“ADDRESS AT THE WOMEN’S RIGHT’S CONVENTION IN AKRON, OHIO” (29,MAY 1851) was a speech given by Sojourner Truth, a women’s right activist. This speech compares the strengths of men and women and questions why men have more rights than women. Truth states that “I am as strong as any man that is now”. She gives us an insight into all the things that men do that she; as a woman can also do. She also explains what she can do that men cannot. Women are viewed as inferior to men and problematic. Truth talks about how “Eve caused man to sin”. She believes that women should be given the chance to make things right in the world. She also talks about the roles that women have in this world. Women are viewed as inferior yet are able to do more significant things that men can never do.
“The hidden sexism that could sway the Election” by Daniel Bush, is a text that describes sexism in the 2016 election. Sexism has been a crucial topic for this election because for the first time, a woman is chosen as a front runner. Hillary Clinton is said to be unqualified and untrustworthy. Her gender is used as a reason as to why she should not ,become President. She is believed to be using her gender as a way to get votes. Based on Truth’s example of Eve, Hillary is described in this same perspective. She is seen as manipulative just like Eve who manipulated man to sin.
The rights of women are still limited in this modern day and age. From the 1800s until today, many changes have been made to the constitution and yet women are still viewed as inferior. Truth spoke about the problems seen in our society that needs change but till now, little change has been made because of the mindset that most people have about this issue. Why are women seen as weak? What will it take for men and women to be seen as equal? I am very curious to know where the roots of sexism came from and if it can ever be reversed.
Contemporary text: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/hidden-sexism/
So the connection between Truth’s explicit reference to (and revision-ing of) Eve and the ways in which Clinton has been framed as a manipulative female trying to seduce votes with her seemingly progressive/liberal ideas of girl power is very interesting. I like how what you see in how Truth constructs her text is her reference to the trope of the evil temptress, and what you suggest (but don’t actually say) is that putting Truth next to Bush’s examination of Clinton helps us understand the way in which that trope persists and is at play in the way we interpolate gender and Clinton in this campaign. I wonder too if it might also suggests some ways of considering how Clinton might actually push back against that trope as Truth does?
I have two concerns about your post though: 1) While you mention the Bush text, and that text seems quite interesting and relevant, you yourself actually compare Truth’s use of the Eve trope to Clinton and her campaign generally and not to Bush’s text specifically. Either you need to actually think about how Bush’s text, his analysis of Clinton and sexism in the 2016 campaigns, resonate or respond to what you see at play in Truth’s use of the temptress trope. OR you need to find a different contemporary text, probably one authored, performed, created by Clinton. 2) Instead of panning out of your textual observations and insightful comparison, you need to pan in. Ask how is the trope of the temptress constructed and/or revised in the Clinton text. (Or if you stick with the Bush, you might ask how does Bush’s assessment of the temptress trope in Clinton’s campaign address as Truth’s speech does both the problem of the trope and the potential possibility of using the trope?) Right now your question for conversation pans so far away from these texts. I think many of us would like to understand the root of sexism and moreover the ways in which we might bring it to an end. Nevertheless the answer to such questions cannot be found in these two texts, thus you are essentially asking questions that don’t help us discuss the texts before us. I’m not asking you to squash your larger concerns, but I am asking you to do the very hard work of thinking of many intermediary steps. I’m asking you to focus on what’s going on in these two texts, to help us discuss the stakes of how these texts purport to work in the world. Eventually in a larger project, you would conduct this type of analysis over a much larger and representative sample of texts. If you see the same pattern of the evil temptress occurring again and again, then you might posit a claim about how the nation or how popular reading nation (or popular media) presents the female politician as a dangerous Eve like temptress. But that kind of large claim comes after a lot more research. Here I just want you to work on the building blocks. )