Ella Baker and her role in the Civil Rights Movement

Ella Baker (1903-1986)

Ella Baker played a significant role in the development of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and the 1960s.[1] Baker had devoted her entire adult life to building organisations that believed in social change by encouraging and empowering individual growth. In 1927, Baker graduated from Shaw University in North Carolina, and later she went on to joining the National Association for the Advancement for Coloured People (NAACP) as a field secretary in 1938. This saw to Baker travelling across the South, trying to persuade people that they could make “extraordinary changes”[2] in their lives. Although Baker was apart of the largest and oldest civil rights organisations in America who believed in ending racial segregation and discrimination, she later left her full time position within the organisation in 1946 as she became “disaffected”[3] by the hierarchical model of the organisation. The structure of the organisation meant that the decision process was largely being held in the national office, whereas Baker believed it should be distributed equally amongst the brand organisations. According to Aprele Elliot, Baker also “rejected”[4] the hierarchical system that was in place because she felt that it forced women into the position of the servants. Not only is Baker crucial in developing the Civil Rights Movement throughout the sixties, but she is also crucial in the development of women’s rights with regards to the movement.

In 1957 Baker joined the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) as an associate director, where she worked alongside the infamous Martin Luther King Jr. Baker began to encourage the younger generation to continue the fight for civil rights within American by creating their own organisation, as she “opposed”[5] the notion that the younger generation should become an arm of the NAACP or the SCLC. Because of this, Baker became known as the women who encouraged the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

The SNCC consisted of college students who believed in taking a nonviolent approach towards dismantling racial segregation and discrimination in the United States by partaking in Sit-in movements. The aim of the sit-ins were to highlight how immoral segregation was by walking into a ‘white only’ establishment, and taking a sit next to a white individual and show peacefully that they were both the same, and therefore, should be treated the same. Baker used her extensive contacts that she had accumulated throughout the years of working with older Civil Rights Movement activists to help spread awareness for the youths movement. Because of Bakers actions, not only did she ensure the survival of the Civil Rights Movements future by making sure the younger generation have the freedom to create their own movement, but she also gave the SNCC a platform, which helped the newly founded organisation gain a respectable reputation, not only from the older civil rights organisations, but also the Kennedy Administration.[6] Baker played a crucial role in the development of the Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s and the 1960s with regards to the older organisations, but she also played a crucial role in the formation of future organisations which were founded by the younger generation, ensuring that they also had the freedom to do so.

By Emma Ritchie

---

[1] Ella Baker “Bigger Than a Hamburger,” The Southern Patriot, vol.18 (June 1960) in Manning Marable and Leith Mullings, ed., Let Nobody Turn Us Around: Voices on Resistance, Reform and Renewal, 2nd Ed. (Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, 2009) pp. 375

[2] Elliott, Aprele. “Ella Baker: Free Agent in the Civil Rights Movement.” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 26, no. 5, Sage Publications, Inc., 1996, pp.595

[3] Ella Baker “Bigger Than a Hamburger,” The Southern Patriot, vol.18 (June 1960) in Manning Marable and Leith Mullings, ed., Let Nobody Turn Us Around: Voices on Resistance, Reform and Renewal, 2nd Ed. (Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, 2009) pp. 375

[4] Ibid, pp.594

[5] Ibid, pp. 375

[6] Raiford, Leigh. “‘Come Let Us Build a New World Together’: SNCC and Photography of the Civil Rights Movement.” American Quarterly, vol. 59, no. 4, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007, pp.1130

The Feminine Mystique

Betty Friedan’s publication of The Feminine Mystique was an instant best seller amongst the women when it was first released in 1963.[1] It was the first time that women’s struggles were not only acknowledged, but also given its own platform for people to discuss. As ominous as the name of the problem is, “the problem that has no name”, Friedan was able to capture the pure essence of the dissatisfaction that white suburban housewives were feeling during that time.

In The Feminine Mystique, Friedan explains that she believes the editors and the writers of Magazines for both men and women, although mostly the women magazines, were the “Frankenstein’s”[2] who had created this feminine monster. Friedan argues that because of these magazines, women were trapped by a web of assumptions, which essentially “narrowed”[3] and cut women’s worlds down to being the perfect housewife/mother or staying at home.

Demure Douching AD for Women. 1969

An example of Friedan’s analysis on the feminine monster can quite clearly be seen during a 1969 Advert for Demure and their douching product for women. Not only is the opening sentence of this advert incredibly misogynistic, but so is the big bold placement of the word ‘husband’, as if to suggest that the gynaecological needs of a women revolves around their desire to please their husbands. Another example can be seen in a magazine series called How To Make Money In Your Spare Time  by the Ladies’ Home Journey in 1969. The advert pushed the notion that women could find self-fulfilment in their own time at home by becoming a party planner. The example given involved one woman who invented games for the children to keep them distracted while the other two women ran an arts and crafts store.[4] These two examples of adverts that ran during the late sixties show perfectly how the ‘Frankenstein’s’ were promoting the traditional responsibilities of housewives by encouraging their readers to define women’s roles in the context of either their family, as the primary caregiver who cannot have the luxury that men do, which is a father who works, or the notion that women need to become the perfect “feminine”[5] housewife.

In an interview with Jennifer C. Harris, Friedan explained that she at one point had the constant feeling that “something was missing”[6] and that she thought “something was wrong with her.”[7] It was not until Friedan realised that nothing was wrong with her, but instead the mass circulation of these magazines that promote toxic traditional roles of women that contribute towards women’s dissatisfaction with their limited gender roles. By Friedan publicly giving ‘the problem with no name’ a platform, she was allowing other women to feel less alienated by validating their shared feelings, which was something that the Magazines such as the Ladies’ Home Journey were not doing. This is one of the many reasons why hundreds of women have testified that The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan had changed their lives. [8]

By Emma Ritchie

---

[1] Meyerowitz, Joanne. “Beyond the Feminine Mystique: A Reassessment of Postwar Mass Culture, 1946- 1958.” The Journal of American History, vol. 79, no. 4, [Oxford University Press, Organization of American Historians], 1993, pp. 1455

[2] Ibid, pp.1455

[3] Ibid, pp.1445

[4] Keller, Kathryn. “Nurture and Work in the Middle Class: Imagery from Women’s Magazines.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, vol. 5, no. 4, Springer, 1992, pp.583

[5] Thompson, Caroline. “How to Be a Woman, According to 1960s Women's Magazines.” Vice, 2018

[6] Friedan, Betty, and Jennifer Chapin Harris. “Interview: After the Mystique Is Gone: A Phone Interview with Betty Friedan, March 19, 1997.” Off Our Backs, vol. 27, no. 9, off our backs, inc., 1997, pp.10

[7] Ibid, pp.10

[8] Meyerowitz, Joanne. “Beyond the Feminine Mystique: A Reassessment of Postwar Mass Culture, 1946- 1958.” The Journal of American History, vol. 79, no. 4, [Oxford University Press, Organization of American Historians], 1993, pp.1455

Mods, Rockers and The Media

The Mods and Their Scooters

Modernists (Mods)

Mods first appeared in the East End of London around 1958. They were visibly detectable because they had adopted a “pose of scooter-driving sophistication”[1] which saw their style heavily infused by Italian and French fashion trends that were slightly more colourful, which was considered “outrageous”[2] at the time. Their scooters of choice were Vespas and Lambrettas. Mods were known to have listened to Modern Jazz at the start, but later they begun to shift towards Rock music with bands such as The Who and Yard Birds.

 

The Rockers and Their Bikes

Rockers

Rockers were part of a biker subculture which originated in the United Kingdom during the 1950s. Rockers were known to have adopted a more “macho biker gang”[3] image which consisted of black leather jackets, silver studs, big heavy boots and they would ride motor bikes. Rockers were known to have gotten their name from their love of Rock ‘n’ Roll music which involved music from Elvis Presley and Eddie Cochran. 

Mods and Rockers were two conflicting British youth subcultures that were both coexisting in the early to mid-sixties. Because Mods and Rockers were so different, the two groups would often clash with one another which would end up being broadcasted by the media. Between 1964 and 1966, a series of disturbances begun to take place at Southeast seaside towns all across England. Places such as Brighton, Bournemouth, Clacton and Margate became the breeding ground for the clashes. Many different newspapers all throughout the country had been “over reporting”[4] the Mods and Rockers clashes, creating mass hysteria and moral panic. Newspapers and other forms of media were painting the Mods and Rockers as  “aggressively deviant”[5] youths who were incredibly “anti-social”[6] which was essentially simplifying the phenomenon as a violent youth movement.

            The media played a major role in creating mass hysteria and moral panic surrounding the two British youth movements of the sixties, but the reality of the clashes that took place between 1964 and 1966, was no where near as aggressive or violent as the media had made it out to be. According to Chris Tull, the leader of the Thanet District Council,  the ‘clashes’ were “no different”[7] to something you would see in a town on a Saturday night. Although, by today’s standard it wasn’t violent, Tull went on to say that “nobody had seen anything like it before.”[8] Newspapers were profiting on the clashes between the Mods and Rockers by painting them to be “sociopathic, scooter riding tidal waves”[9] of mass destruction simply because they as an older generation did not understand what it was the Mods and Rockers were clashing for. Michael Levi argues that the pushed perception on the Mods and Rockers created by the media of the mainstream society, was because the older generation believed that they “did not deserve the liberty that they were asserting.”[10] This is further backed up by S.N Eisenstadt as he argues that:

“their feelings have often been shared by many members of the parent generation and reinforced by its guilty feeling about the incomplete realization of the goals of their own youth and of the movements in which they participated in – because of this very process of institutionalization.”[11]

The new concept of “conformity of nonconformity”[12] challenged the pre-existing social norm that was so engraved in the older generation, and because they already accepted it, they expected the younger generation to also accept. The older generation mistook the clashes as acts of unjustified violence, instead of seeing that the newer generation were simply trying to make a safe place within society for themselves, as they believed the older generation and the media, did not accommodate nor understand why they were trying to liberate themselves. 

By Emma Ritchie

---

[1] Richmond, Deborah. “Schmods + Mockers.” Log, no. 7, Anyone Corporation, 2006, pp. 43

[2] Ibid, pp.43

[3] Richmond, Deborah. “Schmods + Mockers.” Log, no. 7, Anyone Corporation, 2006, pp. 43

[4] Cohen, S., ‘Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers’, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980, pp.26

[5] Hunt, Arnold. “‘Moral Panic’ and Moral Language in the Media.” The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 48, no. 4, [Wiley, London School of Economics and Political Science, London School of Economics], 1997, pp.631

[6] Ibid, pp.631

[7] Ainsworth, C., ‘Margate capitalises on 1964 Mods and Rockers’ Riots’, BBC-News, 01 October 2011

[8] Ibid.

[9] Darlington, Joseph. “‘A Clockwork Orange’: The Art of Moral Panic?” The Cambridge Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 2, Oxford University Press, 2016, pp.126

[10] Levi, Michael. “SUITE REVENGE? The Shaping of Folk Devils and Moral Panics about White-Collar Crimes.” The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 49, no. 1, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp.49

[11] Eisenstadt, S. N. “Generational Conflict and Intellectual Antinomianism.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 395, [Sage Publications, Inc., American Academy of Political and Social Science], 1971, pp.75

[12] Richmond, Deborah. “Schmods + Mockers.” Log, no. 7, Anyone Corporation, 2006, pp.44

I Can't Get No Satisfaction: Female Sexuality in the Sixties

 

A quick glance at the discography of the revered English rock band The Rolling Stones shows that they were never the ones to toe the line when it came to their extremely topical and anti-conservative lyrics. From Paint it Black and its bleak description of grief-bound sorrow to the apocalyptic nature of Gimme Shelter. It is especially prevalent in Sympathy For The Devil, in which lead singer Mick Jagger proclaims himself as the devil – the architect of many of humanity’s bloodiest and most tragic events.

It’s of no surprise then, that their hit song (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction caused quite a bit of upset with listeners. Released in 1965, the main narrative of the song is of a man who is tiring of the monotonous commercial life that he is living: ‘and the man comes on the radio and he’s telling me more and more about some useless information supposed to fire my imagination’.[1] If you could see his eyes in the recording booth, you can imagine a rock star like Jagger rolling them at the prospect of such a menial life. More prominently though, the third verse of the song starts to become more sexually oriented, and one line went almost entirely over critics’ heads: ‘Baby, better come back later this week, ‘cause you see I’m on a losing streak’[2] This line, spoken from the perspective of a woman, was revealed by Jagger to be a euphemism for menstruation.[3] Jagger’s explanation of the line emphatically summarised the changing views on such taboo topics like female sexual desires and menstruation: ‘It’s just life. It’s what happens to girls’.[4] Even today, I have to imagine songs referencing menstruation, even subtly, would be questionably received by radio stations.

The titular song is perfect to describe the emerging female sexual discourse that was beginning to emerge in the Sixties. However, the study of sex as an experience of pleasure and not simply reproduction started years before this. In 1948, Alfred Kinsey published his first report Sexual Behavior in Human Males, and a female study followed five years later. Kinsey was a biologist whose specialty resided in the study of gall wasps, not sexuality.[5] He met much opposition in his attempt to forward these studies, notably from academics who equated sex education with moral education, and condemned masturbation and premarital sex.[6] Kinsey’s research was extensive; there were 18,000 interviews, 8,000 of which he conducted himself.[7] With regards to the study of female sexuality, Kinsey pioneered the debunking of female asexuality, one of the most controversial aspects of his research. His research revealed that over 75 per cent of women had experienced orgasm after one year of marriage, 25 per cent had orgasmed before the age of fifteen, and 64 per cent before marriage entirely.[8] 

Alfred Kinsey

Kinsey’s efforts to demystify female sexuality in the 40s and 50s paved the way for the second-wave feminist movements of the Sixties, who could use his evidence to create their own self-agency and encouraged further studies of sexuality, without the backlash Kinsey face in his own day. To this end, it wasn’t just men who were wanting satisfaction, but women too.

-- Liam McKerral

---

[1] The Rolling Stones, ‘(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction’, Track 7 on Out of Our Heads, Andrew Loog Oldham, 1965, Digital

[2] Ibid.

[3] TIME, ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll: Going to Pot’, 01 July 1966, http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,835889-2,00.html (Last Accessed 18 March 2021)

[4] Ibid.

[5] Vern L. Bullough, ‘Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey report: Historical overview and lasting contributions’ The Journal of Sex Research¸ Vol. 35, No. 2 (1998) pp. 127-131 (p. 128)

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., p. 129

[8] Ibid., p. 130

A Review of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Frieden

Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Norton, 2001).

This book is seen as one of the pioneering works of Feminism and is seen as the Academic work that encouraged the Second Wave of Feminism. In 1963 when the book was first published many were pleased with the book. Jessie Bernard says that it ‘gave a much-needed shock to those who have unwittingly perhaps encouraged women to surrender their claims to identity as Human Beings’[1]. Sylvia Fleiss Fava also adds to this by explaining the book allowed Betty ‘to put her finger on the key problem of American women today: recognition as individuals’[2]. Both points help to stress how Betty’s book was a key part of recognising the problem in American society regarding women and also helping in allowing Women to gain a voice in society.

However, over the years The Feminine Mystique has been criticised regularly. For example, Susan Levine states ‘her book articulated underlying discontents among American Women – in particular, white middle class women’[3]. Katherine Turk supports this by saying ‘emphatic and nuanced descriptions of the frustration that gripped many white middle-class women in the early 1960’s’[4]. Both points have support in an article made on the Atlantic Website by Ashley Fetters who declares that Betty Frieden’s book was racist and classist[5]. This is a good example of the criticism given to the book. Another condemnation of the book is one of the passages that referred to Americans home as ‘comfortable concentration camps’[6]. This was ‘one of the most shocking passages’[7]. Betty would later retract this statement in public, but it showed again that this book was not as fantastic or as great as it seems. But maybe she had a point. David Horowitz adds a third issue when he explains ‘Friedens portrayal as so totally trapped by the feminine mystique it was part of a reinvention of herself’[8]. This suggests she was trying to escape her own life and that she herself felt trapped by her own domestic environment. Finally, Nancy Whitter adds another problem of the book by affirming ‘a book cannot single-handle spark a social movement. But it can contribute to change’[9]. Therefore, the book did not kick start the second wave of feminism it only contributed to invoke change and new thought.

What the previous four examples of criticism underline is that the book is not perfect, and it has several major issues with it. The use of comparing the home to The Holocaust in the Second World War and the fact it has slight racist tendencies makes the book quite controversial and confrontational. Nevertheless, it was revolutionary for women as it allowed them to see a new future instead of the same old way. As Cynthia Fuchs Epstein says ‘it argued against cultural mandates that it was best for women and society for them to leave the workplace at marriage become housewives and mothers of multiple children and support their husband’s careers’[10].  It was a book that ‘acted as a catalyst for the Western Feminist Movement’[11]. That, though all its controversies, is what it should be remembered for. It helped to create that second wave of Feminism so women could have more individual rights and a freedom of choices.

---

[1]Jessie Bernard, Marriage and Family Living, Vol.25, No.3 (1963), pp.381-82 (p.381).

[2] Sylvia Fleis Fava, American Sociological Review, Vol.28, No.6 (1963), pp.1053-054 (p.1054).

[3] Susan Levine, ‘The Feminine Mystique at Fifty’, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, Vol.36, No. 2 (2015), pp.41-46 (p.41).

[4]Katherine Turk, ‘“To Fulfil an Ambition of [Her] Own”: Work, Class, and Identity in The Feminine Mystique’ Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, Vol.36, No.2 (2015), pp.25-32 (p.25).

[5]Ashley Fetters, ‘ Four Big Problems with the Feminine Mystique’, https://www.theatlantic.com/world/, (2013), https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/4-big-problems-with-the-feminine-mystique/273069/. (Last Accessed 19/03/2021).

[6]Kirsten Fermaglich, ‘"The Comfortable Concentration Camp": The Significance of Nazi Imagery in Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique"’, American Jewish History, Vol.91, No.2 (2003), pp.205-32 (p.206).

[7] Ibid.

[8]Daniel Horowitz, ‘Rethinking Betty Friedan and the Feminine Mystique: Labour Union Radicalism and Feminism in Cold War America’, American Quarterly, Vol.48, No.1 (1996), pp. 1-42 (p.2).

[9]Nancy Whittier, ‘Everyday Readers and Social Movements: Considering the Impact of The Feminine Mystique’, Gender and Society, Vol.27, No. 1 (2013), pp.112-15. (p.113).

[10]Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, ‘Revisiting "The Feminine Mystique’, Sociological Forum, Vol.29, No.3 (2014), pp.763-68 (p.764).

[11]Rachel Bowlby, ‘“The Problem with No Name”: Rereading Friedan's “The Feminine Mystique”’, Feminist Review, No.27 (1987), pp. 61-75, (p.61).