Essay, Research Paper: Sisterhood

Historically, women have been relegated to a limited role in society. In our male
dominated culture, a considerable number of people view the natural role of women to be that of
mothers and wives. Thus, for many, women are assumed to be more suited for childbearing and
homemaking than for involvement in public life. Despite these widespread and governing beliefs,
women, frustrated and tired of their inferiority and subordination, began seeking personal and
political equality, including equal pay, reproductive choice, and freedom from conventional
societal restraints.
Massive opposition to a demand for women’s equality with men prompted the
organization of women to fight collectively for their rights. The birthplace of American feminism
was Seneca Falls, New York. Here in 1948, at a landmark convention, the first wave of women’s
rights activists gathered. Their primary goal was to obtain voting rights for women (Moore 1992,
21). In the mid 1960’s, the seeds of oppression (which spread from earlier civil movements) were
scattered and sown among other dissatisfied women. These seeds began to take root, and grow
dramatically, initially within the context of the growth of more general and widespread left
radicalism in Western societies. As a result, beginning about 1965, the second wave of women’s
rights activists began to emerge with an autonomous agenda for female liberation. The
movement’s objective was to secure equal economic, political, and social rights for women.
The women’s liberation movement was composed of an association of women working
together in a common cause. Young radical women who had been active in the Civil Rights
Movement gathered in small groups and began to focus on organizing in order to change
attitudes, social constructs, the perception of society toward women, and, generally, to raise the
consciousness of their sisters.
The women adopted the phase “Sisterhood is Powerful,” in an effort to express succinctly
the aim of the movement. This slogan was also an attempt to unify women by asserting a shared
connection and circumstance, and thereby to build fundamental and lasting cohesion. “Sisterhood
is powerful” was embraced by the women in order to convey a common identity of sisterhood,
one firmly grounded in family-based concepts of interdependence. Biological sisterhood is an
easily understood relationship within the nuclear family.
According to social identity theory, one way to define an “in-group” is to define an
“out-group” (Hinkle and Brown 1990, 48). The liberation movement attempted to define females
as the “in-group” and males as the “out-group,” with the two groups distinctively and sharply
separated. The rallying cry “Sisterhood is Powerful” was primarily designed to solidify the
identity of the “in-group.” However, in reality, it is easier to define racial groups than it is to
define gender groups as separate divisions, since black people and white people are generally
geographically and socially separated from each other, white men and women are not.
In order to incorporate women successfully into the movement, it was essential to broaden
and expand the meaning of sisterhood to that of a common bond between women. Consolidated
by sisterhood, by a common connection of gender, heterogeneous women were expected to
develop an allegiance and common purpose. Although the women working within the movement
were mostly white and middle class (Tax, 319), the slogan “Sisterhood is Powerful” was directed
at all women - married and single, young, middle aged, and old, mothers and daughters, of every
race and religion, rich, poor, employed, unemployed, women on welfare, and those with different
cultures and sexual orientations (DuPlessis and Snitow, 15). The objective of the slogan was to
foster a common identity for the multifaceted group of women who were committed to (or might
be committed to) women’s liberation. Empowerment for women was considered both possible
and attainable only within the context of this type of common identity. Therefore, by organizing
collectively these women would acquire capacity to become a force with which to be reckoned.
Equally important, as a cohesive group, the women would be difficult to divide and suppress.
According to the ideology of women’s liberation, the solidarity of those joined in sisterhood
guaranteed not only the ability, but also the means required to obtain their goal of equal
economic, political, and social rights for women.
In the United States, where a patriarchal society dominates, an isolated woman lacks
personal and political power and carries little, if any, influence. Indeed, the majority of females in
the women’s liberation movement clearly understood from earlier experiences that the solitary
voice of a woman would be treated by men as inconsequential, and would therefore have little
impact in the political arena. The women’s movement steadfastly believed that a communal voice,
expressed en masse, and delivered as a unified message, would carry behind it the influence and
clout to actuate change.
Initially, the movement consisted of numerous small informal local groups, concentrated in
the eastern cities. Participation in the groups increased through personal relationships. By the
early 1970’s, tremendous excitement was generated among women, and almost immediately like
minded groups began to spring up throughout the United States. Within these widespread
groups, there were several areas of conflict and disagreement - particularly about race, class and
sexual orientation. There exists in women’s shared condition a host of differences: “Women with
their multiple identities, allegiances, and needs complicated the assumption that there was one
universal identity for all women” (DuPlessis and Snitow, 8). Animosity and division between
women increased as the groups multiplied.
One of the first divisions within the group occurred between the “politicos” and the
feminists (Freeman, 184). The “politicos,” an arm of the new left wing, perceived capitalism as
the source of women’s oppression. Seeking revolution rather than reform, their goal was to
eradicate capitalism. The feminists, on the other hand, blamed male supremacy for women’s
situation. The feminist solution rested in the change of attitudes, personal relationships and male
dominated institutions (Freeman, 191). According to feminists, “ ‘women’ was a constructed and
conventional role, created by men for their convenience and satisfaction” (Densmore, 81).
Discord of this kind resulted in ‘trashing”- women who disagreed with each other’s ideology
openly were personally attacked by women with contrasting convictions and given the cold
shoulder by those in the majority (Freeman, 191). Many who were trashed “dubbed themselves
‘feminist refugees’ and summed up their feelings: ‘sisterhood is powerful,’ it kills sisters”
(Freeman, 192). “Sisterhood,” a proposition of solidarity among women, became a means to limit
dissent and began to divide more than to unite. Long (1998) pointed out “there were no
guarantees against competitive hostility, against confidences betrayed. Indeed our very concept of
sisterhood was rather idealized, as if among real sisters competition does not exist along with love
and attachment” (330).
An equally incompatible area of conflict focused around the lines of gender and sex. Love
was regarded as an institution, and marriage and motherhood denoted intimate relationships with
men. “Sisterhood” was to serve as a justification for separation and isolation from men.
According to feminists, married women were unable to participate fully in the movement since
most of their interest, loyalty, and devotion were said to lie with their family (Epstein, 144). The
more radical elements of the movement (a portion of the broader movement appeared to be taking
over and trying to force its agenda on the rest) were against marriage and were in favor of
autonomy “limiting to one third of their membership women who lived with men” (Shulman,
288). Several expectations about the relationship between men and women were proposed:
Men were expected to be kept at a distance, celibacy embraced (Densmore, 78), male babies
declared the enemy, sons, husbands and lovers eliminated from women’s lives (Wolfson, 278).
These stringent expectations were too much for many women; for many, the movement became
impossible to join, and for others it became impossible to continue to participate. Activist Alice
Wolfson (1996) , mother of two sons, dropped out because she failed to understand the feminist
ideology that resulted in “ identification of male children as the enemy, a ban on male babies from
the women’s liberation offices and coffee houses, and actually debate when a male baby became
the enemy” (281). She found it impossible to “support an analysis that excluded half the human
race, two of whom were her own sons” (Wolfson, 281). Other women in the movement with
sons “protested that they cared only for women” and activist Barbara Epstein (1996) suggested
that feminism had managed to create an arena of conformity and oppression in which one could
not count on being able to speak honestly (145). Once Epstein published her views, others in the
movement refused to associate with her politically (145).
One of the reasons why women’s liberation failed was the inability to create an identity of
“sisterhood.” The inability to create this identity was due to the failure of the ideology of gender
separation -- men had to be defined as the enemy. In order to adopt this identity women were
required to reject half of their lives and turn their own husbands and sons into the enemy. It is
difficult, if not impossible to get women to reject men as the enemy, just as it is to get men to
reject women as the enemy. Equally important, there are numerous cross-cutting identities of
women. Women are dissimilar: They are mothers, daughters, wives, homemakers, and
breadwinners. To create “sisterhood” among these multiple identities is indeed a difficult if not
impossible task. Among women leading diversified lifestyles and holding contradictory
convictions, it is impossible to attain a uniformity of identity and purpose. Individual women
asserted their own identity and too many parameters divided them. This heterogeneity undermines
“sisterhood.” Women, also have different ideologies: Radical, conservative, liberal, and
moderate. Phyllis Schlafly, leading advocate of conservative issues, led her flock and rallied
against women’s liberation, successfully defeating the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982.
The women’s movement itself moved women into the world of men, the working world
the labor force. Women become integrated in the workforce and this reduced the effectiveness of
sisterhood as a rallying point for women. Once incorporated within the workforce, women
become more like men in order to succeed. Workforce integration also reduces the
distinctiveness of “sisterhood.” “Sisterhood” and its promise of solidarity for women’s identity
was an imaginary nexus, too narrow in its ideology and too broad in its scope.
In summary, to be successful in politics groups must be able to develop a
“we-consciousness” among their members. Women are simply too diverse to accept the idea of a
common “sisterhood.” Without shared identities, the women’s movement is easily fragmented
along lines of ideology, class, race, etc., and its political strength is dissipated.
References
Densmore, Dana. (1996). “A Year of Living Dangerously.” The Feminist Memoir Project. ed.
DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow, Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.
DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow, Ann, (Eds.). (1998). The Feminist Memoir Project. New York:
Three Rivers Press.
Epstein, Barbara. (1996). “Coming of Age; Civil Rights and Feminism.” ed. DuPlessis, Rachel, &
Snitow, Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Freeman, Jo. (1996). “On the Origins of the Women’s Liberation Movement from a Strictly
Personal Perspective.” The Feminist Memoir Project. ed. DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow,
Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Hinkle, Steve, and Rupert Brown. (1990). “Intergroup Comparisons and Social Identity: Some
Links and Lacunae.” Social Identity Theory; Constructive and Critical Advances, ed.
Dominic Abrams and Michael A. Hogg. New York: Springeer-Verlag.
Long, Priscilla. (1996). “We Called Ourselves Sisters.” The Feminist Memoir Project. ed.
DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow, Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Moore, Richard. (1992, August 2). “Birthplace of American Feminism.” New York Times, pp.21.
Shulman, Alix, Kates. (1996). “A Marriage Disagreement, or Marriage by Other Means.” The
Feminist Memoir Project. ed. DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow, Ann. New York: Three
Rivers Press.
Tax, Meredith. (1996). “For the People Hear Us Singing Bread and Roses, ‘Bread and Roses!
Bread and Roses!’ ” The Feminist Memoir Project. ed. DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow,
Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Wolfson, Alice, J. (1996). “Clenched Fist, Open Heart.” The Feminist Memoir Project. ed.
DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow, Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.



Bibliography


References
Densmore, Dana. (1996). “A Year of Living Dangerously.” The Feminist Memoir Project. ed.
DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow, Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.
DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow, Ann, (Eds.). (1998). The Feminist Memoir Project. New York:
Three Rivers Press.
Epstein, Barbara. (1996). “Coming of Age; Civil Rights and Feminism.” ed. DuPlessis, Rachel, &
Snitow, Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Freeman, Jo. (1996). “On the Origins of the Women’s Liberation Movement from a Strictly
Personal Perspective.” The Feminist Memoir Project. ed. DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow,
Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Hinkle, Steve, and Rupert Brown. (1990). “Intergroup Comparisons and Social Identity: Some
Links and Lacunae.” Social Identity Theory; Constructive and Critical Advances, ed.
Dominic Abrams and Michael A. Hogg. New York: Springeer-Verlag.
Long, Priscilla. (1996). “We Called Ourselves Sisters.” The Feminist Memoir Project. ed.
DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow, Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Moore, Richard. (1992, August 2). “Birthplace of American Feminism.” New York Times, pp.21.
Shulman, Alix, Kates. (1996). “A Marriage Disagreement, or Marriage by Other Means.” The
Feminist Memoir Project. ed. DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow, Ann. New York: Three
Rivers Press.
Tax, Meredith. (1996). “For the People Hear Us Singing Bread and Roses, ‘Bread and Roses!
Bread and Roses!’ ” The Feminist Memoir Project. ed. DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow,
Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Wolfson, Alice, J. (1996). “Clenched Fist, Open Heart.” The Feminist Memoir Project. ed.
DuPlessis, Rachel, & Snitow, Ann. New York: Three Rivers Press.


Word Count: 2014