19 Women’s Rights vs. Masculinity in the New Republic

This primarily focuses on the correspondence between John and Abigail Adams about the rights of women in the new world, asking about freedoms that they would like to be afforded in the newly independent America. Abigail knows that her husband will be integral in the new society should they win their war of independence, and simply requests that “by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors”^[1] While clearly this request wouldn’t be truly acknowledged for hundreds of years, it shows how long this fight truly went on.

“The Cult of Domesticity” is the only true term to describe what women back in the 18^th and 19^th centuries were relegated to. The simplest explanation would be that women were not only created to be homemakers and to center all their attention on family life, while also being pure, virtuous, and submissive^[2] This negative view of the role of women is what Abigail attempts to get her husband to understand for if (when) it comes time for the new laws of the country. The grievances against women that stemmed from this cultish belief were widespread, such as the only value of women being to increase social stance for their husbands. Women could only have any sort of social standing through marriage to a man, as women were incapable of owning property, lawsuits, voting, and any other governmental and higher-level economic processes. She goes on to say that men are “naturally tyrannical” and simply asks that they “give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend”.

The above picture shows very well what she’s referring to, as it depicts the man sitting around, looking to be eating food while four women (one of which I would assume to be his wife) work on various household tasks, including tending to the two young children pictured. The existence of this essentially involuntary servitude certainly is nowhere near the other marginalized groups at the time (referring to only white women here), but it certainly is a just cause to fight for the rights that they deserve to be afforded as humans.

These letters elicit quite the revealing response from John Adams, that not only gives insight to how he truly thinks and feels, but how most white, landowning men felt back in those days. In this short letter, he opens by mocking his wife, simply saying that he “cannot but laugh” at the proposal that laws would be written to bring men and women to equality. John quite crudely goes on to say that the fight for independence in America has foolishly caused groups like the Native Americans to “[slight] their guardians” and the “Negroes [to grow] insolent to their masters”, to prove a point to Abigail that just like they had no intention of giving rights to either of those groups, women too would remain a second class group. He insists that the masculine systems in place are for the benefit of society and that Abigail and other women should be grateful that they choose not to enforce the full extent of their power on them, as at the end of the day they have the “Name of [Master]” and all of the privilege that comes with the title. He wraps up the document by essentially scoffing at the notion of all the riled-up groups, claiming a superior air over all of them. This sentiment was expressed rather playfully as well as it must be noted, even mocking Abigail as “saucy”^[3] so when he has a similar conversation that he would take much more seriously about a month later with James Sullivan, he seemingly continues to bear down on this sentiment. He says that “Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children”^[4] That may not seem overtly problematic, but it is important to look underneath it a bit. He says, “women and children [can have] good judgements, [but] will please to feed, clothe, and employ [themselves]”^[5], meaning that he’s against giving men without property the right to vote because they are dependent on others to survive, and will be overtly biased in their interests. This fear was extrapolated to women, as they were believed to be too fragile a dependent on their husband, which is paradoxical since women couldn’t be independent without property and a job, and without a job and property, they were considered dependent so that they couldn’t give themselves property and jobs. The picture from earlier in this document also seems somewhat ironic, as the women in the picture are the ones doing all the tasks that ensure the man/husband’s survival, not the other way around. In the defense of Adams, he and Abigail were both on record as not only not owning slaves but being against the concept of slavery itself. He was a supporter of a cut clause from the Declaration of Independence that stated, “The Christian king of Great Britain [is] determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, . . . suppressing every legislative attempt [by the American colonists] to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce”^[6], but was never outspoken about its prevention in the colonies, and was relatively complacent after the passage was removed from the Declaration.

This is not a case of straight bigotry and arrogance; however, it is indicative of how many people like John Adams were too cowardly to truly try and take a step towards equality. Adams not only was on record respecting the intelligence of his wife ^[7], but seemingly believed that slavery was wrong, and yet he actively stood opposed to his values, even while acknowledging the points. This is apathy or straight up the belief that women are inferior to men is something that clearly still affects society today, and as many did back then, people continue to corroborate this message that has clearly been proven false. Adam’s masculinity was staked on the perceived masculinity of the white, landowning males of the time, which means that it is indicative of the entire colonial and post-revolutionary period because until the work of people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, the agenda with women was very stagnant as no real changes occurred from English to American rule, but it is important to see that the seeds of this movement were sewn long before the sprouted.