The “promiscuous audience” controversy and the emergence of the early woman's rights movement

The Feminized Gospel: Aimee Semple McPherson and the Gendered Performance of Christianity

“…McPherson's religious double bind resembled more general double binds that critics have noted persist for women (Jamieson, 1997): preaching in this feminized style brought McPherson scorn, but she likely would have faced censure for her brazen performance of masculinity if she had attempted the cerebral or muscular styles of preaching that some of her critics preferred. Although feminist communication scholars are interested in women's access to the platform (Campbell, 1989;Zaeske, 1995), we have largely looked to social movement and reform organizing for women's early oratory (Campbell, 1989;Zaeske, 2003) rather than the religious venues that provided women's first opportunities to speak in public. McPherson provides a useful example of a high-profile woman whose rhetorical leadership came as a result of the advantages conferred by the evangelical preaching tradition, as well as a woman who faced public rebuke for capitalizing on the advantages afforded to her.…”

The Persuasive Force of Political Humor

“…That design strategy displays both her intent to persuade men to vote “yes” and concomitant obligation to make a responsible case for the position. Just as it would be incoherent for theater personnel to set up a line divider and disclaim an obligation to act in accord with norms of queuing, so it would be incoherent for Shaw to say, “I intend to persuade you to vote ‘yes,’ but I will not make a responsible case for it.” Although a woman speaking to promiscuous (mixed‐gender) audiences may have been less controversial in 1915 than in the previous century (Zaeske, ), women still risked criticism for trying to influence men. Even a supporter of woman suffrage leveraged the position that women who try to influence men act immodestly: Arguing that women are not already represented by men, the writer asserts, “Some women are too modest and refined to try to ‘influence’ men, so that the majority of women are not represented as they wish to be” (Beerbower, ).…”

A Time for Silence: William Lloyd Garrison and the “Woman Question” at the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Convention

“…Sarah and Angelina Grimké, both members of the Society, became controversial figures in the abolitionist movement by speaking to ''promiscuous'' audiences. ''Grounded in deeply-rooted myths about the irrationality and seductive powers of the female sex,'' as Susan Zaeske [51] has explained, ''the prohibition against addressing the 'promiscuous audience' reinforced early nineteenth-century conceptions of woman's sphere' ' (191-92). By violating traditional gender expectations, the Grimkés' lectures were the beginning of major efforts to break the barriers against women speaking in public.…”

“…It was ''perhaps, quite probable,'' Garrison wrote, ''that we shall be foiled in our purposes;-but the subject cannot be agitated without doing good-and you and the dear friends of 1 In order to present the most reliable account of the debate over the ''woman question'' at the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Convention, all references to the delegates' statements, names, credentials, and countries have been taken from the transcripts published in the Proceedings of the General Anti-Slavery Convention, Called by the Committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society and Held in London from Friday June 12th, to Tuesday, June 23rd, 1840, microfilm edition [34]. Partial transcripts of the convention proceedings are available in the History of Woman Suffrage [44: [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] and in the June 17, 1840, issue of the Anti-Slavery Reporter [2: 132-39] human rights may be assured that we shall not easily allow ourselves to be intimidated or put down'' (616). Garrison worried that the exclusion of women might discredit the entire abolitionist movement.…”