Book review: Make No Apologies: Early Feminist Writings

Make No Apologies: Early Feminist Writings

Edited by Amanda L. Webster

I agree, 'much of what was written by feminists one hundred years or more in the past still resonates today', and the patriarchy is alive and well. The book proposes a few reasons for it, saying, 'it was the positions of privilege that many of these feminists enjoyed that allowed their voices to be heard while those of their so-called inferiors have been largely silenced'. And it seems, 'at least some of these writings belong to “foot soldiers of patriarchy”'.

The very first essay, Declaration of Sentiments by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, lists the 'repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman', turning her into 'an irresponsible being'. Now she can commit many crimes with impunity, 'provided they be done in the presence of her husband'. Another essay, The Industrial Position of Women by Emily Blackwell, M.D., argues for 'women to be allowed equal access to work', which is just as valid today as it was one hundred and thirty-plus years ago. Interestingly, 'In the savage state, women built the wigwam, raised the corn, prepared the clothes, carried on in its rudest and most elementary form all the work which is today the object of modern industry' and mostly done by males. Thus, when the simple forms of labor developed into architecture and agriculture and manufacture, it is held that women do not fit easily to these old occupations. 

In 'Uncivil Liberty: An Essay to Show the Injustice and Impolicy of Ruling Woman Against Her Consent', Ezra Hervey Heywood traces the origins of the concept of social and legal inferiority of women. The legal subjection of woman is thought to be justified by an assumed natural dependence on man. Here, 'the old claim of tyranny, that “the king can do no wrong,” takes a new turn, the essay posits. Still another essay discusses 'the whole power of voluntary maternity' and free sexual selection by women. 'It should be for them to choose whether they will have children or not: and if so, how many, at what intervals, and with whom.'

Voltairine de Cleyre likens marriage to slavery rather than to prostitution. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, in 'The Yellow Wall Paper' exhorts all fathers to enjoy equal rights both on the responsibilities and the joys of parenthood. Floyd Dell, in her essay 'Femism for Men', suggests that, though Feminism is going to make it possible for the first time for men to be free, they object to it, since they yearn for the feel of power more than they want the sense of freedom. Ethel Puffer Howes describes, how women could be both mothers and career women at the same time by removing the artificial sex restriction invoked to explain the inhibitions of achievement. And, Freedom or Death by Emmeline Pankhurst underscores the fact that men have done splendid things, can speak of great achievements in engineering; but they have failed, they have miserably failed, when it has come to dealing with the lives of human beings. And the race must be saved, and it can only be saved through the emancipation of women.

The ideas expressed here are all the more valid now, when society is struggling to invent reasons to re-impose the sexual restrictions of the earlier days.

Governance by Default, till Democratically Removed

Computer is a success. Every moment, it is making our society a better place to live. How? What can we learn from it?

One can cite many reasons. Computers follow completely, a programmed path, and, it does not get swayed, for example, by passion, are only a few. I think, the single most important reason is  nothing else but the fact that everywhere, there is a 'default'. Which, even when is of no good, ensures that things do not go from bad to worse.  Such steps or instructions keep the issue under its care in a state that is never irredeemable, whatever be the calamity brought by external or internal causes.

By these standards, human is not at all a success. We always find something undesirable in every human society and its constituents. As long as we succeed in keeping such elements away from the ideals that happens to be in vogue currently, we continue to pat ourselves on the back, overlooking all the ills. Otherwise, we change our ideals such that there is no confrontation between those very elements and the current ideals, while blaming the elements themselves for all the ills. However, as one can imagine in such a scenario, things are always on a journey from bad to worse. We just refuse to acknowledge it, and ignore the ever-present threat of those very elements reappearing. Rather, we make such threats or failures a distinct element of the human, all the while feeling proud of the fact that those things are not there in other forms of life. Instinct rules the animal kingdom, and hence it remains calm. Reason rules the human, and they may not be calm, since each one will have a reason of his own. 

In fact for all these years, the journey of the human race has been a silent acknowledgment of this. Think of the age of exploration, the age of discovery, the period thereafter, or the present time, what else but success we have been striving for?

We are yet to realize it. When one goes behind the secrets of plant life, or survey the animal world, or something else, rather than the outcome, it is the fruitful culmination of the efforts that makes one contented the most. The fact that the efforts led to a success is far more significant than what the success did or is capable of doing. An intelligent life, we are, but why miss such an obvious inference as this?

In the  light of the above, let us examine an important facet of human society, namely, governance, and see where we stand. After experimenting with monarchy, as well as checking into a few others like communism, almost all human societies have taken to democracy for good.

Here, essentially the people have to do three things. One, to choose the ones who will govern. Two, to put up with the choice, in a prescribed manner, and that too giving all possible allocation to vagaries of human behavior, for a given period. And three, to assess the governance and to choose again, whether to continue with the same, or to go for fresh ones.

Something does not make sense. People are required to do a lot of work to get themselves governed. Much of their effort is spent in receiving instructions and directions for living ones life. And they hardly get time to live that life, (and are quite happy about it!).

I therefore think, we need to restructure our governance. An easy path is, just as we have seen above in  the case of computer programs, by introducing a default government. Where, the only thing the citizens will have to do is to monitor the performance of the default. Instances of lack of success should be calling for a change, when the relevant part of the government is corrected or replaced in a prescribed manner.  Needless to say, in such a scenario, the government shall be meeting all expectations of all the people.

In short:

1) The country chooses a default government. A good way is to conduct an open competitive examination.

2) Citizens keep recording their dissatisfaction, if and when it happens.

3) Whenever the recorded value crosses a threshold, the government, or the part that can be identified as the culprit, is told to go home.

In One Sentence:

A  citizen, rather than electing, decides whether to let the ones at the helm of the government to continue or not.

The result:

We shall have a proactive government, and a citizenry that is always free to pursue its call.