But Really, "What is Love?"

Of any reading we've discussed this semester, Chapter Four of Voices of Revolution is the first to actually get me fired up and out of my seat. Yet it wasn't about a social issue or an ethical, moral dilemma in journalism (well, not quite). The story of Victoria Woodhull and the other journalists who fought for women's rights and the equality of marriage through their writing was perfectly crafted by Streitmatter... because it told the story, framed the writers' arguments, and, as mentioned, got me out of my seat and wanting to take a side. 

Let it be known I agree with the decision by Woodhull, the Heywood couple, and Moses Harman to challenge traditional gender roles. As much as I try and steer clear of this fact, I would not be able to enter my desired career field (sports journalism) if not for individuals like these who fought for women's equality and "exposed the hypocrisy of the Victorian man"--and Victorian lifestyle itself. 

But at the same time, I can't classify Woodhull's approach to journalism as 100% ethical and purely undertaken for journalistic purposes. I am all for "exposing the truth" and being a "pioneer." But if there's anything Woodhull's work was "pioneering," it was tabloid magazine writing. If her article "The Beecher-Tilton Scandal Case" was intended to let it be known that Elizabeth Tilton was not the first parishioner to sleep with Rev. Beecher (nor the first woman to cheat on her husband), then why did she have to specifically name Tilton... who's husband Woodhull herself had once slept with? If you ask me, Woodhull's success (and her writing) fed off gossip and the inter-personal relationships of families and couples, relationships that Woodhull hypocritically encourages should do whatever they want free of public scrutiny. If she is allowed to sleep with whomever she wishes--and have no one denounce her--why should Woodhull be allowed to do that to another woman? As a crusader for women, Woodhull is most certainly breaking "girl code" through her journalistic ethics. 

Don't get me wrong: Victoria Woodhull was a shrewd businesswoman, a networker, and an innovator. Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly gave people a voice when they might otherwise not be able to speak out--let alone write about it. Her fight to make the most of political opportunities to let her message be known was a fight way ahead of its time. But, as a journalist, I simply can't place the "independent journalist" Victoria Woodhull in the same category as an Upton Sinclair or George Seldes because her work wasn't really that of investigative "journalism." Was Woodhull publishing the stories others feared publishing? Yes. But it was all the information, the stories, the gossip that everyone knew, but only she was brave enough (and had the money) to publish it. 

It was Victoria Woodhull's decision to be a "very promiscuous free lover." But it was not her decision whether or not to expose other women's promiscuity when she herself encouraged that women should be able to do as they please--and if these women wanted to keep their private lives quiet, then they should have been entitled to do so. Not everyone was Woodhull, secure enough in herself to love and do as she pleased. 

(Worth mentioning, too, is that, after getting away to London with the various bequests and pay-off's of her ex-husbands, Woodhull "became the picture of domestic bliss, dedicating her life to her two grown children." Talk about hypocrisy.)