish themselves as advocates for the labor movement and social justice. To quote a quondam progressive Jew, "The answer is blowin' in the wind."
_______________________________________
Our US 99% of BLACK AND BROWN WOMEN need to be aware that today's FAKE NEWS AND PROPAGANDA over this CRITICAL CIVIL RIGHTS WIN for WOMEN--------was necessary before the expansion to all women.
Every population group black, white, and brown ---PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, JEWISH, MUSLIM, HINDI-BUDDHIST has its RACISTS-----there may have indeed been wealthy women in these movements who did say negative things-----across all population groups.
What was important back then as TODAY----is that 99% OF WE THE WOMEN came together to win these rights.....whether merely rich or poor.
MAKE NO MISTAKE---THESE VIDEOS AND ARTICLES REVISING THIS WOMEN'S MOVEMENT HISTORY HAVE GOALS OF ENDING RIGHTS FOR WOMEN JUST AS RIGHTS FOR ALL MEN NOT GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% -----
'It wasn’t until 1943 that Chinese Americans were first permitted to become citizens, after the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed. For Filipinos, it wasn’t until 1946; for Japanese Americans and other Asian Americans, this did not come until 1952'.
HerStory: The Women Behind the 19th Amendment
On August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, was formally adopted into the U.S. Constitution. Here is a look at the events surrounding this important chapter in U.S. history and the women who made change happen.
Greg Timmons
Updated:
Jun 24, 2019
Original:
On a warm August evening, Tennessee became the 36th state to ratify the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting women the right to vote. It was the culmination of a 144-year odyssey from the Declaration of Independence and clarified once and for all, the meaning of “all men are created equal.” As was the case throughout this journey, the final vote did not come easy.
It all came down to one man, 24-year-old state legislator Harry Burn. On the morning of August 18, 1920, Mr. Burn, who had been against ratification, received a letter from his mother which stated, “Dear son… Vote for suffrage and don’t keep them in doubt… Don’t forget to be a good boy…”
As the roll call neared his name, he clutched the letter from his mother in his hand.
“Mr. Burns…” the assembly clerk called his name.
“Yea.”
And then, it was done. The painful struggle was over. American women had the right to vote and with it, full citizenship. The arduous work of thousands of women—and men—had finally been rewarded. However, to truly appreciate this achievement, one has to understand how far American attitudes towards women had evolved from the previous century.
A suffrage parade in New York City in 1912. (Photo: Library of Congress [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
"All Men and Women Are Created Equal"
By the early 19th century, American society had fully embraced the “Cult of True Womanhood,” an ideology that claimed women were best suited in the home, serving as the family’s moral guide. This protected-class status was intended to shield women from being sullied by the nefarious influences of work, politics and making war. In reality, the custom paved the way for laws banning women from attending colleges, entering professional work, voting, serving on juries and testifying in court. Many states outlawed women from owning property or entering into contracts. From an early age, women were placed on the path of marriage and motherhood. For single women, options were limited to teaching or nursing, with the social label of being an “old maid.”
However, during this time the United States was also going through a tremendous transformation. Industry was surpassing agriculture in productivity and profitability. Slavery’s days were numbered, though its demise would only happen through civil war. Religious enlightenment was engaging Americans to think of themselves as a chosen people with a mission to improve society. The political climate was ripe and in need of women’s moral guidance. At the top of the list was the abolition of slavery. Two sisters from a South Carolina planation, Angelina and Sara Grimke, wrote and spoke fervently to end slavery. The subsequent disapproval by some clergymen of their activities led them to expand their efforts towards women’s rights.
Mary Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" inspired many women to push for greater rights. (Image: John Opie [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
Fueled by the writings of 18th century women’s rights activist Mary Wollstonecraft, whose book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, many women began to push for greater rights. The seminal moment for Elizabeth Cady Stanton came while attending the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London when she, and the other women attending, were banned from participating in the proceedings.
When Stanton returned to her hometown of Seneca Falls, New York, she and her friend Lucretia Mott organized the first women’s right convention, held on July 19-20, 1848. There she introduced a “Declaration of Rights and Sentiments” modeled after the Declaration of Independence. As she stood before the delegation, she nervously read from the document,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
The convention delegates nodded approvingly, hearing the familiar words spoken. Emboldened, Stanton introduced several resolutions, the last advocating a woman’s right to vote. Many delegates, both men and women, were appalled at the audacity. Some doubted whether women were qualified to vote, while others felt that such a right was unnecessary as most women would likely vote with their husbands. After a stirring speech by African American abolitionist Frederick Douglass, the resolution passed. The partnership between abolition and suffrage had been solidified and, it seemed, the two movements would achieve their respective goals together.
A Divided Movement
African American abolitionist Frederick Douglass. (Photo: National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
The next pivotal battle for women’s equality took place in 1868 during Congressional debates on the 15th Amendment, guaranteeing the right to vote. Women had worked hard over the past 20 years for black freedom and enfranchisement and expected they would be included in this goal. While many abolitionists were initially supportive of suffrage for both African Americans and women, leaders felt that it was now “the Negro’s hour” and to ask for more would jeopardize the cause. In an unexpected turnaround, Frederick Douglass made an impassioned plea at the American Equal Rights Association convention to let the black man go first, turning the effort away from enfranchising women.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony saw this as a betrayal and campaigned against any amendment that denied women the right to vote. This caused a breach in the women’s movement and led to Stanton and Anthony forming the National Women’s Suffrage Association (NWSA), while Lucy Stone, her husband Henry Blackwell, and Julia Ward Howe founded the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA), which supported the 15th Amendment.
Many African American women also pushed for women’s rights, beginning with Sojourner Truth, who in 1851 made her impassioned “Ain’t I a Woman” speech. Other African American women, such as Mary Anne Shadd Cary and Charlotte Forten Grimke (the niece of two abolitionists/suffragists Margaretta and Harriet Forten) participated in suffrage organizations. Unfortunately, as was the case in society, oftentimes African American women weren’t always welcomed by white suffragists and had to participate in separate organizations. In 1896, many black women’s clubs affiliated to form the National Association of Colored Women with Mary Church Terrell as president.
Through the second half of the 19th century, the suffrage movement remained divided. In the 1870s, some women used the language of the 14th Amendment to try to vote. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony was arrested when she illegally voted in a presidential election. She was fined $100, which she never paid, and moved on. This tactic of invoking the 14th Amendment to enfranchise women was permanently squashed when the Supreme Court ruled in Minor v. Happersett (1875) that the 14th Amendment did not grant women the right to vote.
In 1874, Francis Willard founded the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) which soon became the largest and most powerful women’s movement in the country. Its hundreds of thousands of members helped support the suffrage movement, but linking suffrage to prohibition was strongly opposed by many who were not against alcohol and weakening the effort.
By the 1890s, the acrimony between the two women’s suffrage associations had subsided and they merged into the National American Suffrage Association (NAWSA). With the passing of Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1902 and Susan B. Anthony in 1906, a new generation of leaders assumed control of the women’s movement. NAWSA president Carrie Chapman Catt pursued a state-by-state strategy to win the vote for women, which by 1896, proved successful in four states—Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and Colorado. Still, the goal of national suffrage was a long way off. However, Catt left the organization tired of the internal squabbling.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Progressive movement emerged to address issues associated with industrialization, immigration and urbanization. Many in the labor movement saw women as allies and potential voters for their cause. In 1906, Harriot Stanton Blatch, Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s daughter, founded the Equality League of Self-Supporting Women to organize working-class suffragists. In 1910, they conducted the first large-scale suffrage march in the United States. In addition, black women founded clubs that worked exclusively for woman’s suffrage, such as the Alpha Suffrage Club of Chicago, founded by Ida B. Wells in 1913.
_____________________________________
Just as STANTON AND MOTT from mid-1800s working for global 1% industrialists wanting women in workforce as 2nd industrial revolution was starting----today global 1% are KILLING JOBS---KILLING the workforce----and bringing US down to third world status in wages and quality of life----ELIMINATING ALL THOSE right won by both US 99% OF MEN AND WOMEN----black, white, and brown citizens.
THE DAILY BEAST is a raging global banking 1% CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL MEDIA OUTLET. That is why this article was written.
HANNAH ARENDT left Europe as PRE-WEIMAR GERMANY was becoming HITLER MADMAN and came to UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO-----where as we discuss OFTEN-------LEO STRAUSS of NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMICS fame was setting the stage to do in US what was done in EUROPE---taking our US REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CAPITALISM with all that COMMON LAW AND I AM MAN AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT------back to DARK AGES.
LEO STRAUSS AND ARENDT were global banking 5% freemason/greek players for OLD WORLD TRIBE OF JUDAH-----just as CLINTON/REAGAN/BUSH/OBAMA were the same for global banking 1% OLD WORLD EUROPEAN KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA.
These has always been a right wing religious stance against WOMEN WORKING------they were a small percentage through the 20th century. Today, with FAR-RIGHT WING ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE religious stances being installed by global banking 1%-------this is where
HITTING ME ---HITTING ME HARD---SO HARD I CANNOT COME OUT OF MY HOUSE----TO KEEP ME SILENT-----NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG--------WORKING TO GET THIS POPULATION GROUP AND THAT POPULATION GROUP OUT OF THE US WORKFORCE.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG who are women said in FEEDBACK ---why are you HITTING her------BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD TO...............
Retro Marriage
One Reason Women Stay Home:
Because It's Easier on EveryoneTwo career couples must constantly negotiate who does what.
Megan McArdle
Updated 07.11.17 8:33PM ET / Published 03.18.13 9:40AM ET
M. Spencer Green/AP,M. Spencer Green
This article on women who stay home is undoubtedly going to trigger a lot of commentary on the internet. Stay-at-home Moms, Lisa Miller argues, reduce the amount of stress on the marriage:
The explanation for the disconnect, the researchers surmised, was that French people, like Americans, lie to themselves about what they want. French women (like their American counterparts) do the bulk of the domestic work, and the majority also work full time. Quoting from colleagues’ earlier work, the sociologists showed that sexism in France is as much a part of the culture as great bread, wine, and a long lunch hour. In France, “there were numerous men who were available to look after children during the week when their partner was employed … but nevertheless did not take responsibility for child care even when they were free.” They were saying one thing and doing another, which in marriage, says the historian Stephanie Coontz, is “a recipe for instability and unhappiness.”
That same year, an American sociologist published a paper describing similar results. Predictors of marital unhappiness, found Bradford Wilcox at the University of Virginia, included wives who earned a large share of household income and wives who perceived the division of labor at home as unfair. Predictors of marital happiness were couples who shared a commitment to the institutional idea of marriage and couples who went to religious services together. “Our findings suggest,” he wrote, “that increased departures from a male-breadwinning-female-homemaking model may also account for declines in marital quality, insofar as men and women continue to tacitly value gendered patterns of behavior in marriage.” It’s an idea that thrives especially in conservative religious circles: The things that specific men and women may selfishly want for themselves (sex, money, status, notoriety) must for the good of the family be put aside. Feminists widely critiqued Wilcox’s findings, saying it puts the onus on women to suck it up in marriage, when men should be under more pressure to change. But these days you’ll find echoes of Wilcox’s thesis in unlikely places. “We look at straight people,” a gay friend said to me recently as we were comparing anecdotes about husbands, “and we think marriage must be so much easier for them.”
When I look at Kelly and Alvin Makino, I feel the same way. I have worked full time for almost all my daughter’s nine years, and only very rarely have I ever felt that nature required anything else of me. I love my job and have found work to be gratifying and even calming during periods when other parts of my life are far less so. Like 65 percent of American couples, my husband and I both work to pay our bills, but my commitment to my career extends way beyond financial necessity. My self-sufficiency sets a good example for my daughter (or so we tell ourselves), which is one reason why even if we were to win the lotto, staying at home would not likely be a course I’d choose.
And yet. I am not immune to the notion that I have powers and responsibilities as a mother that my husband does not have. I prepare our daughter’s lunch box every morning with ritualistic care, as if sending her off to school with a bologna sandwich made by me can work as an amulet against all the pain of my irregular, inevitable absences. I believe that I have a special gift for arranging playdates, pediatrician appointments, and piano lessons, and I yearn sometimes for the vast swaths of time Kelly Makino has given herself to keep her family’s affairs in order. In an egalitarian marriage, every aspect of home life is open to renegotiation. When two people need to leave the house at 6 a.m., who gets the children ready for school? When two people have to work late, who will meet that inflexible day-care pickup time? And who, finally, has the energy for those constant transactions?
Economist Ronald Coase won the Nobel Prize for developing a theory of the firm: an explanation for why we have companies with employees at all, rather than simply having an owner contract for services on an ad-hoc basis. They formed companies, Coase theorized, because it allowed them to reduce the transactions costs of doing business: it's time consuming and costly to figure out how much you want to pay someone to serve as an occasional CFO. Easier to put them on staff and pay them a flat rate for doing all the CFO stuff.
Miller is suggesting that the traditionally gendered marriage also reduced transaction costs. Gay couples I know who've adopted children generally report that one parent ends up as "Dad" and one parent as "Mom". One person ends up in charge of the doctors appointments, the playdates and the ballet recitals; the other may help, but only one is the executive. And I gather that it's not just because we have some sort of social expectation that someone will be "Mom"; it's because the costs of sharing the duties outweigh the benefits. If two people are in charge of scheduling playdates and planning birthday parties, then you have to spend an enormous amount of time sharing information about these things. Moreover, you need to spend more time developing a joint policy on playdates and birthday parties: what sort of kids? How many? Who gets struck off the permitted list, and for what offenses? This is not only time consuming, but also, creates opportunities for spousal arguments.
This is what Miller is describing among the two career couples: constant negotiation over who will do what. This may contribute to the decreased satisfaction with their marriages and their lives that people report after they have children.
If the division of labor is a more efficient, less bothersome, way to handle the duties of childrearing, then it may be that gendering that division also has benefits. Leave aside arguments about whether women have innate tendencies in one direction or another; even a 100% culturally conditioned gender division might have benefits that lead to its adoption. Assigning the home tasks to one gender means that you don't need to negotiate who will stay home, reducing marital conflict. It also eases any regret that the stay-at-home partner might feel over their decision.
It also makes it easier to agree on the legal institutions that surround marriage. To take just one example, a divorced woman in 1960 could expect to be awarded a substantial portion of her husband's income until she remarried, because the expectation was that she had contributed to his success by taking care of all the home production--and sacrificing any earning power she might have had.
Now, she's much more likely to be given a few years worth of alimony while she gets back on her feet and finds a job. Which makes the decision to stay home a very risky financial bet. My understanding is that the feminists who pushed to change the rules in teh 1970s saw this as a feature, rather than a bug: they wanted women to have good reason to stay self-supporting. But with some women staying home, and others not, it's hard for the divorce laws to be fair for everyone.
Of course, that doesn't mean that we should return to the old-style Mom's-home-Dad-works marriage. There are also costs to such arrangements, which have been well-enumerated by the feminist movement over the years. But if you think about staying home not just as a way to invest more in your children, but also as a way to reduce conflict (for yourself and everyone else), it gets easier and easier to understand the appeal.
__________________________________________
Today, what was a united 99% of WE THE WOMEN---or WE TH E US WORKERS as been attacked and dismantled by GLOBAL BANKING 1% and NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMICS staged at UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO------courtesy of LEO STRAUSS AND HANNAH ARENDT. Since WW2 and HITLER/STALIN as madmen------the European and US nations have been captured to what WORLD BANK/IMF calls NEO-LIBERAL/MARXIST economic cycles.
REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES included our JEWISH labor union members as labor unions were indeed working to HOLD CORPORATIONS ACCOUNTABLE TO WORKERS. Today, US LABOR UNION LEADERS are partnered with GLOBAL BANKING OLD WORLD KINGS----WORLD BANK/IMF------working as INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION promoting MARXISM-----the OPPOSITE of left social progressive capitalism.
As the article posted earlier on Jewish labor movement said---today's global banking 5% freemason/Greek JEWISH PLAYERS are killing the 99% of REAL Jewish workers as well as every population group in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
We call FAKE NEWS the identification of ROBERT REICH AND BERNIE SANDERS as LABOR RIGHTS politicians-----
'Even in the developing world, the better-off countries are more likely than the poorest to conform to ILO labor standards. In countries with per capita income of $500 a year or less, 30—60 percent of children between the ages of 10 and 14 work'.
Above is what MOVING FORWARD has as a goal-----and these STATS make it appear only a 30% or THIS POPULATION GROUP or that will face these third world wages and living standards when MOVING FORWARD FINAL SOLUTION will take ALL 99% of US citizens men and women black, white, and brown down to these 3000BC Hindi -Brahmin standards.
THE UNITED NATIONS/WORLD BANK/IMF IS COMPOSED OF ONLY CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS/BUSH NEO-CONS-------THERE ARE NO REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES WORKING FOR AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN.
The TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT does not allow global corporations to lose PROFITS dealing with LABOR ISSUES.
'Putting Teeth into Standards Enforcement
Labor advocates favor strengthening enforcement by expanding the role of the World Trade Organization or using bilateral trade agreements'.
Please don't fall for POPULATION GROUP TENSION-----don't be PLAYED-----our US 99% whether men or women attained the quality of life they did these 300 years because they STUCK TOGETHER.
Brookings Institute FAKE NEWS media outlet -----far-right wing global banking 1% NEO-LIBERAL think tank.
Article
Workers’ Rights: Labor standards and global trade
Gary Burtless Saturday, September 1, 2001
Of all the debates surrounding globalization, one of the most contentious involves trade and workers’ rights.
Proponents of workers’ rights argue that trading nations should be held to strict labor standards—and they offer two quite different justifications for their view. The first is a moral argument whose premise is that many labor standards, such as freedom of association and the prohibition of forced labor, protect basic human rights. Foreign nations that wish to be granted free access to the world’s biggest and richest markets should be required to observe fundamental human values, including labor rights. In short, the lure of market access to the United States and the European Union should be used to expand the domain of human rights.
The key consideration here is the efficacy of labor standards policies. Will they improve human rights among would-be trading partners? Or will they slow progress toward human rights by keeping politically powerless workers mired in poverty? Some countries, including China, might reject otherwise appealing trade deals that contain enforceable labor standards. By insisting on tough labor standards, the wealthy democracies could lay claim to the moral high ground. But they might have to forgo a trade pact that could help their own producers and consumers while boosting the incomes and political power of impoverished Chinese workers.
The second argument for strict labor standards stresses not the welfare of poor workers, but simple economic self-interest. A trading partner that fails to enforce basic protections for its workers can gain an unfair trade advantage, boosting its market competitiveness against countries with stronger labor safeguards. Including labor standards in trade deals can encourage countries in a free trade zone to maintain worker protections rather than abandoning them in a race to the bottom. If each country must observe a common set of minimum standards, member countries can offer and enforce worker protections at a more nearly optimal level. This second argument, unlike the first, can be assessed with economic theory and evidence.
Evaluating these arguments requires answering three questions. First, what labor standards are important to U.S. trade and foreign policy? Second, how can labor standards, once negotiated, be enforced? Finally, does it make sense to insist that our trade partners adhere to a common set of core labor standards?and if so, which standards?
Citizens in developing countries might be less confident that their laws and enforcement procedures will meet the tests implied by the ILO conventions, especially as construed by observers from affluent countries. Interpretations devised in the drawing rooms of Paris or the recreation rooms of suburban Washington might seem out of touch with conditions in countries where half or more of the population lives on less than $2 a day.
___________________________________________
When NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal surveillance and PORN sought to RUIN me with PSYCHO-SEXUAL TORTURE to include citywide public surveillance hacking following me everywhere I went saying SHE'S A SEX SLAVE-----WE OWN HER------SHE NEEDS TO STAY AT HOME AND BE SILENT-------and this done by both MEN AND WOMEN NOSY NEIGHBORS------this is what fuels those feelings---yet another global banking 1% freemason/STAR MOVIE meant to create A FAD.
If we thought MOVING FORWARD goals were to EMPOWER ANYONE other than global banking 1% of MEN-----we would understand this idea of REPARATIONS using US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE as black market criminal video PORN------bringing money from US citizens being SOLD following SACKING AND LOOTING RAPING AND PILLAGING by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS---KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH.
That is not the goal---the goal is to eliminate all of the gains of all of the US 99% WE THE PEOPLE---men and women----black, white, and brown citizens-----REAL 99% JEWISH, MUSLIM, PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, HINDI-BUDDHIST.
While we watch as global banking 1% place HILLARY NASTY LADIES especially women of color in political positions we are watching as those women are USED to bring down all the gains of US WOMEN'S MOVEMENT. The US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE goals of global 2% of families as US politicians will end as well ------so, no one wins in MOVING FORWARD.
THE FINAL SOLUTION WILL HAVE GLOBAL 1% OF MEN USING AVATARS-------ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS POLITICIANS AND CIVIC LEADERS ---NO HUMANS NEED APPLY.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG IN MY CASE BEING BLACK AND JEWISH WILL NOT BE WINNERS AS THEY WORK TO RUIN AND SILENCE A REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC WOMAN.
'As shown by her stance in the first document, Lucy Stone's feminism was intrinsically linked to her dedication to equal rights for African Americans. In 1866, Stone partnered with feminists and abolitionists Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton to found the American Equal Rights Association (AERA). The AERA defined their mission as advocating for the equal rights of all American citizens regardless of race or sex. Soon, however, questions of priorities began to emerge'.
'Split within the women's movement
The immediate cause of the split was the proposed Fifteenth Amendment, which would prohibit the denial of suffrage because of race. In one of their most controversial moves, Anthony and Stanton campaigned against the amendment, insisting that women and African Americans should be enfranchised at the same time. They said that by effectively enfranchising all men while excluding all women, the amendment would create an "aristocracy of sex" by giving constitutional authority to the idea that men were superior to women'.
I am told I am THE HELP------GRANNY NOSY NEIGHBOR says-----THE GUYS ARE JUST HAVING SOME FUN. Each region in US had its own cultural identities which evolved-----don't set eyes upon just ONE.
I liked the MOVIE----not so much NOSY NEIGHBORS making PORN of any 99% of people found unaware of these illegal surveillance structures...it is NOT empowering to anyone.
The Help | A Social Awakening
•Published on Feb 9, 2012
What's the story?
Skeeter (Emma Stone) is one of the few young women in her upper-crust circle to actually graduate from college. She returns home to Jackson, Miss., where all of her friends are married young mothers who let their African-American maids do the heavy lifting while they gather for bridge games, gossip, and charity-ball planning. Unfulfilled with her job as a household-tips columnist, Skeeter pitches a book idea to a New York city editor (Mary Steenburgen): She'll write a collection of stories about THE HELP, from their point of view. But first Skeeter must convince her friends' housekeepers -- starting with Aibileen (Viola Davis) -- to be interviewed for the project. Hesitant at first, Aibileen eventually relents and nudges her best friend, the recently fired Minny (Octavia Spencer), to tell the truth about raising and loving white children who grow up to be just as racist as their parents.
RSS Feed
