History

One of the most celebrated books in the history of American feminism is the work of Linda Ford entitled Iron Jawed Angels. This book basically looks into the history of the womens suffrage movement back in the time when voting was an exclusive matter for men. This paper aims to summarize two book reviews written on Linda Fords book. In this case, the book reviews made by Melanie Gustafson (Gustafson 1992) and Ellen Fitzpatrick (Fitzpatrick 1992) will be used.

According to Fitzpatrick, the book of Linda Ford was one historical work on the women suffrage movement that actually focuses on the women who aggressively advanced a federal constitutional amendment (Fitzpatrick 1992, 1609). She also added that this work was actually familiar to historians who were versed in the womens suffrage movement (Ibid). Meanwhile, a review by Gustafson stated that the work by Linda Ford does more than simply provide moving descriptions of the womens movement and that Ford carefully analyzes the impact of militancy on the suffrage victory (Gustafson 1992, 311).

Fitzpatrick stated that Linda Ford actually focuses on well known facts and personalities, making a compelling tale out of it (Fitzpatrick 1992, 1609). According to her, She is interested in the militancy of the National Womens Party, and especially in the 168 party members who served time in prison (Ibid). In addition, Gustafson argues that Ford focused on the political movement that fought for womens suffrage. Gustafson stated that Linda Ford traces the political strategies of this wing (the National Womens PartyNWP) (Gustafson 1992, 311).

The work of Linda Ford has truly made an impact into looking at the political movement that fought for the suffrage of women, which is now enjoyed up to the present. Gustafson argues that the work of Ford highlights the effectiveness of militancy in achieving victory for the suffrage movement. In this case, Gustafson noted the three phases of the political movement of the NWP a. the use of traditional tactics such as parades, b. targeting the party who is in power along with mobilizing women to vote anyone but the Democrats, and c. the formation of a political party (the NWP) (Ibid). When these did not work, finally, Gustafson noted that the NWP resorted to non-violent but militant protest actions which protested their lack of political power, with Ford stating that the pre-militant phase served to increase the womens visibility (Ibid). Meanwhile, Fitzpatrick argues that this work by Ford shows the militancy and the political dissent of the women suffrage movement. Fitzpatrick shows that this volume operates of three levels analytically, which include a. a narrative history of the more radical wing of the suffrage movement, b. the different social and political backgrounds and the reform activities of jailed suffragists, and c. the extraordinary militancy of the Womens Party especially in the period of the First World War (Ibid).  Fitzpatrick also said Ford persuasively showed the appeal of militant suffragism to women of wildly different political allegiances (Ibid).

I think that the review of Gustafson has a little bias in favor of the author, for I did not see any critical comments on her book, although all of her comments are still based upon facts on the book, and that she can be generally judged as objective. In this case, I think that Fitzpatrick is more objective, for she noted some questions that were not addressed by Ford, which is essential in evaluating the radical wing of the suffragist movement. I strongly believe that the review made by Fitzpatrick on this book was objective.

Fitzpatrick concluded that the work of Ford was an outstanding piece of historical work that brought light to the activities of the radical wing of the suffragist movement. According to her, this book builds on the excellent work of the many historians who have advanced understanding of the Womens Party (Ibid). Meanwhile, Gustafson argued that the work of Ford was essential in understanding the importance of militancy for the granting of suffrage rights to women. (Gustafson 1992, 311).