'If women want any rights more than they's got, why don't they just take them, and not be talking about it.'
-Sojourner Truth- ex slave, women's rights activist and abolitionist
Moca2014 Moca2014
1 Response Aug 22, 2014

its true, but to be anymore dramatically empowered than what woman are currently would throw a grand off balanced considering how much more superior they are to men at the moment, they can have anything due to there physical makeup which imo is enslaving both men and woman because woman all need/want to be submissive to men.. not in the sense of losing there rights but rather in the idea of gaining the sense of peace that comes with not having to worry... worrying is easier for a man because he is logical and can develop coping mechanisms where as a woman is more complex in her emotions which can make her stance still strong but not as simple as a mans... there is a fine line between abuse of power and i feel sometimes woman activists take the abuse of power path... which imo is not healthy for anyone.. and i say this all being very much for woman's rights, i just think alot has been lost to bullshit that need not be interlinked with woman's rights because its not about rights then, its about domination and control complexes

Well, I'm kind of confused, I had trouble following this. Sojourner Truth was an an ex-slave and abolitionist, who dove into the political arena during one of our country's more tumultuous times, times like nothing you or I would be familiar with today. She fought for women's rights, universal suffrage (voting rights) and prison reform to name only a few issues. She was also an outspoken opponent of capital punishment. The world was a very, very different place in her lifetime late 1790s thru 1880s. Her life was fraught with perils from being held a slave; to escaping slavery; to struggling to keep her child from being taken from her, as slavery was known for dividing families; she fought for all women and for all people to have the right to a vote, which was finally ratified by the 19th amendment in 1920 some 40 years after her death; she fought the rights for women and blacks to be able to legally own property so they could be self sufficient by working their land the way whites of the time did; she fought for desegregation of streetcars which blacks could not be serviced from at that time; the list goes on an on. So it would not be entirely correct to confuse the issues of "yesteryear" (though many of them are still relevant) and Truth's fighting to establish human rights to the benefit of all humans, particularly slaves . The notion of all women needing/wanting to be submissive to men and this tipping of the power balance you speak of is a "misnomer." African slave women never had the luxury of leaving important issues to the slave men in their lives, because their family unit was always under assault. They never even owned a home to begin with. Simply keeping the family unit together was usually impossible because slave masters were always buying, selling trading and killing slave family members off. No matter how much the slave men wanted to protect their wives and families they were "emasculated" by the system of slavery and overt racism of the time in not being able to do so. But Yes, you were partially correct about domination and control complexes, but only white society was afforded that luxury. Look up S. Truth and see what the issues of her time were while imagining the daily odds against her survival. You just might be impressed and re-think your stance on early American feminism. (I hope.)