Review

Hoffert's book confirms the adage that good things do indeed come in small packages. This compact volume is a model of clarity and provides an interesting and informative overview of the origins of the woman's rights movement. Because of Hoffert's style it is impossible to lose the thread of her argument. Each chapter begins with a statement of the argument, then there is an elaboration and support of the argument, and finally there is a restatement with broader implications. Her title captures the overall theme of the book. A journalist for the New York Herald used the "hens that crow" metaphor to humiliate and insult women's rights advocates. Unwittingly, Hoffert contends, he helped them, because the metaphor indicated that there were hens who were capable of crowing and who were reaching the public in their advocacy of allowing women to assume a more equal role in public life.	1
The book is made up of five sections which are based on Hoffert's extensive knowledge of the primary and secondary material, namely: The Advocates, The Ideology, The Language, The Strategy and The Responses. Each section contains clearly stated information, which teachers of history could incorporate into their discussions of this movement. What may be especially interesting to students is how so few people could have such a major impact on attitudes towards women. In the section on advocates, the author identifies by name 23 men and women who formed the core of the movement. They were a homogeneous group: white (except Douglass), most married with children, middle-aged, native-born and educated. They decided against a national organization to advance their cause. Instead they used their own networks and connections to bring about reform.	2
Probably the most insightful chapters are the ones on ideology and language. Here Hoffert tells us how the advocates used prevailing models in their own way to enhance their public role. According to Hoffert, in order to expand the woman's role they took natural rights philosophy and added to it the arguments of Scottish Common Sense philosophers. This allowed them to base their demand for rights on their humanity rather than their citizenship. The Scottish philosophers argued that people should act in their self interest, and that this would ultimately benefit society. More importantly for women, the Scottish philosophers argued that self-interest had to be imbued with concern for society. The women blended these ideas in order to move away from the self-sacrificing ideology of republicanism and to justify woman's right to play a greater role that would help, not hurt, society. In arguing their case, the women stayed clear of language placing women in the home, but used language that put them in a public place. They compared their position to slavery. They used metaphors of building and of nature and military metaphors. Their use of military metaphors was particularly novel, since men had used these metaphors to exclude women from this public role. Women, in using this language, joined the public arena and made women central to the discussion. These advocates had talent but little money. In order to get their message across they used "the penny press." Often editors who opposed them helped them by publishing information about their conventions. In their strident attacks, the editors kept the women's rights issues in the public mind.	3
Hoffert's book belongs on every AP and college survey teacher's shelf. It is brief, yet insightful. It allows a teacher to find good quotes and anecdotes to enliven a discussion. Given the length and lucidity a teacher could add this to reading lists for AP and college survey students. Teachers who do projects or topic courses in women's history should by all means read this book.	4
Anne Arundel Community College Elizabeth A. Kessel

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.