History

During the early part of the 19th century, the call for equal rights was carried on by only a handful of individuals. The first of these was Frances Wright, a Scottish who came to the United States in 1826. Wright organized the first advocacy group aimed at empowering women in urban communities. In 1836, Ernestine Rose, a Polish, obtained personal audience before the New York legislature. She asked for a resolution securing the political, legal and social equality of women with men. The petition was junked, after only obtaining five signatures. In 1840, Lucretia Mott and Margaret Fuller organized womens advocacy groups in Boston and New York City.

By 1850, the first National Womens Rights Convention was held in Boston. Leading women activists of the era attended the convention. The attendees concluded that securing political, legal, economic, and social rights for women was a top priority of the movement. Matilda Gage, one of the leaders of the movement, argued that the fight for political, economic, and social equality is a distinct feature of the movement. For the first time, she argued, women have consolidated their energies in building a strong institution which caters their needs  both immediate and long-term. In a regional meeting of the convention in 1851, Sojourner Truth challenged the notion that equality was naturally reserved for whites. She boldly declared that every individual has an inherent right to be equal with another individual regardless of worth, color, or creed. This was, according to her, the state of nature which God intended for human societies.

In 1848, Elizabeth Stanton joined the movement and intensified the activities of the movement. Together with Susan Anthony, they wrote lectures and pamphlets distributed in major cities throughout the United States. Anthony gradually assumed the leadership of the movement. With the publication of Stantons The Womans Bible in 1896, the two separated. Anthony could not accept some of Stantons ideas in the book.

By 1860, the movement had made some headway. In some states, divorces were granted in some states, married women were allowed to keep their own wages. In the 1870s, about ten thousand divorces were granted throughout the country. By 1900, regional headquarters were established in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. In 1917, the National Womans Party was established. This primary aim of the organization was to procure a constitutional amendment ensuring the right of every woman to vote. Alice Paul and Lucy Burns founded the organization, formerly called the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage. After four years, the name had been changed to the National Womens Party. In 1918, President Wilson called on the Congress to pass the Nineteenth Amendment, securing for the right of women to vote.

The Historical Problem
The book Iron Jawed Angels is an in-depth analysis of how womens militancy (NWP) evolved during the period of 20th century feminism. The book also details the astringent actions of the male-dominated government directed to the NWP. A thorough reading of the book reveals some striking facts. First, women militancy evolved from a disorganized ideology to a unified system of beliefs (found in the National Womans Party). At first, women activists functioned as political lobbyists aimed at securing social, economic, and political rights for women. After 30 or 40 years, women activists became community builders and advocates of social equality. This was indeed both a shift in ideology and focus. Second, the aims of the militancy movement were realized in a period of social disillusion, war, and reform. The resistance of the male-dominated government only reinforced the existence of inequality. The response of the movement was both active and nonviolent. For the first time in history, a system of nonviolent civil resistance developed. Third, women militants, composed of intensely committed women, repeatedly criticized the political and social system for the existing inequalities, both manifest and covert. The movement acquired a sense of independence and courage in criticizing the perpetual existence of social ills.

The women activists of the era were regarded as iron-jawed women. The term iron-jawed women is the synonym of women militancy, of political activism. Iron jawed women are depicted as individuals hungry for social and political reform. They are women who give rousing speeches in public places, demanding the end of male oppression and the creation of a just society. In a more positive light, they are courageous women who sacrificed their personal interests for the common good. Indeed, for women activists, the good of women is a part of the common good.

Book Organization
The book is divided into several parts 1) a short biography of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, 2) their emergence as leaders of the womens rights movement, 3) the founding of the National Womans Party, and 4) the successful political ventures of the party. The book may also be divided based on themes 1) the origin of the women rights movement (external influences), 2) the need for a unifying ideology (to bring together the various women advocacy groups), 3) social and political responses from a male-dominated structure, 4) methodological response of the party, and 5) the implications of the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.

Historical Themes and Arguments
According to the author, the origin of women rights movement in the United States came from a corresponding movement realized in England. Women activists in England demanded civil and political rights, specifically the right to equal wage with men, representation in parliament, and of course the right to vote. In the 1870s, the women rights movement in England secured an important bill from the House of Commons. This bill guaranteed the right of English women to participate in the electoral process. This inspired women activists in the United States to aggressively pursue the same goals. Indeed, Lucy Burns and Alice Paul asked for advice from leading women activists in England.

The author argues that women militancy is a radical evolutionary process. At first, the aim was to secure civil and political rights for women. Over time, the focus was actual political emancipation of women from all forms of gender oppression. The term gender had not yet fully developed, as far as theoretical speculation is concerned. However, women activists were fond of using the term in political rallies and speeches. This unconscious shift in political focus was the result of deliberate screening of rational and practical choices, and ranking of priorities (based on urgency and political importance).

There was also a general shift in methodology. Lobbying was deemphasized actual political action gained prominence - as political rallies and meetings were able to garner wider social support. Indeed, according to the author, the instrumental benefit of actual political action prompted prominent leaders in the movement to adopt neo-liberal measures to gain wider public support.

The Problem of Methodology
The authors heavy reliance on historical documents and narratives is generally problematic. Historical documents and narratives are inherently biased thus, a total reliance on these sources would affect the internal validity of the arguments. This has a detrimental implication to knowledge-creation. If the premises are contradictory (hence, neither true nor false), then the conclusion is false. Now, if the premises are biased, then the conclusion is biased. The prima facie rule of knowledge construction is if the premises are true (non-contradictory, unitary, repeating), then the conclusion is also true. Now, the conclusion may be termed as knowledge. After knowledge is constructed, it assumes an identity apart from its premises. As Kant argues the angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees are known a priori, but they cannot be known merely from an analysis of the concepts of matter or triangle. We must go outside and beyond the concept . . . joining to it a priori in thought something which I have not thought in it. Knowledge is apart from its elements.

Indeed, a thorough reading of the book will reveal the following facts 1) the author keeps a general reference of her conclusion (references to the premises) 2) some of the authors arguments are, in essence, opinionated 3) the conclusions do not necessarily follow from the premises and 4) the premises are sometimes far removed from the applicability of facts.

In order to fully substantiate claim (3), there is a need to examine one of the authors major conclusions. According to the author, women militancy (situated in the NWP) is a radical evolutionary process because it exhibited unconscious political shifts. However, the author also notes that the shift of instrumental framework was both deliberate and rational. Note that this shift was part of the larger evolutionary process. Note the inherent contradiction between the premises and the conclusion.

There is another problem associated with the use of historical documents and narratives. The author, by choice, can greatly exaggerate or undervalue a historical figure. This is the error of false edification. The worth or importance of a historical figure does not match accepted (reliable) facts. The author greatly exaggerated the political value of the NWP as far as women militancy is concerned. Note that the NWP was not the only women organization in the United States which gained political prominence. Certainly, it was not the only organization which provided the ideological framework for the development of other forms of feminist movements (modernist feminism, radical feminism, and Marxian feminism) in the United States.

Conclusion
The book has inherent errors in methodology. However, its historical content matches the expectations of an early 20th century feminist. Indeed, the book is fairly an accurate account of the NWP as far as women militancy is concerned.