I do not write these diaries often, but I was inspired to write when Robert Gibbs disparaged Howard Dean. When we decided to call ourselves Progressives, I did not realize the ‘powers that be’ would feminize us as the White House just did over the past couple of days. Members of the White House and Democratic Senators are now saying that Howard Dean is "irrational." As we all know, this is a term used to describe women when they become upset. Perhaps this gendered label of irrationality did not capture much attention, but I see some parallels to former Progressive Movements—mainly the work of Progressive women and how they were treated a hundred years ago! So, if we are going to suffer the same feminization of the former Progressives, then maybe we should look at what these reformers did to earn their feminized stripes and how these women fought back. Maybe we can use their resistance as an example today.
Jane Addams, one of the strongest women in American history, found herself faced with similar criticism in Chicago when she unleashed the members of the Hull House on to the city to implement reforms. For those that are not familiar with her work, she was a middle-class woman that had the opportunity to go to college, but when she graduated, she was left out of the workforce due to male bias. Instead of folding up and drifting away, she decided to create the Hull House, a settlement house that brought women of both middle-class and working class origin to implement change. These women started with education, sanitation, parks, and other municipal projects. They wanted reform because they believed that the government should be there for the public good. At the time, the public saw the male dominated government as corrupt and self-serving. (sound familiar?) These settlement women went door to door, armed with petitions and educational material, informing the public of the dangers of industrialization. Middle-class reform women fought for improvements of labor conditions, marching with other working women. They were jailed in solidarity with their working-class sisters. (Muncy, Flannigan)
The men of Chicago believed these women were irrational, reactionary, and inept. (sound familiar?) Men also found women to be a threat to their masculinity because women were entering the workforce at an unprecedented rate, taking jobs that they normally held. Rather than organize collectively to force change, they divided, a division that remained well into the twentieth-century. Men labeled women who fought furiously as radical, unprofessional, and unfeminine. Women refused to remain in "their place," they were troublesome and refused to stay quiet. Business interests often thwarted women’s efforts by dividing and conquering, but women continued to fight against all of the male opposition. (Muncy, Flanagan, Taylor, Mink, Dye)
When their local campaigns failed, they decided they had to back a women’s suffrage campaign. They felt if women had the vote, women would vote in their best interests and vote out corruption. Suffragists fought for years and years, starting at the state level and moving toward a national campaign. As always, white dominant males castigated women for attempting to enter into the political arena. They fought every gain that women made, even though many of their reforms changed the public’s relationship to government.
Ironically, one of the biggest reforms that actually passed with the backing of Progressive women, besides suffrage, was the implementation of the Sheppard-Towner Act. The Act provided medical care for poor women and children.
The Sheppard–Towner Maternity and Infancy Protection Act of 1921 was a U.S. Act of Congress providing federal funding for maternity and child care. It was sponsored by senators Morris Sheppard and Horace Mann Towner, and signed by President Warren G. Harding on November 23, 1921.
The act was a response to the lack of adequate medical care for women and children. The deficit became especially noticeable during World War I, when many potential recruits were rejected for military service due to the sequellae of childhood diseases. However, the act was allowed to lapse in 1929 after successful opposition by the American Medical Association, which saw the act as a socialist threat to its professional autonomy. [emphasis mine]
(again, sound familiar?)
Women reformers forced change, but it took a long time. The examples I have provided all had a few themes. First, women fought against male dominated government in favor of the welfare of the state. Second, women organized, knocked on doors, marched, circulated petitions, and risked imprisonment or worse to obtain reform. Third, women changed their rhetoric. They used political expedient language that helped to enlist more support, such as healthy children made for better citizens/patriots/soldiers (Women started to campaign for Sheppard Towner Act around the time of WWI), or family health was a moral issue. Fourth, when they were knocked down, they got up and fought harder, smarter, and more aggressively. Fifth, they were willing to put their neck on the line—they broke laws and were arrested when necessary. Sixth, some historians will argue that these Progressive women ushered in the New Deal with their persistence and endurance. Men were willing to listen to these reforms due to the Great Depression. (Muncy)
Now there were plenty of conflicts within the women in the Progressive movement, and there are plenty of criticisms to hand the Progressives—such as questions of racism. However, I think it is important to look to the past to show the struggles of the Progressive Era, and illustrate the similarities exist between today’s Progressive Movement. While this is a rather simplistic recount of a segment of the Progressive Women’s Movement, I hope we can find it of some use.
I would have added more photos but I had a hard time finding them on photobucket-sorry.
Bibliography:
Dye, NS. As Equals and as Sisters: Feminism, the Labor Movement, and the Women's Trade Union League of New York: University of Missouri Press, 1980.
Flanagan, MA. Seeing with Their Hearts: Chicago Women and the Vision of the Good City, 1871-1933: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Gordon, L. Pitied but Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare: Belknap Pr, 1995.
Ladd-Taylor, M. "Mother-Work: Women." Child Welfare, and the State 1930 (1890): 1917-1942. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994.
Mink, G. The Wages of Motherhood: Inequality in the Welfare State, 1917-1942: Cornell Univ Pr, 1996.
Muncy, R. Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890-1935: Oxford University Press, 1990.