Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
The history of women's rights in America isn't a single movement—it's a series of overlapping campaigns, strategic debates, and organizational evolutions that reflect broader questions about how social change happens. When you study these organizations, you're being tested on your understanding of reform strategies (gradualism vs. militancy, state vs. federal approaches), coalition politics (who gets included and who gets left out), and intersectionality (how race, class, and gender interact in activist movements).
These organizations also demonstrate key concepts like tactical adaptation, movement fragmentation and reunification, and the relationship between single-issue and multi-issue advocacy. Don't just memorize founding dates and leaders—know what strategic approach each organization represented and how they responded to the political context of their era. Understanding why organizations split, merged, or shifted tactics is exactly what FRQ prompts will ask you to analyze.
The first major debate in organized women's rights centered on how to achieve the vote—through a constitutional amendment or state-by-state campaigns. This strategic disagreement led to parallel organizations with different theories of change.
Compare: NWSA vs. AWSA—both sought suffrage but disagreed fundamentally on how change happens. NWSA's federal focus reflected belief in top-down constitutional reform; AWSA's state approach reflected grassroots, incremental change theory. If an FRQ asks about strategic debates within reform movements, this split is your clearest example.
By the 1910s, frustration with slow progress led some activists to adopt confrontational tactics borrowed from British suffragettes. This represents a key pattern: movements often radicalize when moderate approaches stall.
Compare: NAWSA vs. NWP—both worked toward the 19th Amendment but represented the classic moderate-radical dynamic in social movements. NAWSA's respectability politics and NWP's confrontational tactics created a "good cop/bad cop" pressure that historians argue accelerated success. This is a strong example for FRQs on movement strategy.
Some organizations embedded women's rights within larger reform agendas, using coalition politics to build broader support while sometimes subordinating gender-specific goals.
Compare: WCTU vs. LWV—both mobilized women beyond suffrage, but WCTU embedded women's rights within moral reform while LWV focused on civic participation. The WCTU's approach shows how framing affects coalition-building; the LWV shows how movements sustain themselves after achieving primary goals.
The 1960s-70s saw a resurgence of organized feminism addressing issues beyond suffrage—workplace discrimination, reproductive rights, and cultural gender roles. This era split between liberal feminism (legal reform) and radical feminism (cultural transformation).
Compare: NOW vs. Women's Liberation Movement—both were "second-wave" but represented fundamentally different theories of change. NOW sought inclusion in existing power structures through legal reform; Liberation groups sought transformation of those structures. FRQs often ask about tensions between reform and revolution within movements.
A crucial development in women's rights organizing was the critique that mainstream feminism centered white, middle-class women's experiences while marginalizing women of color.
Compare: NOW vs. NBFO—both addressed gender discrimination, but NBFO challenged the assumption that "women's issues" were universal. This tension illustrates how intersectionality complicates single-axis movements and why coalition-building requires addressing internal hierarchies. Essential concept for analyzing any social movement.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Federal vs. State Strategy | NWSA (federal), AWSA (state), NAWSA (dual approach) |
| Moderate vs. Militant Tactics | NAWSA (moderate), NWP (militant) |
| Coalition/Multi-Issue Organizing | WCTU, LWV, NOW |
| Movement Institutionalization | LWV (post-suffrage), Planned Parenthood (service + advocacy) |
| Liberal vs. Radical Feminism | NOW (liberal), Women's Liberation (radical) |
| Intersectional Critique | NBFO, Combahee River Collective tradition |
| Single-Issue Focus | NWP (suffrage, then ERA) |
| Consciousness-Raising Model | Women's Liberation Movement |
Strategic comparison: What was the fundamental disagreement between NWSA and AWSA, and how did NAWSA's formation represent a resolution of this debate?
Tactical analysis: How did the NWP's militant tactics complement or complicate NAWSA's moderate approach in the final push for the 19th Amendment?
Movement evolution: Why did the WCTU frame suffrage as a moral reform issue rather than an equal rights issue, and what does this reveal about strategic framing in social movements?
Compare and contrast: How did NOW's liberal feminist approach differ from the Women's Liberation Movement's radical feminism in terms of goals, tactics, and theory of change?
Intersectionality application: Why did Black feminists argue that organizations like NOW failed to address their concerns, and how does the NBFO's founding illustrate the concept of intersectionality in movement politics?