In this chapter, Pleck mentions many groups
that aimed to help women in the homes who dealt with some form of domestic
abuse. As I was reading up on each group, the
motivations and approaches the WCTU (Women’s Christian Temperance Union) in the case of alcohol abuse stood
out to me most. Although I do believe that the WCTU did have positive
intentions with the formation of the group, at the same time, I argue that
their male-centered ideals in which the women of the household were ultimately
submissive refutes some of their good intentions.
“Women of the WCTU seemed
more concerned with uplifting men, than with raising the status of women. They
believed in a marriage not of equals, but of respectables, headed by a worthy
husband, with his wife, an acquiescent subordinate, at his side.” (100) This first statement, which sets
the stage for the WCTU’s goals and approaches to temperance issues within the
home, seems more of a step back than a step forward. By encouraging the
“uplifting of men” and describing the wife as an “acquiescent subordinate” only
perpetuates the power struggle that already exists- men abusing (emotionally or
physically) their wives have the power, while women who suffer from the abuse
are powerless. By not viewing a marriage as equals, how can there be room for a
decent amount of ‘respectables’, if one partner of the marriage holds
precedence over the other?
“The WCTU also believes that
anything that ‘breaks down the home, hurts the women most’ because a woman was
most dependent on her family for happiness.” (100) Once again, the women’s
feelings and happiness become ‘dependent’ on someone other than herself. This
assumption that the only happiness
women can have is from her family and her home is problematic. Every
individual, man or woman, should depend first on themselves, then on others,
when it comes to their own happiness.
The WCTU states “no friend
of the advancement of women would ever encourage a woman to leave her husband.”
(100) They feel that the “enemy of temperance women was not the husband, but
the saloonkeeper.” (100) These past two statements completely avoid the problem
at hand. It states that men who drink are not responsible for their actions- it
is the saloonkeepers fault. Once again, by not holding men responsible for
their own choices and actions gives them power over women. These women are
expected to stay with their husbands, even if their ‘home breaks down.” By not
holding men accountable to the marriage, but holding women accountable, there
can be no concrete solution to the temperance problem linked to broken homes.
After examining this passage
in Pleck, I think that although the WCTU wanted to aid women, their approaches
to doing so were flawed. Their focus and aim tended to lean towards improving
males, while women were still expected to be subservient. Although the WCTU
made many strides, their successes seem somewhat tarnished due to the fact that they still encouraged the male-dominant power structure in the household.
I think your paper is strong because it uses textual citations very well and makes a great argument in clear terms. One thing that could strengthen your argument is to slightly alter your language and instead of saying "I think the WCTU was flawed," you could say, "The WCTU was flawed." This makes a stronger argument. Your paper had me convinced so you shouldn't be afraid to make that bold claim.
ReplyDeleteYou admit that the WCTU accomplished some good, and I think it would actually strengthen your argument to specify ways in which they were successful. In showing where they had a positive impact, you can more clearly define the areas in which they were defensive. That aside, you have a good argument with plenty of strong support.
ReplyDeleteAlyce, I really love the focus of your response here. You do a great job at actually making it a close reading by focusing on relevant citations and expanding each to make your thesis stronger. I think bringing up the ways in which the WCTU was trying to help, but did so in a contradictory manner is a really unique way to look at the beginning of women's suffrage groups and such. Though the rights we have today were developed over a long amount of time, I think it's important to recognize change in it's initial change and be able to critically see the flaws which you do well. Overall, great response!
ReplyDeleteI like that you focus on the Women's Christen Temperance Movement because I think it is a very interesting topic. The only thing I would note is that it might be useful to read the WCTU's platform to better understand what they wanted to achieve. I read the platform in another class and the WCTU's purpose was not directly women's aid. They instead aimed “. . . to reform so far as possible, by religious, ethical and scientific means, the drinking classes . . .” (W.C.T.U., “W.C.T.U. Declaration of Principles).
ReplyDeleteYour argument is clear and concise and you used many examples to support your argument. I thought that this was a well written piece and you used strong language to make your argument strong. You took something from the chapter and focused in closely to it. You did not give any plot summary or unnecessary details, but got strait to your point and stuck with it. Your last paragraph was strong and made a great closing statement for your piece of work.
ReplyDeleteI really like your close reading. I think you brought up a great point. I enjoyed how you set up your close reading with statement by statement and then analyzed and argued those ideas. I especially felt that your final paragraph was a good summary of your argument and belief. Overall, good job!
ReplyDeleteYour argument that the WCTU was not progressive enough to make substantial positive change is intriguing and well thought-out. Your focus is great, and your argument structure is sound. Overall, this is a good piece. Great use of textual evidence!
ReplyDeleteWhile your post is primarily well-written, some of your syntax is confusing. Be careful with that. For example, you said "By encouraging the “uplifting of men” and describing the wife as an “acquiescent subordinate” only perpetuates the power struggle..." This doesn't make sense grammatically, you should remove the "By" at the beginning. In your thesis you use "although" and "at the same time" in the same sentence, which is redundant... I'd remove the "at the same time." Also, stay away from floating quotations, especially at the beginning of your paragraphs. I'd also avoid sentences in the first person. On a positive note, you do a very good job clearly developing your thoughts to the reader; it's easy to follow, and I don't have to guess what you're thinking. Good job there!
I like that several of the posts have dealt with the issue of responsibility - that ultimately, perhaps, change was not made because responsibility was never placed on the male. I am interested in the argument that the WCTU was not progressive enough to make substantial or lasting change. I would like to know why you think that these "reformers" chose to keep such conservative traditional views of family life/dynamics as well as why they felt that alcohol, not attitude was responsible for family violence.
ReplyDeleteI like your argument that the male-centered ideals of the WCTU refuted its good intentions, and your use of textual evidence gave a great deal of support to your argument. Since your argument is strong and well supported, i would have to agree with a previous poster who suggested some editing to your language. At the end of the second paragraph, for example, you write, "By not viewing a marriage as equals, how can there be room for a decent amount of ‘respectables’, if one partner of the marriage holds precedence over the other?"--this does not need to be a rhetorical question and would serve well as a statement. Overall, this was a great paper. Thanks for sharing, Alice.
ReplyDeleteYour focus on this topic is very strong, which means your point comes across loud and clear. Well done.
ReplyDeleteThe only issue I have with this discussion is that the events you're talking about are part of history, yet it seems you didn't include anything about how such contradictory behavior within the WCTU actually affected their campaigning. If you can go back to the text and pull out the information that shows the negative effects of such methods, your argument will become even stronger.
To make your argument stronger, you should stay away from "I think", be confident in your thoughts and just state them. Other than that I thought your paper was very clear. It was very east to identify your argument and your avoidance was all there to support it. Overall, just be more confident with your arguments, they are very good.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thesis statement, in fact as I was reading this I thought that the WCTU was very problematic. I think you should expand more though on the positives of what WCTU was trying to do, because you do admit they have good qualities to them. I really liked how you used your textual evidence as well. It was a very well supported paper. Also, as some commenters have already stated, you should take out your "I thinks" and just make a claim, especially in your thesis. It will make your argument stronger :)
ReplyDeleteGreat job at supporting the various quotes and solidifying them as an essential part of your paper.
ReplyDeleteAs others have stated, there are some areas that could be tidied up. For instance, using first person pronouns. Also, try and stay away from phrases like "I argue", "I do believe", etc because they are not typically used in formal pieces of writing. One more thing, introduce your quotes. Doing this will organize your ideas better.
Great analysis, just needs some tweaks in organization and word choice.
I like that you read the statements of the organization, then analyzed the effects of their reasoning. This was a strong close reading! I noticed other people mentioning how you could discuss the positive side of WCTU, and I wonder if maybe you could use that to exemplify how the bad outweighed the good. You talk about that tension, so I think it would be beneficial for your paper and audience if you clearly identify it.
ReplyDeleteAs others have said, stay away from those first person pronouns! Also, I think that introducing your quotes will help them flow a little bit better in your paper. Overall I liked your analysis of this reading and I think your quotes do well in supporting your claims.
ReplyDeleteI thought you had a strong argument and great textual evidence to support your thesis. You took an interesting stance on part of the reading and did a good job at expanding upon your topic. I think that working on some syntactical aspects of your writing would help improve your paper, but overall, good work!
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed your argument. I believe that the paragraph stating that the wives depend on the family to be happy was your strongest. It showed how flawed the WCTU actually was. You do a nice job of citing your paper, each argument has a citation to companion the argument. One thing I would note, as others have, is that your language is a bit timid and should take more of an argumentative stance.
ReplyDeleteI liked that you pointed out some of the "flaws" in the women's movement. It was very easy to casually read and say "oh wow, they were really trying to be progressive!". I like that you challenged their approach and pointed out the ways in which they were still bound to their times.
ReplyDeleteI think your explanations of the quotes you chose were very thorough, and that part of your post was successful. However, because of the way your introduction was worded, I anticipated your post including more about alcohol abuse in relation with domestic violence, yet it only touched on that once. I would suggest rewording your introduction to avoid this type of confusion, but other than that, your writing is very strong.
ReplyDeleteGreat evidence, analysis and easily identifiable argument. I really like your argument it is very strong and your procession of evidence is good too. Just try to stay away from first person and by introducing your quotes will cause the close reading to flow more smoothly. Good work though!
ReplyDeleteI feel that your paper is confused on whether it wants to be a formal or informal paper. With that, I really like most of your paper for I think it is an original idea and you support it well. I think you should stick on keeping it formal for you have great evidence to back up what you argue and I really did enjoy reading it. :)
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job using textual evidence to back up your claims, which made your argument quite strong. Your thesis is clear and concise which I appreciated as it made the paper much easier to follow. I didn't have a problem with your use of first person as this is a blog setting and I think it works. The only thing I would add is you could expand upon alcohol's influence on marriages. Otherwise good job!
ReplyDeleteYour questioning of the WCTU's arguement is interesting, but my question to you is; do you think that the WCTU was arguing for the power hierarchy between husband and wife simply to gain male support for their movement, or do you believe that they were serious in their support for the power hierarchy in marriage?
ReplyDeleteI like the thesis yet I feel you only focused on the refutations of their plan and not the positive by placing the positive and negatives side by side I think the strength of your argument will be revealed. Possibly try finding two examples of the positive things they tried but then mirror them with the negative counter part that way your evidence is right in front of us.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is clearly stated and well thought out. Your focus throughout the argument remains consistent, which strengthens your claims. One suggestion I have is that instead of posing questions for thought, use these as opportunities to state your arguments and make claims; this will make your overall argument stronger.
ReplyDeleteI really like this essay. Your argument was strong throughout the whole thing, and your use of evidence was effective and supported all your statements. I can't really think of anything to suggest that you fix except maybe you could mention the different things that effect domestic violence.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this close reading because I also found many things about the WCTU troubling. I believe that you expressed all of your issues concerning the WCTU within your argument and throughout your close reading clearly and very strongly. I especially appreciate the way you analyze the way the WCTU's belief that a woman could not be happy unless first ensuring the happiness and safe keeping of her family, which also reminds me of the "motherhood mystique".
ReplyDeleteOverall, I felt you take on this reading was well done. You clearly specify your argument in the beginning: “I argue that their male-centered ideals in which the women of the household were ultimately submissive refutes some of their good intentions.” However, I agree with some of the earlier comments that you piece would have been strengthened if you left you personal feelings out of it. My suggestion would be to stay away from I phrases and possibly even some of the rhetorical questions (this might just be a style thing, though).
ReplyDeleteNice job Alyce, I really liked your topic, especially since I had the same reaction to the WCTU. I also thought your argument flowed well, and it had enough analysis and support to back it up. To make this argument stronger, I think you could point out what other woman's rights movements were doing at the time and put their efforts in juxtaposition to the WCTU's.
ReplyDelete