Self-Evident? "All Men and Women Are Created Equal"
Published July 04, 2009 @ 06:49AM PT
We all know that Independence Day, commonly known as the Fourth of July, is a federal holiday commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, declaring independence from Great Britain. While Independence Day is commonly associated with fireworks, parades, barbecues, concerts, baseball games, political speeches and ceremonies - I am going to pose a more provocative question for the readers of Change.org:
What does Independence Day mean for women? Historically and then in the present?
It's no secret that the Declaration of Independence was written and signed by men. And while the document has been translated to apply to both women and men and has become a statement of motivation for all marginalized groups - the original language seems to imply gender bias:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I challenge those who celebrate the 4th of July today to really think about our "founding fathers" and how they built a nation where women have been struggling to find their sense of independence ever since the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Personally, I wish we nationally celebrated the 20th of July of 1848 when Elizabeth Cady Stanton created The Declaration of Sentiments, a document signed by 68 women and 32 men, 100 out of some 300 attendees at the first women's rights convention, in Seneca Falls, New York.
Now take a read at this language, it suits me a little better:
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 inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are suffer able, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they were accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
I would hope that as we praise those who brought the United States to Independence from Britain today, we also think about those who brought women into independence from the patriarchy as well.
Any good feminist knows that it is important to maintain a critical eye toward tradition. Often those traditions carried misogynistic sentiments in the beginning when women were left out. Just as Betty Friedan asked all women to re-assess the alleged joys of housewifery because "The feminine mystique has succeeded in burying millions of American women alive" - I am asking those who are celebrating their own patriotism today to re-assess the role of the patriarchy in United States. It's important, in the quest for true independence - both as a country and a society - to make sure that all men and women are allowed to be independent human beings, not buried by the false expectations of what freedom is supposed to mean.
This post is dedicated to the female veterans. For more information on the plight of women in the military go see: http://www.graceafterfire.org/
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (26)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Jen Nedeau is a social media consultant, progressive activist, feminist speaker and writer. She currently lives in New York City, where she works full-time as the Director of Digital Strategy at Air America Media. In August 2008, Nedeau was selected to be the Editor of the WomensRights.Change.Org where she facilitates daily discussion about the feminist movement. Additionally, Nedeau volunteers as the Chief Technology Officer for New Leaders Council, a non-profit that offers exclusive training for young leaders. You can follow her on Twitter @HumanFolly or learn more here: www.jennedeau.com.
Featured Women's Rights Actions
-
-
Being a Woman Is Not a Pre-Existing Condition
10734 People
-
Being a Woman Is Not a Pre-Existing Condition
-
I agree...This would make a much better opening statement in OUR declaration of independance.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 07/04/2009 @ 04:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sad to see more gender feminist revisionist history -- trying to rewrite all of history to paint an entire gender as misogynists when, the fact is, the assignment of gender roles has always been with the complicit acceptance of the other gender. And men have always been on the short end of it. Your post is a manifestation of a decidedly unnuanced, angry, even childish point of view that is nowhere accepted outside of some women's studies programs and one dark and twisted corner of the blogosphere. The vast majority of women reject your views as hate speech.
Posted by Pierce Harlan on 07/04/2009 @ 05:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Pierce, dear, I don't think you speak for the vast majority of women. In that context, then, would YOU please provide an example of the revisionism of which YOU speak?
It is a fact -- not a matter of opinion, but a fact -- that women were not included in the Declaration of Independence any more than African-Americans or native Americans were.
You say gender role assignments always have "complicit acceptance of the other gender," and then you complain about getting "the short end." I don't remember accepting my gender role assignment complicitly or any other way -- do you? And so, what are you complaining about? You accepted it, didn't you?
Your emotionally-wrought whine is without a shred of empirical data to support any of your assertions. Petulance doth not a convincing argument make.
Posted by Jenifer Lewis on 07/08/2009 @ 12:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ummmm what's this 'OUR' delcaration ...? You clearly think of yourself more highly than you should. I would encourage you to read the Declaration of IndependEnce, and, gasp, the US Constitution and it's ammendments. Language reflects history - and the founding fathers wrote in the language of their time. The 19th Ammendment relects the language of that time. Women have the right to vote, as do all legal American citizens.
Posted by n j on 07/04/2009 @ 09:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
When did she write "our" exactly? I didn't read that.
Posted by Jesse Demonbreun on 07/06/2009 @ 11:43AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ah! Thomas's post. I see now.
Posted by Jesse Demonbreun on 07/06/2009 @ 11:44AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Check out another recent post:
http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/blog/view/america_and_the_belief_in_things_better
A lot has improved since 1776 - abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, warning labels on cigarettes, etc. I'm proud of our country's ability to get it right eventually, even though the pace of progress can be painfully slow for those of us who are living in injustice.
Posted by Ted Nunn on 07/05/2009 @ 10:30AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yeah, I think this one's a bit melodramatic. Is there some right that men have that women don't? As far as I know, we all have the same rights legally. Yes, you can talk about social injustices... but, those happen among us people. As far as the laws are concerned, it seems we're all pretty equal. And, if you'd like to celebrate your gender's Independence Day, I'm pretty sure you have the right to do that, too.
Posted by John Morris on 07/05/2009 @ 08:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The only way to change those social injustices is to question the things that we hear, see, and think. This post is here to cause us to do just that.
Also, saying that social injustices just happen is no reason to not actively search for a solution.
Posted by Jesse Demonbreun on 07/06/2009 @ 11:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh, please.
Jen wrote, "I wish we nationally celebrated the 20th of July of 1848," not "Oh, how I wish I could celebrate the 20th of July of 1848." See the difference?
And yes, social injustices DO happen. It's curious that anyone would have a problem with her mentioning them.
Posted by Jenifer Lewis on 07/07/2009 @ 07:33AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"What does Independence Day mean for women? Historically and then in the present?"
At the time it essentially meant nothing. Nothing changed. Women still could not vote, married women could not own property, educational opportunities were still virtually nil, etc.
Today it is nice to read the Declaration of 1776, as I do every Fourth of July, and consider how much I owe to women who came before me and put their lives on the line so I would have the right to vote.
My brother-in-law and I took turns reading it this year, and we both got all choked up near the end. Although it was not written on my behalf (nor that of the native Americans, those brought here in chains, or even white men who were not property owners), I appreciate what the revolution wrought.
It was simply the beginning of a long struggle for equal opportunity for everyone, a concept we all profess to hold dear. I hope the day comes when we can all realize that this is everyone's birthright, not something to which some are born while for others must be earned.
This is not a zero-sum game: everyone benefits when we are all able to be our best.
Posted by Jenifer Lewis on 07/07/2009 @ 07:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well said!
Posted by Jesse Demonbreun on 07/07/2009 @ 10:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The declaration was a continuation of a philosophy of individual liberty that had been evolving in Britain since 1200 AD. "all Men are created equal" was where it moved forward from the already unique British attitude torwards this subject." It meant that no matter where a man was born, no matter what His government said, there were certain rights He was born with. This could, at that time only have come from British citizens. Britain, the birthplace of modern democracy is now under near totalarian rule, with the U.S. soon to follow under the direction of this new Fuerher.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/07/2009 @ 02:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's too bad that your knowledge of history failed you when you moved into the 20th century. I'd be fascinated to learn what empirical data you can provide to support such a comparison.
There is no evidence of any "new Fuerher" here except in the addled minds of certain Fox commentators and their lap dogs.
It's puzzling to me why some people are so eager to claim there is, but perhaps that's just a projection of their own inadequacies and insecurity. It certainly is not a reflection of reality.
Posted by Jenifer Lewis on 07/08/2009 @ 06:17AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jannifer, It was a bit over the top. That is why I asked Jen to remove it. I'm wary of government expanding too much bur the last part of that statement was excessive. The first part was irrelevant.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/08/2009 @ 07:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
So your wariness about government expansion leads you to conclude that we have a new Fueher?
Wow. Maybe you need to read up about the old one.
Posted by Jenifer Lewis on 07/08/2009 @ 09:00AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's sad to see right-wing scare tactics so deeply rooted in someone's beliefs - living in that kind of fear would be miserable.
Posted by Jesse Demonbreun on 07/08/2009 @ 09:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jennifer and Jesse, read carefully, You have no argument. Before You even commented I asked Jen to delete My comment. I was in a rather overcaffeinated state.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/08/2009 @ 12:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, Charlie, your comment is still there. All you have managed to do is attempt to back away from it in a manner most lame.
As Jesse said, this idea is rooted deeply in your belief system. As much as I loathed our last president, I never imagined for one moment that he was analogous to Adolph Hitler, not even in my most over-caffeinated state.
If you really don't think that Obama is the new fuerher, perhaps some serious self-reflection would be in order to provide understanding about the thinking and motivations behind such a hateful remark.
Good luck.
Posted by Jenifer Lewis on 07/09/2009 @ 05:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think no such thing. I think He is a decent Young man with big government principles. I was trying to give a little background on the declaration. The resentment torwards big government has been building inside Me for 40 years of government expansion. (W. was most guilty) It surfacing here was untimely and unrelated. Calling Him the new fueher was actually calling Him the second, with W. being the first, both inapproriate. Sorry Jenifer and Jesse. I can defend My comments re: the declaration though if there is argument there though. Otherwise, God bless You.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/09/2009 @ 05:53AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I appreciate your comment, Charlie -- thank you.
2009 minus forty years brings us to the beginning of the Nixon administration, but government has been expanding ever since our nation was founded. There are things most people agree they want government to do and there are other things about which many disagree.
I agree about the expansion under W, as it was nearly unprecedented. He wasn't content to merely create whole new layers (e.g. Homeland Security) -- he demanded new powers that even George Washington didn't want. The level of fear in this country was so great that many simply rolled over and gave them to him, and those who disagreed found themselves accused of being unpatriotic at best and treasonous at worst.
Then, on top of everything else, he cut the taxes which pay for these programs (primarily benefitting the wealthiest Americans) while committing our troops to two wars costly in both monetary and human terms. I don't know with whom I've been most angry over the last eight years, him or the compliant Congress.
The thing that gives me real hope these days is that we have a Constitutional scholar at the head of the executive branch. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but I respect his approach. For example, he has argued for continuation of certain W-era policies which I find fly in the face of the Fourth Amendment, but those policies are based on the law as found in the misbegotten (and misnamed) Patriot Act, and it is not his place to ignore the law. If Congress has any sense and/or gumption it will not renew that Act (as I have written to all my congresscritters).
IMHO a committment to the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States is the best way to honor the sacrifices our ancestors made 233 years ago.
Posted by Jenifer Lewis on 07/09/2009 @ 06:30AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks, Jen. The 40 years refer to the 43 years I have been politically aware. Since the Nixon/Kennedy race. Obamas' sudden expansion of national debt and deficit have Me very nervous. Of course W. was rediculous too. I am very sad for My grandchildren whose grandchildren will be still trying to pay this off.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 07/09/2009 @ 09:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I completely agree that this expanding debt is scary - but I think that continuing down a path with public systems in place that simply do not work is scarier.
Many Euaropean countries experienced this same scare before going through social change, i.e. universal health care, but they made it out alright in the end and they have a better system in place to show for it.
Posted by Jesse Demonbreun on 07/09/2009 @ 10:15AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, Jesse, we should be able to develop much better systems by examining the various European paths: what worked, what didn't work, and why.
Having access to this experiential database will help us to not repeat their mistakes. We'll make mistakes of our own, of course, but that's inevitable.
As you say, the current path is not an option. As someone said, continuing to do the same thing over and over in hopes of getting a different result is one definition of insanity!
Posted by Jenifer Lewis on 07/09/2009 @ 10:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm not happy about the increase of debt either, but I think the alternative was much worse. The lesson of Japan's economy in the 1990s should teach us that to just tough it out and wait for the economy to turn around, as they did, is not a good strategy.
I'd feel a whole lot better if the entire inept SEC membership were fired, the government was purged of all Goldman Sachs influence, and the rickety patchwork of financial regulations were replaced by something simple and workable. It seems every financial crisis from the Depression forward has been met with one more set of Band Aids, creating more opportunities for nefarious financial "wizards" to slip through the cracks.
The previous secretary of the treasury recommended that third item last summer, and I hope it hasn't gotten lost in the shuffle.
Posted by Jenifer Lewis on 07/09/2009 @ 10:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hello dear i want to be your friend , My is victory i am kind and lovely.
i am looking for a good with love and caring also somebody who is kind.
please contact me on my email adrees ( victoryzaya@yahoo.com) so that i can tell you
more abuot me
Posted by victory zaya on 07/11/2009 @ 10:33AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.