Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=199.111.64.195McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:37:31ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_9_Questions/Comments328--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-16T21:10:47Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>It annoys me how it took an economic depression to make people realize how important birth control was. It would happen that way, people say how immoral it is until babies become an economic burden that they can't afford. I am glad, however, that they DID realize it was important though because the more children, the harsher the despression would've been. It is sad to see that the poorer people always were the ones having the most children, that is unfortunantly the way it usually is.- Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
In "I Want You Women Up North to Know" by Tillie Olson I found this line hilarious " ...she says that he prays and dreams of a another world...a heaven (which he does not know was brought to earth in 1917 in Russia, by workers like him)"...hind-sight is 20/20 right?- Emely Amaya</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_9_Questions/Comments328--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-16T21:09:56Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>It annoys me how it took an economic depression to make people realize how important birth control was. It would happen that way, people say how immoral it is until babies become an economic burden that they can't afford. I am glad, however, that they DID realize it was important though because the more children, the harsher the despression would've been. It is sad to see that the poorer people always were the ones having the most children, that is unfortunantly the way it usually is.- Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
In "I Want You Women Up North to Know" by Tillie Olson I found this line hilarious " ...she says that he prays and dreams of a another world...a heaven (which he does not know was brought to earth in 1917 in Russia, by workers like him"...hind-sight is 20/20 right?- Emely Amaya</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_9_Questions/Comments328--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-16T21:08:07Z<p>199.111.64.195: New page: It annoys me how it took an economic depression to make people realize how important birth control was. It would happen that way, people say how immoral it is until babies become an econom...</p>
<hr />
<div>It annoys me how it took an economic depression to make people realize how important birth control was. It would happen that way, people say how immoral it is until babies become an economic burden that they can't afford. I am glad, however, that they DID realize it was important though because the more children, the harsher the despression would've been. It is sad to see that the poorer people always were the ones having the most children, that is unfortunantly the way it usually is.- Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
In "I Want You Women Up North to Know" by Tillie Olson I found this line hilarious " ...she says that he prays and dreams of a another world...a heaven (which he does not know was brought to earth in 1917 in Russia, by workers like him"...hind-sight is 20/20 right?</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_8_Questions/Comments328--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-13T07:17:39Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>THE ONLINE READING IS LOCATED HERE: [http://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/docs/MP-Reading.pdf Week 8 Reading]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Kennedy's "'But We Would Never Talk about it': The Structures of Lesbian Discretion in South Dakota, 1928-1933" ==<br />
<br />
In this week's reading of "'But We Would Never Talk about it': The Structures of Lesbian Discretion in South Dakota, 1928-1933" by Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy, the idea that struck me the deepest was the thought that the now extinct sensibility that existed during the first half of the twentieth century actually helped a minority people. Having unofficial social mores and a respect for others' privacy allowed for lesbians who were white to live productive lives as long as they lived according to same social standards that ruled the lives of heterosexual women. This custom appears to have created a type of equality that may or may not exist today. Given the fact that the majority of the things that many homosexual couples are fighting for today did not yet exist for heterosexual couples, it would seem as if during this point in time, lesbianism was treated as an extreme eccentricity that should be controlled out of respect for one's neighbors. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I did not find it as surprising that is was so possible for Julia Boyer Reinstein's family to accept her lesbianism. While I am sure that her mother and father would have preferred to have a son-in-law, that the father enjoyed not having to entertain potential male suitors and having someone who would cover up his extramaterial affairs should not be overlooked. In a certain sense, I think what made her lesbianism easier to accept than if Julia Boyer Reinstein had been a homosexual male was that the society in which she lived was patriarchal and thus the desires of the father won out over the desires of the mother, and her father really did not care whether she enjoyed a heterosexual marriage or not. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
So then does the tying of sexuality with politics and identity mischaracterize people and their politics, concerns, and histories? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "But we would never talk about it" I didn't feel surprised about any of it. Being a lesbian back then was not defined as it was today. It was common for women to confide in each other and sleep in the same bed and have an intimate relationship. However, a lot of people did not know what was really going on behind closed doors, which I feel is a reason why no one every talked about it. The only thing that did surprise me was that her parents were ok with it all. There is a passage that talks about how her mother would make a comment about how she wasn't with this one boy, but in the end her being a lesbian didn't bother her, she was actually very polite to Dorothy. In Julia's father's case, it didn't surprise me so much after there were comments made that he could have all of her attention. He didn't need to entertain possible son - in- laws, however I also feel like he used Julia because she was gay. By giving Julia his consent and accepting her it keep their relationship close, however he might of done this because it covered up all of his affairs. My question was did Julia ever see her father and her relationship this way, or was she just happy that her father accepted her? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
The second part that I thought was the most interesting was her encounter with Amelia Earhart. It shows how cautious girls were towards other girls. I feel that these women were so unsure about themselves that they really had to question others more. Especially since this was one of her earlier encounters, it shows that in the beginning Julia was very timid about her sexuality. Since she was shy about her self, she wasn't going to go out and put the moves on every girl, especially not Earhart. But as she gets older her "sense" gets stronger, through all the trips she took with her father. She could tell which woman was the "odd" one of the bunch, I also feel that over the years other women started to feel a little more comfortable with being gay and showing it a little more. Which made it easier for women like Julia to point out the "odd" girl. My only question was were there women like today who went through these phases of lesbians and then just turned straight and marry? Or was it because society was starting to see lesbians for what they were and women felt pressured to become straight live the way society wants them to? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Kennedy uses the case of Julia to discuss the discretion of lesbianism in the early 1900’s. There were, however, many other aspects to Julia’s identity than just her sexuality. This is pointed on page 415, when Kennedy states “she came into her womanhood as a lesbian, as a college student, as the daughter of a father who was prominent citizen and business owner, and as the daughter of a mother who was strongly independent yet part of an established small-town protestant family.” Given this, the discretion of Julia’s sexuality may have been because it would have been a trait that overshadowed the others; it may have become her only identifying factor in the public eye as opposed to just one of many. Could there have been any other traits during this time that people felt the need to cover-up, other than sexuality? And how true is this still today? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Lesbianism wasn’t something that could be discriminated against publicly; this is in contrast to other aspects of one’s identity such as gender or race, which could once have been discriminated against legally. Yet Julia still feared that if she was obvious about how she felt then she would not be able to receive all the benefits and privileges of her class. Which would be harder to deal with, discrimination by law or discrimination by society? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I would be afraid that anything that was considered not "normal" would be discriminated against. Just because it wasn't something typically a reason to discriminate against someone doesn't mean that people wont. Most people don't like what they don't understand. --Kellye Sorber <br />
<br />
All I have to say is, wow. I know there are still a lot of problems with accepting lesbianism today, but to read that a father accepted it and used it to his advantage was incredibly. I feel that even lesbianism today is kept quite because most people seem not to always accept it, however not as much as the 1920s and 1930s. There are gay rights movements and things like ‘gay day’ at theme or amusement parks, which to me shouts “we accept all people of sexual preferences.” That could also just be a money marketing scam… However, I really did enjoy this piece by Elizabeth Kennedy because going through the public school system I had friends that I knew were lesbians, but we never talked about it, not even when they would have a break up with their girlfriend. If there was a break-up we would take the friend for ice-cream or something, but nothing was ever said about the situation. –Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading "But We Would Never Talk About It." However, I was not at all surprised about the fact that these women did not talk about their sexual preferences and experiences with other women or their parents, mostly because I still have the impression that while during this time period it was becoming more acceptable for sex to be discusses it still wasn't really done. And since sex in general wasn't talked about, why would a varying preference be talked about? Also while I found it amazing that her mother and father supported her and were ok with her sexual choice, I was also disgusted by the fact the father would use that to his advantage so he could continue his extramarital affairs! I do have to wonder, was she really ok with covering for her dad in these instances, or did she have any resentment towards him for using her in this way and if her nonchalant attitude towards it was because it was simply how she dealt with those feelings?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In Unequal Sisters, I found the quote "You don't know if someone is a lesbian unless you've slept with her" to be interesting. I'm not surprised that women who were lesbians didn't discuss their sexuality openly but why was it started that way? Besides religious aspects, where did the term lesbian or gay gain its perceived connotation? I feel like it was only more recently that males and females who were gay felt safe in taking pride of their sexuality. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought it was creepy reading Julia's story and how her father thought of her daughter as the "apple of his eye". It was weird to me that he subconsciously made a deal with her not to exploit her lesbian affairs as long as she kept quiet about his extramarital activities. Was this just one account or a more "normal" occurrence at the time? -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought all the reading for this week were very interesting. I really like the "But We Never Talk about It" article by Elizabeth Kennedy. I thought the story about Julia meeting Amelia Earhart was fascinating. It is the first story we have about a famous woman who was a lesbian and managed to not let that knowledge affect her life or hinder her attempts at greatness. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I found the question that the author, Elizabeth Kennedy, posed at the beginning of the article was an interesting one: "Is discretion always oppressive?" (410) I was just beginning to read the article when I somehow got onto the topic of what I was reading with a friend of mine. I had said something about the fact that I found it interesting but not surprising that Julia Boyer Reinstein would "never talk about it" and enjoyed having her private life private. Said friend commented that I should think about "imposed silence" and the societal values that imposed it. That talk made me think that too many people view lesbianism through the lens of the liberation movement. The author herself admits to it (see footnote #6 in the article). The reason this article was so interesting is that it takes into account the time period... and doesn't judge Boyer Reinstein from a modern standpoint. The reason that she and so many others were able to live fulfilling and discrete lives as lesbians was because as was noted by Elsa Gidlow “it did seem that in those days civilized persons respected one another’s privacies” (422). Everyone was circumspect about their private lives, homo- or hetero-sexual. Discretion in this case is not always oppressive. But the question posed is a broader one... and not just limited to lesbianism in the 1930's. In a later discussion of the topic with my friend, we discussed the question, and decided that it depends completely on the what one is being discrete about. Topics like schizophrenia and sexual assault are generally kept quiet by those who have the mental disorder or those who were attacked, but what happens when one wants to talk about it? They have no one. That's one of the most punishing parts about sexual assault - never being able to talk about it. So discretion can be both oppressive and liberating. - Sarah H<br />
<br />
Julia's story seems so foreign in today's "open" society. Now that sexuality is openly discussed, sexual orientation seems to be a much bigger, public concern. Although Julia had to keep her affairs private, she did not have to "reveal" and openly discuss her sexuality publicly as many women today must do. The former seems a more comfortable situation. But I do wonder when Julia was with her lesbian friends if there was an "elephant in the room" that they wanted but feared to openly acknowledge? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that some women were offended and denied being called lesbians despite their love for women. Why? Was it? Was it because they didn't see it as appropriate? or as is later mentioned, because they were just "escapades"? I sort of got the vibe that women (although not all) used lesbianism as a sign of power/masulinity, a way of them to define their own sexuality without being patronized becauesa they were women and women weren't suppose to be in control of thier own sexual wants and needs. Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
== Dr. Carlton C. Frederick on Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I pity the most definitely unsatisfied woman married to that Dr. Carlton C. Frederick! His unqualified theories on woman were as sexist as Freud's of that same time period (the grotesque double standard was very popular then)! This article compared to the survey's of Dr. Mosher were so starkly different, I wonder what kind of effect the controversy had over the general population-and more importantly over the general female population? His assertive views on Nymphomaniacs has actually made me question the sexism based around that "disorder"-I would be interested in further study of the history of Nymphomania as recognized by physicians and society. Also in consideration of mental disorders: this article is part of the great slew of material that prolonged the accepted myth that homosexuality is a mental illness well into the early 70s in American. I don't know how doctors could do it back then- to use unsubstantiated views as evidence for such sexist publications! ~~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
I agree with Jackie that Dr. Frederick was a wack job! Where on earth did he get his information from. It really makes you wonder how many doctors in those days actually did any kind of research or if they were simply stuck on a certain view of women and because they were a doctor they felt that gave them authority and validation to what their theory on the female and sex was.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Jackie about the Dr. Frederick essay. My question is: Was Frederick saying that nymphomania in women, was when they acheived the same level of sexuality and deisre that men had? Or was it on some completely different level? Also I found it disturbing, and almost funny how he so easily bridged a gap between masturbation and pedophelia.----Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I flat out laughed when I read the beginning of "The Manifestations of Nymphomania." What I thought was so interesting about this reading, besides the ideology that if women liked sex as much as men the world would be one giant brothel, was that this was documented at the turn of the century. I think it's a good example of the mentality some conservatives were trying to hold on to as the "new woman" burst onto the scene. I just didn't really understand his distinction between "insane" and the "not insane." Were the insane and mildly insane nymphomaniacs the ones that went into bars and started flirting with men, etc? -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found Carlton C. Fredericks article amusing at the same time it was irritating. It was amusing to me because of the way he approached the subject yet irritating because of its sexism. He seemed to imply that only insane or mildly insane women would likely turn to Nymphomania. I also find it interesting that he said women turned to other women to achieve satisfaction, wouldn't it then follow the logical path of his thought that to rectify this husbands should focus on more than just their sexual pleasure?(I'm not saying I agree with his thought process). Also, is he saying that men can't have nymphomania and that its an aliment strictly suffered by women?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mosher Survey, 1892-1913 ==<br />
<br />
There were several parts of the reading off the wiki that fit in perfectly with the companionate marriage we discussed in class today. Most noticeably the second passage from extracts from the Mosher Survey, respondent 10 was qouted as "I think for man and woman married from love, it may be used temperately, as one of the highest manifestations of love." This passage exemplifies the break from the repressive victorian era ideals of marriage, that women should not enjoy sex, and that it should be used primarily for reproduction. Another example was the second letter to Sanger, the man was asking for details of contraception, not for (entirely) selfish reasons, he seemed genuinely concerned about his wife's welfare and happiness. ----Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I was surprised after reading the "Extracts from the Mosher Survey, 1892-1913" because I did not realize that it seemed that most women did not have knowledge of sexual physiology before marriage. I'm guessing most of the men knew though. I think the 'birds and the bees' was mostly explained by my teachers when I was in 4th or 5th grade, or around age 9 or 10. Times have changed considerably, but I wonder how many U.S. females are raised in such a way still that they do not know much about it. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
So, as everyone knows, I hate the idea of using Lysol as a means of contraception. As a result, reading the one interview with Respondent 44 made me cringe. Bichloride? Really? I'm assuming they used the mercury compound since I saw another interviewee discuss it and I almost fell over. That stuff is dangerous so it astounded me that it had "no effect" as she stated. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which people would go to prevent pregnancies in the early 20th century. It was interesting to read all of the interviews though and compare and contrast them. The differences were slight because the years were relatively close together, but the shifts in belief about the purposes of intercourse emphasized that shift from a "sex is for male pleasure and reproduction only" world to a "women can like it too" sort of atmosphere. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly, it is crazy what women will do to prevent pregnancy. How could you put yourself in danger just so you dont have children. I know that childbirth was considered not always safe but really, why would you do something even worse to yourself? I too was impressed by the change in the interviews, things have to progress. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with both Kelly and Kellye. The bichloride bit scared me. I'm currently in taking chemistry... and mercury bichloride (aka Mercury(II) Chloride) is HIGHLY toxic. It's MSDS sheet reads: "Poison. May be fatal if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin. Long-term exposure, even at low levels, may lead to impaired memory, build-up of mercury in body organs, loss of appetite, loose teeth and other effects. Severe irritant." It's also dangerous to the environment. So I wonder why the interviewee said she had no side effects. I really wonder if ANYONE did any medical research as to the EFFECTS of any of the products they were pushing as contraceptives? Did anyone care about the health and safety of these women? - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
<br />
After reading the respondents from Mosher I was surprised to find out how many women really knew nothing about sex once they were married. I knew that it was somthing not talked about, but to be a women just married and not knowing what sex even was had to be scary and maybe even confusing to them. Did the husbands know though? What I also thought was interesting about their resoponses was that those who did try some kind of means to prevent pregnancy, when asked if their health was effected they all said no. The things they used didn't sound like very safe things, but what I've come to realize by these readings this week is that women seemed to be desperate for anything to have some kind of control over conception, but were the men just as desperate in hopes that something would emerge to prevent pregnancy once there were so many children already in the family too?--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also found the readings from the Wiki very interesting! I was slightly shocked at some of the details in the "Extracts from the Mosher survey: 1892-1913". Mostly I was surprised at how long some of these couples waited before they had sex after marrying! There was one woman who said that their first time having sex was 5 months after they were married! I found this surprising because most married couples are simply expected to do that on their wedding night. And like Kelly I was shocked at the items they used to attempt to control pregnancies and then claimed that they had no physical affect on them when it should have.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
The fact that so many of us are astounded at the information in the Mosher surveys is an indicator at how far we have come. In my recent interview with two 81 year old women, it revealed that the discussion of sex was never discussed between the mothers and daughters. One of the women became a nurse after high school and received information on the topic in her anatomy class.--LisaM <br />
<br />
<br />
I found "Extracts from the Mosher Survey, 1892-1913" humorous. Most of these women did not know much about the female body and not anything about the male reproduction system. Most pregnancy were an accident with a couple of exceptions. The usual types of birth control were used with no noted side effects. I think all the women said that reproduction was the main reason for sexual intercourse while the last interview , held in 1913, said that sex was uplifting like music. The number of times per week/month these women had intercourse varied. Would they have told the truth? -Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
In the document “Extracts form the Mosher Survey.” it didn’t surprise me to hear that most women didn’t know much about men physiology. Sex was not an open topic to talk about. Women then were taught to wait till marriage and that intercourse was only meant to please men and have children. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
From the Mosher surverys i liked the second one the best. It describes as Landon has stated, the companionate marriage, the woman got way more pleasure from her husband than the other two. And sex during pregnancy because it made her happy! Her answers were very forward and "I'm a woman who likes sex and so what?" where as the the others were a bit more conservative (especially the last one). I was dissapointed the first one said it was just for male pleasure. It's pretty sad that women in the past had to hide their sexual desires from their husband (although even with the husbands claiming they didn't like their women to be sexual, they very well found their way to prostitutes for the things they didn't want their wives to do!) HMPH!<br />
<br />
== Letters to Margaret Sanger, 1920s ==<br />
<br />
After reading the online reading something that stuck out to me the most was the letters to Margaret Sanger. I found it surprising that men and women were actually staying away from their spouses because they don't want anymore children. Because birth control was not offered to women, and especially women who lived in rural areas, it was ruining marriages. In letter number 4 the wife was actually thinking about their financial stability knowing they can not have another child and all the husband wants is sex not really caring about the situation. This whole concept of the companion family caused higher expectations, however in these letters the women and or men mention that they love their spouse dearly but because they don't want to reproduce tears them apart. If there was such a big problem with divorce rates increasing and infidelity then why wasn't this taken into account? Is it because people are just to afraid to talk about sex? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
When reading the letters to Margaret Sanger about birth control I kind of asked the same question Amanda did on why wasn't it taken into account that divorce rates increasing was really possibly due to infidelity which was essentially caused by fear of having sex in result of having children. Therefore birth control would really possibly save marriage, however I don't think it is because people were afraid to talk about sex even though it wasn't talked about but, instead maybe what they really wanted was to be able to have sex freely without the worry of getting pregnant, and birth control would allow a married couple to have control over how many children they wanted. Maybe they thought, this thought was a scary or selfish thing to even think or want becasue for so long people just had children, but because the world was changing there was just no need for families with 7 to 10 children anymore.--Michelle M. <br />
<br />
The letters to Margaret Sanger about the need for birth control were extremely interesting. I thought it was strange how women assumed they would just magically know how to not have children once they were married. Also, I wondered if married couples not having sex so as to not have any more children led to affairs outside the marriage. Clearly, there was no birth control for any type of sexual relationship but I get the feeling that these people writing in thought that extramarital affairs couldn’t result in children. What did prostitutes do for birth control? – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Cat had a great point. I read once that prostitutes would take a "potion" to prevent pregnancy. Basically the same method as other women.... Pessaries, maybe abortion. -- Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
On the topic of prostitutes and abortion, and not the reading, my mother was a nurse in one of the major hospitals in Houston, TX, and when she first started working there she got a call from a room asking for assistance. A woman needed help getting from the toilet back to her bed. My mom helped her back to the bed, and went to the bathroom and saw a fetus in the toilet. My mom freaked out. The other nurses explained to her that the woman had had an abortion, and that she routinely went to the hospital to have one, and that was the woman's form of birth control. They were also fairly certain she was a prostitute. Keep in mind that this was the early 1980's. <br />
<br />
To discuss the actual reading, the letters were depressing. I will admit to being slightly impressed by the man writing to ask about contraceptives for fear of his wifes health, but that's the only slightly uplifting part of the letters. All of these women are desperate for help, and it makes me rather sad. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
The people who wrote these letters sound so desperate. They lived in a time where the companionate marriage seemed to burden the women with an emotional and economic dilemma; namely, the lack of intimate relations with their spouse could inhibit or destroy their marriage, but so could the economic and physical burdens that resulted from additional children. When I read these letters, I wondered how many women were pushed to self aborting because of no other remedy.--LisaM <br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, Michelle and Cat. I found the letters to Margaret Sanger Morose. All the letters were from married men or women wanting to prevent conception. Societies views and laws regarding birth control was ruining relationships and marriages. I do feel compassion towards the men writing to Sanger about their wives health. Would this be a compassionate marriage? -- Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
In “Letters to Margaret Sanger, Birth-Control Advocate,” I agree with the third letter from a mother of six children. She should be allowed to use birth control for a few reasons. Financially she cannot afford to have another child, she doesn’t have anymore time to take care of more children, and birth control will help save her marriage. Her husband would rather stay away from her to avoid having another child. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
Like many people have commented before me, I found the letters to Margaret Sanger depressing but it was nice to see the caring nature of the man who wrote in concern for his wife's health. This seemed to me to be the best example of the concept of a companionate marriage. Thought this letter probably doesn't represent the majority, I feel like the debate about birth control is fought by women and we forget that men are involved. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Blanchard and Manasses discuss Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930 ==<br />
<br />
I agree with Landon and also saw many parallels between the discussion of the companionate family in class and also in society today. Blanchard and Manasses' discussion of courtship points out that men and women were able to "become intimately acquainted" before marriage and discuss openly and equally about their opinions of married life before they were married. The notion that men and women must be compatible personalities, working together as partners in all areas demonstrates the new ideal. Yet there are still hidden facets of Victorian ideals engrained into the companionate marriage. The "lurking fear that she may seem too passionate, and her husband may suspect what still seems to her dreadful secret, she cannot give herself up to free enjoyment of his love," still alludes to the idea that women are not supposed to enjoy sex and when they do there is something morally wrong with them. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I also saw a parallel between Blanchard and Manasses' discussion and society's ideals today. Sex education, and the lack thereof, is still a problem. Many schools still strictly follow an abstinence only program and students are left uneducated about where to go for family planning options. In many cases women still grow up experiencing "conditioned responses toward sex" in which parents have punished any form of sexual expression. The experiences of women described in this reading (anxiety, embarressment, guilt) caused by society's ideals still strongly exist. Their discussion was a liberal view and today this view would be considered conservative but how much have the ideals of women's sexuality changed from the early 20th century? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
The discussion of “modern marriage” was really interesting to me. I find it horrifying that ideals of companionship didn’t exist before this time. Even in this essay, there is a part where Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manassas question what a companion marriage may mean for the future once sexual desire fades. I just found it interesting that eve they are not true believers in companionship. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
The quote that Meredith refered to about a woman's "lurking fear that she may seem too passionate" seemed at the heart of this essay. The rigid ideals of the previous century remain and I would say they continue on until th 1960s and 1970s. But even today, women's sexuality is a discussion of idealized innocence versus sexual expression. Americans are still very conservative despite changes in social standards. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Malcom Bissell on birth control activism in PA, 1925 ==<br />
<br />
Malcom Bissell’s essay on birth control discusses how small group meetings in people’s home might be the most effect way of disseminating birth control information. I think this is very telling of society’s views at the time. Clearly, birth control was wanted and necessary, but there was such a social stigma and controversy over using it that people didn’t want to be publicly seen as seeking out information. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of what Cat said, I was kind of impressed with the flow of communication that had been started by the time of this document. The one comment that really struck me was, "There are abundant signs that the public is ready to give its support to Birth Control." It shows how much has changed since the Victorian era we had spent so much time on but it is also kind of a loaded statement. It's pretty dangerous to make such a statement in a society that still clearly had such strong opposition to contraceptive methods which are apparent to us by all the various documents we've read for this week. Nonetheless, I'm impressed he had the audacity to make such a statement and enforce such a movement towards providing birth control to women (and their husbands of course). -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I also thought the article "Breaking the Silence" by Yolanda Leyva was interesting. It was surprising to me that the Catholic Church was one place where the lesbian women could be themselves. I would have though that the church would have severely disapproved of such behavior. Did they just not know that by segregating the women they were encouraging this behavior or were the women just using the circumstances to their advantage? - Christine Wuebker</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_6_Questions/Comments328--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-21T13:27:27Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found Jane Addams's view that women needed to be involved in the political parties since organizations for public good founded by a charismatic individual usually died after their departure to be interesting. Her belief that political parties produced more long lasting and stable change through their unification of the states and the nation was what interested me about her view, especially given today's political climate. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that there existed Negro women who belonged to the Democratic party since it was the party that had recently worked for their enslavement and did not really support woman's rights at the time. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I found Leonara O'Reilly's "A Labor Organizer Speaks Out for Suffrage" to be a very good argument, but I failed to see how it was different from all of the other arguments that Congress probably had already heard that talked about how women's suffrage was the right thing to do and failed to speak about how women's suffrage was in the Congressmen's best interests. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the personal writings by the various working women. All were so informative and individual tone helped to understand the kind of labor, their general treatment, and their personal feelings about the job: gratitude, vulnerability. All these jobs were considered women's work and all were poorly (payed even compared to cheap male labor), demeaning in some way, and offered either high health hazards or demanded long hours. I found Agnes Nestor particularly inspiring, that she worked from unskilled glove maker to union leader (being part of that small 2.2%) and lobbyist for women's work rights. ~Jackie R.<br />
<br />
The speech delivered by Abigail Scott Duniway (printed in Modern American Women), I thought was very interesting. She brings up a very good question, if women were sincere in their belief that men considered women’s opinions and kept their promises to women, then why would men not also feel safe in allowing women the right to vote? Her speech continues, to discuss how men and women were created equally as halves and without the consideration of both, there can never be a whole. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
There were many arguments both for and against women’s suffrage. Many of these arguments are outlined, in a satirical manner, by Marie Jenny Howe in “An Anti-Suffrage Monologue.” Throughout the monologue, she compares two opposite and extreme arguments to point out how ridiculous an extreme belief can be. One of her arguments can almost be applied to Duniway’s argument. Howe states that, “If the women were enfranchised they would vote exactly as their husbands do and only double the existing vote. Do you like that argument? If not, take this one. If the Women were enfranchised they would vote against their own husbands, thus creating dissension, family quarrels, and divorce,” (102). If men and women truly are two halves of a whole, as Duniway suggests, then the first statement would most certainly be true. If the second statement is taken as true and the votes of men and women cancel each other out and create conflict, then wouldn’t the same be true if voting were left to only men as well? If conflicting votes led to quarrel and instability within a family, then wouldn’t conflicting votes among men result in quarrel and instability in society? Looking at both of these extremes as Howe does throughout the monologue, leads one to realize that a more moderate view would be more functional and practical. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it intriguing in the article by Melanie Gustafon, that even though the progressive party did not accept African American men, there were still some African American men that supported the party. My guess is they saw the party as being 'progressive' and would be the best party to, hopefully, eventually carry their own political desires. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It was a nice change of pace to read what a woman against suffrage had to say about suffrage. I found her points intriguing, but I also wondered why facts were not proof... facts are usually there to prove one point or another. The article about Alice Paul and the conditions under which the prisoners were kept were horrible! No fresh air, the sweeping of dust into the cells, and feeding them basically raw pork is just horrible. Did this happen at most prisons? Does it still happen? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the"Partisan Women in the Progressive Era" by Melanie Gustafson very interesting. I didn't know that the idea of partisan vs. non-partisan was actually a gendered idea, nor had I thought about the idea that women's auxiliaries could have been seen as women's lack of dedication to the political arena (pg 250). However, one of the points she makes that stood out to me the most was the fact that women suffragists, specifically, Ida HUsted Harper, felt that women's involvement in partisan activities was actually damaging to the suffrage movement. My line of thinking would say that the involvement in the partisan groups would actually help the movement since it would show the dedication that women had to politics that supposedly the women's auxiliaries did not. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" it is mentioned that after the Senate and President remained silent on the issue of women's suffrage they announced their intention to hold a (peaceful) demonstration yet, when President Wilson heard this, he immediately said he would accept and talk to a delegation of women. I was wondering if he decided to talk to the women because he was afraid that they would meet together and gain support instead of quieting down if the bill didn't pass? And if this was his hope, how could he have expected the women who wanted the vote so badly to simply back down? In other words, did he talk with them with the hope of preventing the very demonstration that they had despite (or maybe because) of this meeting?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Yet again I found the readings in Modern American Women absolutely fascinating! I enjoyed reading how many different ways the suffrage movement was promoted and with what ideas, as well with ideas that the anti-suffragists would use (although that came through a satire). Perhaps one of my favorites of these readings was the first one, "A Western Suffragist Talks to her Eastern Sisters" by Abigail Scott Duniway. It said in the introduction that the East coast suffragists saw her as more radical than they wished to be but I don't understand what was so radical about the ideas expressed in the piece we read (this may simply be due to the time period difference). I would have thought that her arguments that the movement was not a war between the genders but a movement for interdependence and that women did not want to remove men from their rights or limit them, but simply wanted to gain the ability to chose their own rights would have been comforting to those men who felt that the movement was a threat to their power. The "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" as also very interesting, at the same time irritating because I am aware that there were women who did actually hold these beliefs. However I do wonder if they would have phrased them in this way or it the arguments were exaggerated in this piece due to its satirical nature. Lastly, I also found the rules contained in "Front Door Lobbying' for Suffrage' by Maud Wood Park to be extremely interesting because it demonstrates the desire of women to gain suffrage while still being viewed as lady-like and proper. I found every single one of these readings interesting but it was those three that stood out to me the most.-Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found Marie Jenny Howe's An Anti-Suffrage Monologue very interesting. Her 5th anti-suffrage couplet I found to be very funny and some what accurate. She stated "women can not band together. They are incapable of organization. No two women can even be friends. Women are cats." The fact that I am a girl I really see this. Throughout our lives we deal with our friends stabbing us in the back and someone gossiping about the other. Especially as I have gotten older women have become a lot more brutal. I do find this to be an issue in social settings and political settings. However since there was and is still a belief, why do women accomplish so much when its more then one person fighting for the same goal? Is it because we are still male dominated and we have them to regulate women's organizations? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if I agree with Amanda's sentiment of "funny" when referring to Howe's "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue." In one passage she states, "Enfranchisement is what makes man man. Disfranchisement is what makes woman woman. If women were enfranchised every man would be just like every woman and every woman would be just like every man. There would be no difference between them. and don't you think this would rob life of just a little of its poetry and romance?" What romance novel was this lady reading! She also goes on to characterize the women that participate in the suffrage movement by saying, "Observe their inability, their mental disability, their spiritual instability and general debility!" Are these the characteristics of only the women seeking their rights or of all women? It appears that this women can make a claim to the characteristics depicted in Amanda's post because she has obviously exhibited this behavior in her writing. I think the "Antis" were afraid of change;I would guess they were quite comfortable within the sanctuary of their homes, and the thought of operating outside the domestic sphere was intimidating.--LisaM <br />
<br />
In the Abigail Scott Duniway piece she made a point that I believe is dead on. "She said A home w/o a man in it is only half a home. A government w/o a women is only half a government. A man w/o a women is only one-half of a pair... a women w/o a man is like the other half..." What I don't understand is how men of this time period don't understand that if they did not have women in the home there wouldn't be a home. Everything she does for him wouldn't get done, and god forbid he does anything for himself when he gets home. Relating this document to Howe, she says women are there to wash the dishes and if the mistress of the house doesn't do it she hires someone. A man washing the dishes would be "blasphemy." Even before the 1900s I find it funny that men don't realize women do dictate their lives, women were influencing their husbands political activity. Women have a way of manipulating men to think they had the brilliant idea when really it was the women's decision all along. So in reality if women just stopped standing by their men then a large a majority of the American male population would probably be helpless. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I agree with you to an extent, Amanda. You're right when you say that women influenced their husbands' political activity, but if you think about the reasons men were afraid to let women vote, one of them dealt with the fear that women would vote exactly like their husbands and without their own agenda. In reality, these women wanted the vote so that they could help themselves. I don't think most of them wanted to vote the same way as the men in their lives did. But your right; women did have (and still do) have a major impact on the way men acted politically. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, and I was really struck by the comment "A home without a man in it is only half a home. A government without a woman is only half a government..." But I think the fact that men didn't really understand demonstrates the double standard at that time. It seems that they thought that yes, a home without a man is only half a home, but they only thought that women should stay in their "domestic sphere" and should not enter the public sphere. The double standard is that men have to be in the home or it would only be half of a home, but women's place is only in the home. In this same article, I was also struck by her comments on the "evolution" of homemaking and her discussion of how more was being done in factories. She also discusses how more girls will work more in the factories through this process of evolution. I thought that these comments were a little brave, because isn't that what men were fearing? That women would leave the home and enter the workforce? But then, she reconciles it a little by saying that the younger girls will go to work so that the mothers can stay home... --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree with amanda also to an extend on Duniway's qoute. And to an extent I mean I agree with the qoute based on the time in which it was said, because you have to remember that specific time period. It is true for that time period that a house with out a man was only half a home, and half a government and so on. The home is where the women were, but financially the man for the most part was the supporter, or head of house hold. So yes with out a women being in the house a man would not know what to do. However in today's world I think it is interesting that society has evolved to where now either sex can be independent, and not really needing to depend on the other sex for whatever. Therefore her qoute had a good meaning at the time.<br />
--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also agree with Amanda and Kelly. These women wanted the vote so that they could help change their own lives. They were already able to influence their men, so why would they vote they way their husbands did. Many of these women probably already had an influence on who their husbands were voting for. Changing it so that they could vote only insured that they could better fix the problems faced in their town. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In MP the Inez Haynes piece I found to be extremely inspiring. These women speak to two senators and they honestly tell these women your bill is not coming up today. Then you have Wilson saying I am in sympathy with you, a nice little white lie and the suffragists saying ha I will believe it when I see it. I really like this piece because they weren't naive about what was really going on. But what really gets me is that these two senators did not lie to the women they were honestly like no not happening, then you have the President pretty much lying. I find that comical because it really shows who Wilson really is. But my question is why would he lie to these women? I don't understand how he could not think this was not an important issue and that when its time for re-election his presidency is in their hands. So my question is why would he lie to these women? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading Florence Luscomb's piece, "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," I couldn't help but be impressed by the lengths these suffragettes went to in order to have their voices heard. The numbers she gave at the end, "We have spoken to 24,900 people ... we gave held 97 meetings ... and have obtained over 2000 signatures" is absolutely incredible. When studying the Suffrage movement, you never think of the extremes that some women went to and Luscomb and her colleague surely went above and beyond to get their opinions all over Massachusetts. I also liked her comment about taking the roof away from a female speaker and she immediately becomes a raving lunatic. If you think about it, the perception was true, especially since it went against the good old Sphere of Domesticity. Oh, and my apologies for using the word "suffragette." Blame Mary Poppins. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Like Kelly I found "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," of great interest. Women suffrage groups obviously realized that to be heard they required a larger voice from the population of women. It is easy for government officials to dismiss a handful of suffrage organizers as fanatical, but a large group of women is a force to be reckoned with. The tactic of conducting open-air meetings allowed the suffrage representatives access to a segment of the women's population that they were not likely to see in any organization meeting.--LisaM <br />
<br />
I really liked Maud Wood Park's "'Front Door Lobbying' For Suffrage." I thought the list of rules that were drafted were a great representation of how women tried to still be seen as moral and proper but still be able to voice their opinions for their cause. My favorite line, however, was the last section where Maud Wood Park discusses her favorite report which said "He said, 'I'm with you; I'm for it, I'm going to vote for it. Now don't bother me,' all in one breath." There must have been a large number of these amusing reports because I'm sure the men they were lobbying to enjoyed their visits. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly. The list of rules really demonstrated how it was good to be involved in politics but yet at the same time still follow the ideals of society. Women wanted a larger role but were smart enough to realize that they needed to work toward it with baby steps. They couldn't just jump into the political realm, instead they could enter it but only by remaining lady like. -- Kellye<br />
<br />
Marie Howe's essay on anti-suffrage was unlike anything I had ever read before. Her beleives or arguments were unbeleivable. She was totally unsupportive of the female gender, and shot down women, and really herself. She essentially calls women dumb, when she says, "women cannot understand politics." Well, why can't they, thats what education is for(102). Also she does not care about fact, instead she wants proof(103). Well aren't facts the samething as proof? Her whole essay makes me wonder what kind of childhood she had, because it was kind of angering to read how she thought women were just suppose to look up to their husbands and remain the little submissive women always, and have no role to play other than the house wife. Her own arguments have no proof and really just sound dumb.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Michelle, I am guessing you did not realize that the article by Howe was satirical, your reaction to the article really shows how effective a weapon satire was in this instance. I think this shows that Howe did an excellent job explaining her point and in pointing out the fundamental flaws & hypocrisy in the arguments of the anti-suffragists, in a comical way. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
<br />
Haynes recollection of the protest at Lafayette does an excellent job of exploring the feelings of frustration the suffragists were feeling at the time. As you read you begin to see how these women were continually being misled and disrespected by powerful men who held the key to what they had been working so hard to achieve for decades. They were so close to achieving their goals only to have them slip out of grasp time and time again, the tension and angst these women are feeling becomes palpable as you read. I am surprised more of the protests did not turn violent --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech given by Duniway really exemplifies how powerful the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle class ideals of womanhood really were. Here is a woman who is clearly as independent and career minded as any man yet she still works to quell any fears the nation might have. She reassures them that politics won't corrupt the women and that women won't neglect their household duties. She was smart to swallow her pride in this instance, she knew how to get what she wanted. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read that Jane Adams endorsed Theodore Roosevelt…. He is not someone that stands out in my mind as a proponent of gender equality. I was equally as surprised by his public letter thanking Jane Adams and supporting the women’s movement. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Why did women’s organizations, such as the League of Women Voters keep the idea of “the nonpartisan woman” alive if it was hurting the movement and allowing women to be seen as less dedicated or uninterested in politics? – Cat Debelius <br />
<br />
I found “Front Door Lobbying” for Suffrage to be extremely ironic. Perhaps this was there tactic, to up play the social stigma of womanhood in order to get what they want, but the Directions and Don’ts List for the lobbying suffragist read just like a Cosmo magazine. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in Abigail Scott Duniway's speech that she tries to point out that the suffrage movement was not in "a spirit of warfare between the sexes" but in the "spirit of harmony and inter-dependence between men and women" (96). I think it is interesting that she goes on to explain how much women "like" men, was she trying to show that all women in the suffrage movement were not hard-core man hating feminists? Did feminist's have that image of man haters at that time?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading Marie Jenny Howe in her "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue". I was a little confused at one point because she says in one sentence that her argument against suffrage was that women would not use it but then in the next sentence says that if they were enfranchised they would spend all their time at the polls and neglect their family. Ok so which is it?? How can she not go to the polls but at the same time spend all her time there? Her whole argument makes absolutely no sense to me.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I was also a little confused at first when I read "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue," but after going back I realized that that was the point of the whole thing--to be confusing. I think that Howe does an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistencies and ridiculous nature of the arguments of the "antis." She points out that the central flaw of the antis involves the fact that they use two contradicting arguments to support their claims. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about "Open-Air Meetings" by Florence Luscomb. The meetings reminded me more of a potluck type ordeal than a way of gaining votes and getting a serious point across. Also, when Florence talks about a successful "summer of campaigning" I thought to myself wow have times changed. I can't imagine Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain going out to any large open outdoors space for their campaign. It sounds like their open air meetings were more for an entertainment purpose. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found the the "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" by Marie Jenny Howe to be incredibly frustrating to read. The quote "If women vote, what will become of men? They will all slink off drunk and disorderly. We antis understand men" Really?? Did someone actually write that? "What makes a husband faithful and loving? The ballot and the monopoly of that privledge." Again, really!? I'm not sure I need to say more. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought "Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail" was particularily interesting by showing the reaction to radical female behavior. By being merely showing an active, aggressive tactic Alice Paul was labeled as manic and psychopathic by the standards of the day. This extreme blindness in the doctors ability to understand Paul's actions reminded me of the categorization of homosexuality as a psychological disorder until the early 1970s. The thought of women's rights was so foreign to some men such as Doctor White makes the progress women did make in this era seem exponential. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Like Jessica, I really enjoyed Duniway's speech. She really brings up an interesting point about men illogically mistrusting women with the right to vote. Going back to all that we have been studying with the cult of domesticity and such an applying it to the ideas of this speech, women are ultimately good and sincere. Men trust the future of the nation, their children, in their hands. Why then do men deny women the right to vote? --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I thought "Open Air Suffrage" was interesting. Though not a novel idea, bringing together many people for one cause out in public is a great way to get people to notice. Yet I think I agree with Rose when seh points out that it seems like these meetings weren't all that serious but more like a friendly gathering. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
It's interesting how women are said to have "feminized" politics in the Gustafson essay. The New York Times thought the effect of women on politics was apparently to introduce decorum, manners, and non-smoking. This seems connected to other instances in which feminists of the time embrace arguments that today we might consider anti-feminist, for example, women arguing they can moralize politics because women are inherently more moral. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
Elizabeth asks about "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" whether the president thought he could prevent protest by meeting with the women's delegations. It seems like it was probably a much better option for Wilson than ignoring the groups, which might have further inflamed them; however, I'd be interested to know how much it would have cost Wilson politically to make a concession to the delegations on when or how he would force a vote, and whether or not their resort to "militant" tactics hurt him worse than an early concession would have. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I asked myself the same question Ashley asked above about why African American men joined the progressive party even though they didn't believe in giving them a vote. I think that it's because they figured that out of all the other groups the Progressive party would grant them a vote faster than any of the other choices out there. Or there was probably less animosity towards them than other groups maybe. - Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
After reading these sources and lecture in class, it seems to me as if men sat together, whispering about granting women the right to vote would just make the wrold blow up. It's like a time bomb to see who can push their issues further, the women with why they should be allowed to vote or the men as to why they shouldn't or choosing to ignore the issue as long as possible. -Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
I found the Inez Haynes Irwin article really interesting. I was surprised to see how quickly the President agreed to meet with a delegation of women after he heard they were going to strike. Like Elizabeth I have to ask why? What was the President afraid would happen if he didn't meet with the women. -- Christine w.<br />
<br />
As alway I really enjoyed reading the "Modern American Women" articles. I like the wide variety of selections. It helps to bring the topic together as a whole. I always found studing history to be easier if there were first hand accounts to read because it makes it seem so much more believable. You know someone actually lived through the events and had some effect on them. -- Christine W.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_6_Questions/Comments328--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-21T13:17:51Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found Jane Addams's view that women needed to be involved in the political parties since organizations for public good founded by a charismatic individual usually died after their departure to be interesting. Her belief that political parties produced more long lasting and stable change through their unification of the states and the nation was what interested me about her view, especially given today's political climate. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that there existed Negro women who belonged to the Democratic party since it was the party that had recently worked for their enslavement and did not really support woman's rights at the time. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I found Leonara O'Reilly's "A Labor Organizer Speaks Out for Suffrage" to be a very good argument, but I failed to see how it was different from all of the other arguments that Congress probably had already heard that talked about how women's suffrage was the right thing to do and failed to speak about how women's suffrage was in the Congressmen's best interests. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the personal writings by the various working women. All were so informative and individual tone helped to understand the kind of labor, their general treatment, and their personal feelings about the job: gratitude, vulnerability. All these jobs were considered women's work and all were poorly (payed even compared to cheap male labor), demeaning in some way, and offered either high health hazards or demanded long hours. I found Agnes Nestor particularly inspiring, that she worked from unskilled glove maker to union leader (being part of that small 2.2%) and lobbyist for women's work rights. ~Jackie R.<br />
<br />
The speech delivered by Abigail Scott Duniway (printed in Modern American Women), I thought was very interesting. She brings up a very good question, if women were sincere in their belief that men considered women’s opinions and kept their promises to women, then why would men not also feel safe in allowing women the right to vote? Her speech continues, to discuss how men and women were created equally as halves and without the consideration of both, there can never be a whole. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
There were many arguments both for and against women’s suffrage. Many of these arguments are outlined, in a satirical manner, by Marie Jenny Howe in “An Anti-Suffrage Monologue.” Throughout the monologue, she compares two opposite and extreme arguments to point out how ridiculous an extreme belief can be. One of her arguments can almost be applied to Duniway’s argument. Howe states that, “If the women were enfranchised they would vote exactly as their husbands do and only double the existing vote. Do you like that argument? If not, take this one. If the Women were enfranchised they would vote against their own husbands, thus creating dissension, family quarrels, and divorce,” (102). If men and women truly are two halves of a whole, as Duniway suggests, then the first statement would most certainly be true. If the second statement is taken as true and the votes of men and women cancel each other out and create conflict, then wouldn’t the same be true if voting were left to only men as well? If conflicting votes led to quarrel and instability within a family, then wouldn’t conflicting votes among men result in quarrel and instability in society? Looking at both of these extremes as Howe does throughout the monologue, leads one to realize that a more moderate view would be more functional and practical. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it intriguing in the article by Melanie Gustafon, that even though the progressive party did not accept African American men, there were still some African American men that supported the party. My guess is they saw the party as being 'progressive' and would be the best party to, hopefully, eventually carry their own political desires. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It was a nice change of pace to read what a woman against suffrage had to say about suffrage. I found her points intriguing, but I also wondered why facts were not proof... facts are usually there to prove one point or another. The article about Alice Paul and the conditions under which the prisoners were kept were horrible! No fresh air, the sweeping of dust into the cells, and feeding them basically raw pork is just horrible. Did this happen at most prisons? Does it still happen? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the"Partisan Women in the Progressive Era" by Melanie Gustafson very interesting. I didn't know that the idea of partisan vs. non-partisan was actually a gendered idea, nor had I thought about the idea that women's auxiliaries could have been seen as women's lack of dedication to the political arena (pg 250). However, one of the points she makes that stood out to me the most was the fact that women suffragists, specifically, Ida HUsted Harper, felt that women's involvement in partisan activities was actually damaging to the suffrage movement. My line of thinking would say that the involvement in the partisan groups would actually help the movement since it would show the dedication that women had to politics that supposedly the women's auxiliaries did not. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" it is mentioned that after the Senate and President remained silent on the issue of women's suffrage they announced their intention to hold a (peaceful) demonstration yet, when President Wilson heard this, he immediately said he would accept and talk to a delegation of women. I was wondering if he decided to talk to the women because he was afraid that they would meet together and gain support instead of quieting down if the bill didn't pass? And if this was his hope, how could he have expected the women who wanted the vote so badly to simply back down? In other words, did he talk with them with the hope of preventing the very demonstration that they had despite (or maybe because) of this meeting?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Yet again I found the readings in Modern American Women absolutely fascinating! I enjoyed reading how many different ways the suffrage movement was promoted and with what ideas, as well with ideas that the anti-suffragists would use (although that came through a satire). Perhaps one of my favorites of these readings was the first one, "A Western Suffragist Talks to her Eastern Sisters" by Abigail Scott Duniway. It said in the introduction that the East coast suffragists saw her as more radical than they wished to be but I don't understand what was so radical about the ideas expressed in the piece we read (this may simply be due to the time period difference). I would have thought that her arguments that the movement was not a war between the genders but a movement for interdependence and that women did not want to remove men from their rights or limit them, but simply wanted to gain the ability to chose their own rights would have been comforting to those men who felt that the movement was a threat to their power. The "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" as also very interesting, at the same time irritating because I am aware that there were women who did actually hold these beliefs. However I do wonder if they would have phrased them in this way or it the arguments were exaggerated in this piece due to its satirical nature. Lastly, I also found the rules contained in "Front Door Lobbying' for Suffrage' by Maud Wood Park to be extremely interesting because it demonstrates the desire of women to gain suffrage while still being viewed as lady-like and proper. I found every single one of these readings interesting but it was those three that stood out to me the most.-Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found Marie Jenny Howe's An Anti-Suffrage Monologue very interesting. Her 5th anti-suffrage couplet I found to be very funny and some what accurate. She stated "women can not band together. They are incapable of organization. No two women can even be friends. Women are cats." The fact that I am a girl I really see this. Throughout our lives we deal with our friends stabbing us in the back and someone gossiping about the other. Especially as I have gotten older women have become a lot more brutal. I do find this to be an issue in social settings and political settings. However since there was and is still a belief, why do women accomplish so much when its more then one person fighting for the same goal? Is it because we are still male dominated and we have them to regulate women's organizations? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if I agree with Amanda's sentiment of "funny" when referring to Howe's "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue." In one passage she states, "Enfranchisement is what makes man man. Disfranchisement is what makes woman woman. If women were enfranchised every man would be just like every woman and every woman would be just like every man. There would be no difference between them. and don't you think this would rob life of just a little of its poetry and romance?" What romance novel was this lady reading! She also goes on to characterize the women that participate in the suffrage movement by saying, "Observe their inability, their mental disability, their spiritual instability and general debility!" Are these the characteristics of only the women seeking their rights or of all women? It appears that this women can make a claim to the characteristics depicted in Amanda's post because she has obviously exhibited this behavior in her writing. I think the "Antis" were afraid of change;I would guess they were quite comfortable within the sanctuary of their homes, and the thought of operating outside the domestic sphere was intimidating.--LisaM <br />
<br />
In the Abigail Scott Duniway piece she made a point that I believe is dead on. "She said A home w/o a man in it is only half a home. A government w/o a women is only half a government. A man w/o a women is only one-half of a pair... a women w/o a man is like the other half..." What I don't understand is how men of this time period don't understand that if they did not have women in the home there wouldn't be a home. Everything she does for him wouldn't get done, and god forbid he does anything for himself when he gets home. Relating this document to Howe, she says women are there to wash the dishes and if the mistress of the house doesn't do it she hires someone. A man washing the dishes would be "blasphemy." Even before the 1900s I find it funny that men don't realize women do dictate their lives, women were influencing their husbands political activity. Women have a way of manipulating men to think they had the brilliant idea when really it was the women's decision all along. So in reality if women just stopped standing by their men then a large a majority of the American male population would probably be helpless. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I agree with you to an extent, Amanda. You're right when you say that women influenced their husbands' political activity, but if you think about the reasons men were afraid to let women vote, one of them dealt with the fear that women would vote exactly like their husbands and without their own agenda. In reality, these women wanted the vote so that they could help themselves. I don't think most of them wanted to vote the same way as the men in their lives did. But your right; women did have (and still do) have a major impact on the way men acted politically. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, and I was really struck by the comment "A home without a man in it is only half a home. A government without a woman is only half a government..." But I think the fact that men didn't really understand demonstrates the double standard at that time. It seems that they thought that yes, a home without a man is only half a home, but they only thought that women should stay in their "domestic sphere" and should not enter the public sphere. The double standard is that men have to be in the home or it would only be half of a home, but women's place is only in the home. In this same article, I was also struck by her comments on the "evolution" of homemaking and her discussion of how more was being done in factories. She also discusses how more girls will work more in the factories through this process of evolution. I thought that these comments were a little brave, because isn't that what men were fearing? That women would leave the home and enter the workforce? But then, she reconciles it a little by saying that the younger girls will go to work so that the mothers can stay home... --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree with amanda also to an extend on Duniway's qoute. And to an extent I mean I agree with the qoute based on the time in which it was said, because you have to remember that specific time period. It is true for that time period that a house with out a man was only half a home, and half a government and so on. The home is where the women were, but financially the man for the most part was the supporter, or head of house hold. So yes with out a women being in the house a man would not know what to do. However in today's world I think it is interesting that society has evolved to where now either sex can be independent, and not really needing to depend on the other sex for whatever. Therefore her qoute had a good meaning at the time.<br />
--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also agree with Amanda and Kelly. These women wanted the vote so that they could help change their own lives. They were already able to influence their men, so why would they vote they way their husbands did. Many of these women probably already had an influence on who their husbands were voting for. Changing it so that they could vote only insured that they could better fix the problems faced in their town. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In MP the Inez Haynes piece I found to be extremely inspiring. These women speak to two senators and they honestly tell these women your bill is not coming up today. Then you have Wilson saying I am in sympathy with you, a nice little white lie and the suffragists saying ha I will believe it when I see it. I really like this piece because they weren't naive about what was really going on. But what really gets me is that these two senators did not lie to the women they were honestly like no not happening, then you have the President pretty much lying. I find that comical because it really shows who Wilson really is. But my question is why would he lie to these women? I don't understand how he could not think this was not an important issue and that when its time for re-election his presidency is in their hands. So my question is why would he lie to these women? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading Florence Luscomb's piece, "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," I couldn't help but be impressed by the lengths these suffragettes went to in order to have their voices heard. The numbers she gave at the end, "We have spoken to 24,900 people ... we gave held 97 meetings ... and have obtained over 2000 signatures" is absolutely incredible. When studying the Suffrage movement, you never think of the extremes that some women went to and Luscomb and her colleague surely went above and beyond to get their opinions all over Massachusetts. I also liked her comment about taking the roof away from a female speaker and she immediately becomes a raving lunatic. If you think about it, the perception was true, especially since it went against the good old Sphere of Domesticity. Oh, and my apologies for using the word "suffragette." Blame Mary Poppins. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Like Kelly I found "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," of great interest. Women suffrage groups obviously realized that to be heard they required a larger voice from the population of women. It is easy for government officials to dismiss a handful of suffrage organizers as fanatical, but a large group of women is a force to be reckoned with. The tactic of conducting open-air meetings allowed the suffrage representatives access to a segment of the women's population that they were not likely to see in any organization meeting.--LisaM <br />
<br />
I really liked Maud Wood Park's "'Front Door Lobbying' For Suffrage." I thought the list of rules that were drafted were a great representation of how women tried to still be seen as moral and proper but still be able to voice their opinions for their cause. My favorite line, however, was the last section where Maud Wood Park discusses her favorite report which said "He said, 'I'm with you; I'm for it, I'm going to vote for it. Now don't bother me,' all in one breath." There must have been a large number of these amusing reports because I'm sure the men they were lobbying to enjoyed their visits. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly. The list of rules really demonstrated how it was good to be involved in politics but yet at the same time still follow the ideals of society. Women wanted a larger role but were smart enough to realize that they needed to work toward it with baby steps. They couldn't just jump into the political realm, instead they could enter it but only by remaining lady like. -- Kellye<br />
<br />
Marie Howe's essay on anti-suffrage was unlike anything I had ever read before. Her beleives or arguments were unbeleivable. She was totally unsupportive of the female gender, and shot down women, and really herself. She essentially calls women dumb, when she says, "women cannot understand politics." Well, why can't they, thats what education is for(102). Also she does not care about fact, instead she wants proof(103). Well aren't facts the samething as proof? Her whole essay makes me wonder what kind of childhood she had, because it was kind of angering to read how she thought women were just suppose to look up to their husbands and remain the little submissive women always, and have no role to play other than the house wife. Her own arguments have no proof and really just sound dumb.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Michelle, I am guessing you did not realize that the article by Howe was satirical, your reaction to the article really shows how effective a weapon satire was in this instance. I think this shows that Howe did an excellent job explaining her point and in pointing out the fundamental flaws & hypocrisy in the arguments of the anti-suffragists, in a comical way. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
<br />
Haynes recollection of the protest at Lafayette does an excellent job of exploring the feelings of frustration the suffragists were feeling at the time. As you read you begin to see how these women were continually being misled and disrespected by powerful men who held the key to what they had been working so hard to achieve for decades. They were so close to achieving their goals only to have them slip out of grasp time and time again, the tension and angst these women are feeling becomes palpable as you read. I am surprised more of the protests did not turn violent --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech given by Duniway really exemplifies how powerful the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle class ideals of womanhood really were. Here is a woman who is clearly as independent and career minded as any man yet she still works to quell any fears the nation might have. She reassures them that politics won't corrupt the women and that women won't neglect their household duties. She was smart to swallow her pride in this instance, she knew how to get what she wanted. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read that Jane Adams endorsed Theodore Roosevelt…. He is not someone that stands out in my mind as a proponent of gender equality. I was equally as surprised by his public letter thanking Jane Adams and supporting the women’s movement. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Why did women’s organizations, such as the League of Women Voters keep the idea of “the nonpartisan woman” alive if it was hurting the movement and allowing women to be seen as less dedicated or uninterested in politics? – Cat Debelius <br />
<br />
I found “Front Door Lobbying” for Suffrage to be extremely ironic. Perhaps this was there tactic, to up play the social stigma of womanhood in order to get what they want, but the Directions and Don’ts List for the lobbying suffragist read just like a Cosmo magazine. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in Abigail Scott Duniway's speech that she tries to point out that the suffrage movement was not in "a spirit of warfare between the sexes" but in the "spirit of harmony and inter-dependence between men and women" (96). I think it is interesting that she goes on to explain how much women "like" men, was she trying to show that all women in the suffrage movement were not hard-core man hating feminists? Did feminist's have that image of man haters at that time?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading Marie Jenny Howe in her "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue". I was a little confused at one point because she says in one sentence that her argument against suffrage was that women would not use it but then in the next sentence says that if they were enfranchised they would spend all their time at the polls and neglect their family. Ok so which is it?? How can she not go to the polls but at the same time spend all her time there? Her whole argument makes absolutely no sense to me.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I was also a little confused at first when I read "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue," but after going back I realized that that was the point of the whole thing--to be confusing. I think that Howe does an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistencies and ridiculous nature of the arguments of the "antis." She points out that the central flaw of the antis involves the fact that they use two contradicting arguments to support their claims. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about "Open-Air Meetings" by Florence Luscomb. The meetings reminded me more of a potluck type ordeal than a way of gaining votes and getting a serious point across. Also, when Florence talks about a successful "summer of campaigning" I thought to myself wow have times changed. I can't imagine Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain going out to any large open outdoors space for their campaign. It sounds like their open air meetings were more for an entertainment purpose. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found the the "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" by Marie Jenny Howe to be incredibly frustrating to read. The quote "If women vote, what will become of men? They will all slink off drunk and disorderly. We antis understand men" Really?? Did someone actually write that? "What makes a husband faithful and loving? The ballot and the monopoly of that privledge." Again, really!? I'm not sure I need to say more. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought "Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail" was particularily interesting by showing the reaction to radical female behavior. By being merely showing an active, aggressive tactic Alice Paul was labeled as manic and psychopathic by the standards of the day. This extreme blindness in the doctors ability to understand Paul's actions reminded me of the categorization of homosexuality as a psychological disorder until the early 1970s. The thought of women's rights was so foreign to some men such as Doctor White makes the progress women did make in this era seem exponential. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Like Jessica, I really enjoyed Duniway's speech. She really brings up an interesting point about men illogically mistrusting women with the right to vote. Going back to all that we have been studying with the cult of domesticity and such an applying it to the ideas of this speech, women are ultimately good and sincere. Men trust the future of the nation, their children, in their hands. Why then do men deny women the right to vote? --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I thought "Open Air Suffrage" was interesting. Though not a novel idea, bringing together many people for one cause out in public is a great way to get people to notice. Yet I think I agree with Rose when seh points out that it seems like these meetings weren't all that serious but more like a friendly gathering. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
It's interesting how women are said to have "feminized" politics in the Gustafson essay. The New York Times thought the effect of women on politics was apparently to introduce decorum, manners, and non-smoking. This seems connected to other instances in which feminists of the time embrace arguments that today we might consider anti-feminist, for example, women arguing they can moralize politics because women are inherently more moral. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
Elizabeth asks about "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" whether the president thought he could prevent protest by meeting with the women's delegations. It seems like it was probably a much better option for Wilson than ignoring the groups, which might have further inflamed them; however, I'd be interested to know how much it would have cost Wilson politically to make a concession to the delegations on when or how he would force a vote, and whether or not their resort to "militant" tactics hurt him worse than an early concession would have. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I asked myself the same question Ashley asked above about why African American men joined the progressive party even though they didn't believe in giving them a vote. I think that it's because they figured that out of all the other groups the Progressive party would grant them a vote faster than any of the other choices out there. Or there was probably less animosity towards them than other groups maybe. - Emely Amaya</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_6_Questions/Comments328--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-21T13:17:21Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found Jane Addams's view that women needed to be involved in the political parties since organizations for public good founded by a charismatic individual usually died after their departure to be interesting. Her belief that political parties produced more long lasting and stable change through their unification of the states and the nation was what interested me about her view, especially given today's political climate. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that there existed Negro women who belonged to the Democratic party since it was the party that had recently worked for their enslavement and did not really support woman's rights at the time. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I found Leonara O'Reilly's "A Labor Organizer Speaks Out for Suffrage" to be a very good argument, but I failed to see how it was different from all of the other arguments that Congress probably had already heard that talked about how women's suffrage was the right thing to do and failed to speak about how women's suffrage was in the Congressmen's best interests. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the personal writings by the various working women. All were so informative and individual tone helped to understand the kind of labor, their general treatment, and their personal feelings about the job: gratitude, vulnerability. All these jobs were considered women's work and all were poorly (payed even compared to cheap male labor), demeaning in some way, and offered either high health hazards or demanded long hours. I found Agnes Nestor particularly inspiring, that she worked from unskilled glove maker to union leader (being part of that small 2.2%) and lobbyist for women's work rights. ~Jackie R.<br />
<br />
The speech delivered by Abigail Scott Duniway (printed in Modern American Women), I thought was very interesting. She brings up a very good question, if women were sincere in their belief that men considered women’s opinions and kept their promises to women, then why would men not also feel safe in allowing women the right to vote? Her speech continues, to discuss how men and women were created equally as halves and without the consideration of both, there can never be a whole. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
There were many arguments both for and against women’s suffrage. Many of these arguments are outlined, in a satirical manner, by Marie Jenny Howe in “An Anti-Suffrage Monologue.” Throughout the monologue, she compares two opposite and extreme arguments to point out how ridiculous an extreme belief can be. One of her arguments can almost be applied to Duniway’s argument. Howe states that, “If the women were enfranchised they would vote exactly as their husbands do and only double the existing vote. Do you like that argument? If not, take this one. If the Women were enfranchised they would vote against their own husbands, thus creating dissension, family quarrels, and divorce,” (102). If men and women truly are two halves of a whole, as Duniway suggests, then the first statement would most certainly be true. If the second statement is taken as true and the votes of men and women cancel each other out and create conflict, then wouldn’t the same be true if voting were left to only men as well? If conflicting votes led to quarrel and instability within a family, then wouldn’t conflicting votes among men result in quarrel and instability in society? Looking at both of these extremes as Howe does throughout the monologue, leads one to realize that a more moderate view would be more functional and practical. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it intriguing in the article by Melanie Gustafon, that even though the progressive party did not accept African American men, there were still some African American men that supported the party. My guess is they saw the party as being 'progressive' and would be the best party to, hopefully, eventually carry their own political desires. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It was a nice change of pace to read what a woman against suffrage had to say about suffrage. I found her points intriguing, but I also wondered why facts were not proof... facts are usually there to prove one point or another. The article about Alice Paul and the conditions under which the prisoners were kept were horrible! No fresh air, the sweeping of dust into the cells, and feeding them basically raw pork is just horrible. Did this happen at most prisons? Does it still happen? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the"Partisan Women in the Progressive Era" by Melanie Gustafson very interesting. I didn't know that the idea of partisan vs. non-partisan was actually a gendered idea, nor had I thought about the idea that women's auxiliaries could have been seen as women's lack of dedication to the political arena (pg 250). However, one of the points she makes that stood out to me the most was the fact that women suffragists, specifically, Ida HUsted Harper, felt that women's involvement in partisan activities was actually damaging to the suffrage movement. My line of thinking would say that the involvement in the partisan groups would actually help the movement since it would show the dedication that women had to politics that supposedly the women's auxiliaries did not. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" it is mentioned that after the Senate and President remained silent on the issue of women's suffrage they announced their intention to hold a (peaceful) demonstration yet, when President Wilson heard this, he immediately said he would accept and talk to a delegation of women. I was wondering if he decided to talk to the women because he was afraid that they would meet together and gain support instead of quieting down if the bill didn't pass? And if this was his hope, how could he have expected the women who wanted the vote so badly to simply back down? In other words, did he talk with them with the hope of preventing the very demonstration that they had despite (or maybe because) of this meeting?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Yet again I found the readings in Modern American Women absolutely fascinating! I enjoyed reading how many different ways the suffrage movement was promoted and with what ideas, as well with ideas that the anti-suffragists would use (although that came through a satire). Perhaps one of my favorites of these readings was the first one, "A Western Suffragist Talks to her Eastern Sisters" by Abigail Scott Duniway. It said in the introduction that the East coast suffragists saw her as more radical than they wished to be but I don't understand what was so radical about the ideas expressed in the piece we read (this may simply be due to the time period difference). I would have thought that her arguments that the movement was not a war between the genders but a movement for interdependence and that women did not want to remove men from their rights or limit them, but simply wanted to gain the ability to chose their own rights would have been comforting to those men who felt that the movement was a threat to their power. The "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" as also very interesting, at the same time irritating because I am aware that there were women who did actually hold these beliefs. However I do wonder if they would have phrased them in this way or it the arguments were exaggerated in this piece due to its satirical nature. Lastly, I also found the rules contained in "Front Door Lobbying' for Suffrage' by Maud Wood Park to be extremely interesting because it demonstrates the desire of women to gain suffrage while still being viewed as lady-like and proper. I found every single one of these readings interesting but it was those three that stood out to me the most.-Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found Marie Jenny Howe's An Anti-Suffrage Monologue very interesting. Her 5th anti-suffrage couplet I found to be very funny and some what accurate. She stated "women can not band together. They are incapable of organization. No two women can even be friends. Women are cats." The fact that I am a girl I really see this. Throughout our lives we deal with our friends stabbing us in the back and someone gossiping about the other. Especially as I have gotten older women have become a lot more brutal. I do find this to be an issue in social settings and political settings. However since there was and is still a belief, why do women accomplish so much when its more then one person fighting for the same goal? Is it because we are still male dominated and we have them to regulate women's organizations? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if I agree with Amanda's sentiment of "funny" when referring to Howe's "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue." In one passage she states, "Enfranchisement is what makes man man. Disfranchisement is what makes woman woman. If women were enfranchised every man would be just like every woman and every woman would be just like every man. There would be no difference between them. and don't you think this would rob life of just a little of its poetry and romance?" What romance novel was this lady reading! She also goes on to characterize the women that participate in the suffrage movement by saying, "Observe their inability, their mental disability, their spiritual instability and general debility!" Are these the characteristics of only the women seeking their rights or of all women? It appears that this women can make a claim to the characteristics depicted in Amanda's post because she has obviously exhibited this behavior in her writing. I think the "Antis" were afraid of change;I would guess they were quite comfortable within the sanctuary of their homes, and the thought of operating outside the domestic sphere was intimidating.--LisaM <br />
<br />
In the Abigail Scott Duniway piece she made a point that I believe is dead on. "She said A home w/o a man in it is only half a home. A government w/o a women is only half a government. A man w/o a women is only one-half of a pair... a women w/o a man is like the other half..." What I don't understand is how men of this time period don't understand that if they did not have women in the home there wouldn't be a home. Everything she does for him wouldn't get done, and god forbid he does anything for himself when he gets home. Relating this document to Howe, she says women are there to wash the dishes and if the mistress of the house doesn't do it she hires someone. A man washing the dishes would be "blasphemy." Even before the 1900s I find it funny that men don't realize women do dictate their lives, women were influencing their husbands political activity. Women have a way of manipulating men to think they had the brilliant idea when really it was the women's decision all along. So in reality if women just stopped standing by their men then a large a majority of the American male population would probably be helpless. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I agree with you to an extent, Amanda. You're right when you say that women influenced their husbands' political activity, but if you think about the reasons men were afraid to let women vote, one of them dealt with the fear that women would vote exactly like their husbands and without their own agenda. In reality, these women wanted the vote so that they could help themselves. I don't think most of them wanted to vote the same way as the men in their lives did. But your right; women did have (and still do) have a major impact on the way men acted politically. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, and I was really struck by the comment "A home without a man in it is only half a home. A government without a woman is only half a government..." But I think the fact that men didn't really understand demonstrates the double standard at that time. It seems that they thought that yes, a home without a man is only half a home, but they only thought that women should stay in their "domestic sphere" and should not enter the public sphere. The double standard is that men have to be in the home or it would only be half of a home, but women's place is only in the home. In this same article, I was also struck by her comments on the "evolution" of homemaking and her discussion of how more was being done in factories. She also discusses how more girls will work more in the factories through this process of evolution. I thought that these comments were a little brave, because isn't that what men were fearing? That women would leave the home and enter the workforce? But then, she reconciles it a little by saying that the younger girls will go to work so that the mothers can stay home... --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree with amanda also to an extend on Duniway's qoute. And to an extent I mean I agree with the qoute based on the time in which it was said, because you have to remember that specific time period. It is true for that time period that a house with out a man was only half a home, and half a government and so on. The home is where the women were, but financially the man for the most part was the supporter, or head of house hold. So yes with out a women being in the house a man would not know what to do. However in today's world I think it is interesting that society has evolved to where now either sex can be independent, and not really needing to depend on the other sex for whatever. Therefore her qoute had a good meaning at the time.<br />
--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also agree with Amanda and Kelly. These women wanted the vote so that they could help change their own lives. They were already able to influence their men, so why would they vote they way their husbands did. Many of these women probably already had an influence on who their husbands were voting for. Changing it so that they could vote only insured that they could better fix the problems faced in their town. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In MP the Inez Haynes piece I found to be extremely inspiring. These women speak to two senators and they honestly tell these women your bill is not coming up today. Then you have Wilson saying I am in sympathy with you, a nice little white lie and the suffragists saying ha I will believe it when I see it. I really like this piece because they weren't naive about what was really going on. But what really gets me is that these two senators did not lie to the women they were honestly like no not happening, then you have the President pretty much lying. I find that comical because it really shows who Wilson really is. But my question is why would he lie to these women? I don't understand how he could not think this was not an important issue and that when its time for re-election his presidency is in their hands. So my question is why would he lie to these women? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading Florence Luscomb's piece, "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," I couldn't help but be impressed by the lengths these suffragettes went to in order to have their voices heard. The numbers she gave at the end, "We have spoken to 24,900 people ... we gave held 97 meetings ... and have obtained over 2000 signatures" is absolutely incredible. When studying the Suffrage movement, you never think of the extremes that some women went to and Luscomb and her colleague surely went above and beyond to get their opinions all over Massachusetts. I also liked her comment about taking the roof away from a female speaker and she immediately becomes a raving lunatic. If you think about it, the perception was true, especially since it went against the good old Sphere of Domesticity. Oh, and my apologies for using the word "suffragette." Blame Mary Poppins. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Like Kelly I found "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," of great interest. Women suffrage groups obviously realized that to be heard they required a larger voice from the population of women. It is easy for government officials to dismiss a handful of suffrage organizers as fanatical, but a large group of women is a force to be reckoned with. The tactic of conducting open-air meetings allowed the suffrage representatives access to a segment of the women's population that they were not likely to see in any organization meeting.--LisaM <br />
<br />
I really liked Maud Wood Park's "'Front Door Lobbying' For Suffrage." I thought the list of rules that were drafted were a great representation of how women tried to still be seen as moral and proper but still be able to voice their opinions for their cause. My favorite line, however, was the last section where Maud Wood Park discusses her favorite report which said "He said, 'I'm with you; I'm for it, I'm going to vote for it. Now don't bother me,' all in one breath." There must have been a large number of these amusing reports because I'm sure the men they were lobbying to enjoyed their visits. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly. The list of rules really demonstrated how it was good to be involved in politics but yet at the same time still follow the ideals of society. Women wanted a larger role but were smart enough to realize that they needed to work toward it with baby steps. They couldn't just jump into the political realm, instead they could enter it but only by remaining lady like. -- Kellye<br />
<br />
Marie Howe's essay on anti-suffrage was unlike anything I had ever read before. Her beleives or arguments were unbeleivable. She was totally unsupportive of the female gender, and shot down women, and really herself. She essentially calls women dumb, when she says, "women cannot understand politics." Well, why can't they, thats what education is for(102). Also she does not care about fact, instead she wants proof(103). Well aren't facts the samething as proof? Her whole essay makes me wonder what kind of childhood she had, because it was kind of angering to read how she thought women were just suppose to look up to their husbands and remain the little submissive women always, and have no role to play other than the house wife. Her own arguments have no proof and really just sound dumb.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Michelle, I am guessing you did not realize that the article by Howe was satirical, your reaction to the article really shows how effective a weapon satire was in this instance. I think this shows that Howe did an excellent job explaining her point and in pointing out the fundamental flaws & hypocrisy in the arguments of the anti-suffragists, in a comical way. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
<br />
Haynes recollection of the protest at Lafayette does an excellent job of exploring the feelings of frustration the suffragists were feeling at the time. As you read you begin to see how these women were continually being misled and disrespected by powerful men who held the key to what they had been working so hard to achieve for decades. They were so close to achieving their goals only to have them slip out of grasp time and time again, the tension and angst these women are feeling becomes palpable as you read. I am surprised more of the protests did not turn violent --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech given by Duniway really exemplifies how powerful the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle class ideals of womanhood really were. Here is a woman who is clearly as independent and career minded as any man yet she still works to quell any fears the nation might have. She reassures them that politics won't corrupt the women and that women won't neglect their household duties. She was smart to swallow her pride in this instance, she knew how to get what she wanted. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read that Jane Adams endorsed Theodore Roosevelt…. He is not someone that stands out in my mind as a proponent of gender equality. I was equally as surprised by his public letter thanking Jane Adams and supporting the women’s movement. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Why did women’s organizations, such as the League of Women Voters keep the idea of “the nonpartisan woman” alive if it was hurting the movement and allowing women to be seen as less dedicated or uninterested in politics? – Cat Debelius <br />
<br />
I found “Front Door Lobbying” for Suffrage to be extremely ironic. Perhaps this was there tactic, to up play the social stigma of womanhood in order to get what they want, but the Directions and Don’ts List for the lobbying suffragist read just like a Cosmo magazine. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in Abigail Scott Duniway's speech that she tries to point out that the suffrage movement was not in "a spirit of warfare between the sexes" but in the "spirit of harmony and inter-dependence between men and women" (96). I think it is interesting that she goes on to explain how much women "like" men, was she trying to show that all women in the suffrage movement were not hard-core man hating feminists? Did feminist's have that image of man haters at that time?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading Marie Jenny Howe in her "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue". I was a little confused at one point because she says in one sentence that her argument against suffrage was that women would not use it but then in the next sentence says that if they were enfranchised they would spend all their time at the polls and neglect their family. Ok so which is it?? How can she not go to the polls but at the same time spend all her time there? Her whole argument makes absolutely no sense to me.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I was also a little confused at first when I read "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue," but after going back I realized that that was the point of the whole thing--to be confusing. I think that Howe does an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistencies and ridiculous nature of the arguments of the "antis." She points out that the central flaw of the antis involves the fact that they use two contradicting arguments to support their claims. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about "Open-Air Meetings" by Florence Luscomb. The meetings reminded me more of a potluck type ordeal than a way of gaining votes and getting a serious point across. Also, when Florence talks about a successful "summer of campaigning" I thought to myself wow have times changed. I can't imagine Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain going out to any large open outdoors space for their campaign. It sounds like their open air meetings were more for an entertainment purpose. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found the the "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" by Marie Jenny Howe to be incredibly frustrating to read. The quote "If women vote, what will become of men? They will all slink off drunk and disorderly. We antis understand men" Really?? Did someone actually write that? "What makes a husband faithful and loving? The ballot and the monopoly of that privledge." Again, really!? I'm not sure I need to say more. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought "Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail" was particularily interesting by showing the reaction to radical female behavior. By being merely showing an active, aggressive tactic Alice Paul was labeled as manic and psychopathic by the standards of the day. This extreme blindness in the doctors ability to understand Paul's actions reminded me of the categorization of homosexuality as a psychological disorder until the early 1970s. The thought of women's rights was so foreign to some men such as Doctor White makes the progress women did make in this era seem exponential. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Like Jessica, I really enjoyed Duniway's speech. She really brings up an interesting point about men illogically mistrusting women with the right to vote. Going back to all that we have been studying with the cult of domesticity and such an applying it to the ideas of this speech, women are ultimately good and sincere. Men trust the future of the nation, their children, in their hands. Why then do men deny women the right to vote? --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I thought "Open Air Suffrage" was interesting. Though not a novel idea, bringing together many people for one cause out in public is a great way to get people to notice. Yet I think I agree with Rose when seh points out that it seems like these meetings weren't all that serious but more like a friendly gathering. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
It's interesting how women are said to have "feminized" politics in the Gustafson essay. The New York Times thought the effect of women on politics was apparently to introduce decorum, manners, and non-smoking. This seems connected to other instances in which feminists of the time embrace arguments that today we might consider anti-feminist, for example, women arguing they can moralize politics because women are inherently more moral. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
Elizabeth asks about "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" whether the president thought he could prevent protest by meeting with the women's delegations. It seems like it was probably a much better option for Wilson than ignoring the groups, which might have further inflamed them; however, I'd be interested to know how much it would have cost Wilson politically to make a concession to the delegations on when or how he would force a vote, and whether or not their resort to "militant" tactics hurt him worse than an early concession would have. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I asked myself the same question Ashley asked above about why African American men joined the progressive party even though they didn't believe in giving them a vote. I think that it's because they figured that out of all the other groups the Progressive party would grant them a vote faster than any of the other choices out there. Or there was probably less animosity towards them than other groups maybe.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments328--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-02-07T07:00:52Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>While reading the primary source documents of the ''Modern American Women'' I found it a bit disconcerting that the women were so similar to the women of today. It is kind of a shame that history repeats itself so fully. I suppose it is evidence that change is gradual and more of an evolution. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Although it was an interesting study, Linda Gordon's study "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945" came very close to simply listing the differences between the two races of activists. Her conclusions did not seem to have a lot of depth. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Justin Mattos on his comment about Linda Gordon's essay. I too felt that that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion. However, I do believe to have a better sense of what was happening, it is good to know that just because welfare groups existed, they didn't all go after the same things. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It does seem like she just listed the differences between the two groups of reformers, however once I saw the tables in the back I was impressed. Until I saw those tables it hadnt sunk in that Gordon actually went back and found real women activist and studied them. Maybe I am just not used to studying history but I thought that was pretty cool. After i saw those tables with the lists of actual women activists I looked at the reading in a whole different light. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I also observed in the primary source documents of ''Modern American Women'' that the stereotypes of women have only changed slightly today. Women are still thought to be more fragile than men, and there is still a need to protect them from harm. It has only been within the last decade that the idea of a working women has gained mainstream acceptance. I wonder if this observation stems from the fact that the primary source documents that I read were from the perspective of educated women. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Chapter 14 of Unequal Sisters deals with the differences in welfare activism between African American and white women. Gordon points out that white women had more of an ability to work politically and seek donations from those who would be more able to help (i.e. congressional representatives or other political figures) while the African American women focused their activities around the community and church. She continues, to point out that white women activists focused more on charity and relief while black women sought to provide for more universal needs such as education and health. If there were poor or unfortunate people in both groups (black and white), why is it that white women activists focused on particular people while black women activists focused on reform that is more general? Did societal norms during this time make it more inappropriate to provide individual charity to black women? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read “Speaking out Against Lynching” by Ida B. Wells. She discusses the harsh punishments that African Americans were subjected to due to the stereotypes that white men and women held. On p age 15 she states, “With the Southern white man, any misalliance existing between a white woman and a colored man is a sufficient foundation for the charge of rape. The southern white man says that it is impossible for a voluntary alliance to exist between a white woman and a colored man, and therefore, the fact of an alliance is a proof of force.” Given this, would it also be considered rape if it were a black woman and a white man? Moreover, who would be at fault, would it be the man forcing himself onto the woman, or the woman because she is black? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading by Wells was interesting. She only discusses the accusations that black men were raping white women. She never mentions black women being raped. Was it just something that they didn't talk about or something that they just took as a fact of life during those times? I thought it interesting that discussing how black men were falsely accused of rape and lynched even when it was well known at the time that it was a concentual relationship, but then went on to say that even when the white man left for war he left the white women to be protected by the black men. So why all of a sudden is the lynching of black men on the rise? Was it because now they were free and more like competition to the whites than they had been before?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth, I do think that to some extent the lynching of black was due to competition, but also due to fear. Before the African Americans were free, white men had never considered them to be a threat. When they left home they trusted that they would return with their home and family in the same state. It never crossed their minds that it would be possible for their family to be in danger because there had never been any reason to mistrust. Wells states on page 15 that "the world has accepted the story that the Negro is a monster which the Southern white man has painted him." With this image that is created, when the African Americans are free, the white men thus see it as the release of "a monster" and they no longer feel safe and trustworthy as they did before, when "the monster" was contained. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
To add on to the discussion so far about the "speaking out against lynching" i also agree that to a certain extent accusing black men of rape was a form of taking blacks out of the workforce competition. As one part of the article says, whites started looking upong blacks as a threat once they saw that they were starting to become educated and acquire money. To me, this is further emphasized by the fact that it wasn't until several generations that whites started making these great rape accusiations against blacks that raises a red flag in my mind as to the purpose of these accusations. - Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
I also found the reading on Wells interesting. In response to Mary Beth's point about the black women not officially being raped I believe it has some background in the idea that black women were naturally more passionate (less pure) than white women and therefore couldn't be raped because they would still be willing to have that relationship. I also agree with Jessica in that i think the lynching increased because there was a greater amount of fear now about the black community being free and the white community felt the need to use fear to control them. Likewise, in the South (where lynching was common) it might have been a way for the white community to maintain control and limit the amount of change that took place despite slavery being over. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to Jessica's question, I think that white women were able to focus more on specific groups, because unlike black women, white women just had to focus on issues of sexual inequality whereas black women had the issues of sexual AND racial inequality going against them, as well as establishing themselves in a newly free world. Chapter 14 of Unequal Sister does highlight that the two major focus point for black women groups was education and health care. These were issues that obviously had to be taken care of after slavery because the whites weren't going to provide it fully for them (yes, a lot of groups DID help) but they knew they had to rely on themselves(as the article shows) to fully develop and not remain stagnant and looked down upon by the white community.- Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
I also found in interesting in Gordon's piece on Welfare that she notes one specific difference. She states that the white groups that were looking for reform were looking at people "other" than themselves. They saw themselves as helping people less fortunate than themselves but still with a "moral" aspect between who was the "worthy and the unworthy poor" (pg 225). In contrast the black groups focused on middle class and poor blacks. The black groups also focused more on education and health instead of charitys like the whites. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
After reading ''Modern American Women'' I do agree with my classmates on how the perception of women has not changed drastically. It is now socially acceptable for a women to go off into the business world and make a name for herself. Even jobs such a teacher and a nurse that were considered women's work are still dominated today by women. Since I am an education major I go into a lot of elementary schools and the staff is female dominated. I think it is wrong that today where anyone can be anything, people still stereotype jobs and classify things as mens work or females work. This eve goes beyond the adults of the nation. We start these stereotypes early in children's lives. I have always remembered when I was younger and would go to Mc Donalds they would ask "would you like a girl toy or a boy toy?" Sometimes yeah I wanted the princess toy but other times I also wanted the hot wheels car. It is so disturbing to know that we are still dealing with this issue. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading the article on Women's welfare activism,I too felt that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion.However on the second page of the article, it talks about the differences of how white and black women were raising money. It says oh of course women raise money but they were also so busy attending White House conferences and correspondence with Supreme Court Justices and the black women it just states they organized bake sales, rummage sales and church dinners. I guess after reading this my biggest pet peeve is that yes white women did have more power in society. However, its not like there were no black women doing the same things. I just don't like how these women are talked down, for what they had their time was just as well spent as a white women. This really just made me feel that white women were more interested in their social lives or making them selves look better and black women worked as a team, they worked for the well being of everyone. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
While reading Chapter 14, I began to think about the possibly that the difference between the perspective of white women and black women on the poor that they helped was a matter of progression or evolution. As the black women received more power, it seemed that they became more like the white women and began to explicitly look down on the poorer black social classes. I saw this occurrence when the author talked about the views of the black poor by educated black women being the same as white women.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
While reading MAW, I came across an exert from Ida B. Wells, which in truth makes sense, but I didn't expect to see exert from something I have read in the past. There piece of the article here touched me almost as much as it touched me then. The black women were not treated equally in any light, and were not considered to be able to be 'raped' because they were not pure and pious like the white women. Part of that comes through in the last paragraph of the exert. It makes me mad to think that people once thought like this, but what is even more scary is some people still do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
After reading a bit more in the Modern American Women book, I find myself getting emotionally involved with the information presented. I felt anger towards the father who was treating his daughter like a sack of trash in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." I felt heartbroke when he slapped her because she was leaving. At the same time I know this happened a lot towards women... and it breaks my heart to know what some women had to go through. I've been lucky to have a father who was supportive in everything I chose and only opposed my decisions when they were bad decisions. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley. I also felt angry towards the father in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." But what I also thought was sad and telling from this piece was how the mother quietly gave the money to the daughter so that she could get away and start over fresh. We all know that parents want a better life for their children than they had themselves. I think that this is a perfect example of a mother wanting her daughter to have a better life than she herself had--almost as though she is hoping that she can live vicariously through her daughter's freedom. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Ashley since I was also touched by some of the readings in Modern American Women. I also was upset at the way the young girl was treated by her father in "An Immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World". I always knew parents treated their daughters in such a harsh way at times, but it was very hard to see how harshly she was treated. I have to say if I was in her position I also would have left home. Though I did enjoy how she points out that she got in so much trouble for taking the girls word that they would get the 2 cents she owed when she says her dad had given away a lot more merchandise without any payment at all. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Bertha Palmer's speech at the opening of the Women's Building was so progressive except for the part where she says: "It willing acknowledges that the industries, arts, and commerce of the world have been for centuries in the hands of men who have carefully trained themselves for the responsibilities devolving upon them, and who have, consequently, without question, contributed vastly more than women to the valuable thought, research, invention, science, art and literature, which have become the rich heritage of the human race." Does she actually believe this? Or is she catering to what the public will most except in order to support her movement? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter) story very interesting as far as the existance of two worlds (old/new) for young immigrant women. I feel like today American woman still struggle with existing in between the Old and the New world. It is amazing how sometimes problems never get solved they just evolve. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Mary Harris seemed incredible against the predominant constructs of gender and the entire system of change in America. Clearly she has struggled greatly in her lifetime and criticized women's methods of change... yet she seems to offer now feasibly alternative route. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
The difference between the white activism and the black activism discussed in Unequal Sisters was not very surprising to me. I figured that since black women were also fighting for civil rights their fight would be stronger. They seemed to have the largest networks of people working toward the cause. They held fundraising fuctions to help raise the money needed to fund their programs. It is easy to understand how these women bonded in the way that they did. The bond that these women grew amongst themselves was largely due to the having to rely on eachother so much. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye about how it wasn't surprising about the differences between black and white activism. The black women had so much more to fight for, and not only that but how education was their most important area of activism instead of voting like for the white women.-- Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
I was impressed with the vast number of organizations that were formed as a result of the fundraising efforts of activist women. I was even more shocked to find the cost of maintaining these organizations and that these women were able to raise the money needed. ---Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to learn how educated these women were. I knew some women were getting degrees but not this many and not African Americans. I also thought it was interesting to see how important, influential, or rich the parents of these women were even the African American women had wealthy parents. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
Another thing I found intersting was the view these women had about the role of women. I would have thought that since these women were out in the work force trying to bring about change they would have supported other women in the work place but they don't. It also was a surprise to learn about how many of the women were single, divorced, widowed, married, or living with a "partner." The interacting and sense of community created amoung these women is amazing. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
It surprises me that black women started to develop social classes just as the white women. Black women who started to gain power, like the power whites had, these black women started to treat the poor and less fortunate black women like a low class. This really bothers me because after everything these women have been through you would except them to try to help each other out, but instead they forget about them and treat them as peasants. What my question is, are these higher powered black women doing this because they are trying to be whiter? Do they care more about upper class societies views on them? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I was also surprised on how the black women started a social class just like the white women, but to try and answer your question(s) Amanda, I don't think they were trying to be whiter but maybe instead were so tired of the white social class they were instead competing now against them on what race was better as well as trying to gain the much wanted respect from white society they have wanted for so long. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of what both Amanda and Michelle said, I think we have to keep in mind that there was a social ideal that all women had to try to live up to. The domestic of separate spheres was still alive and well and I feel like some black women felt that they had to adhere to that doctrine in order to make some headway in the world. Now, I'm not saying that's how all black women felt or acted, but I'm sure it played some sort of part. But what upsets me the most, and it's talked about in Anna Cooper's piece, "Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race," is that black women were subjected to the bottom of the social hierarchy on two accounts: race AND gender. No matter which way they tried to advance, they always had someone trying to hold them back. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Cat and the Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter)piece. Women are stuck dealing with the old and the new world. The problem with todays society is that only some people truly believe in the modern day women however, a good amount of people are so stuck in the past. Its not fair how women have to fight for so much when people need to stop living in the past. --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Along with many other posts about the emotional involvement MAW commands of its readers, I found that "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control" opened my eyes to the desperate and difficult position of being a women with no control over her own body. Still today there are few practical birth control methods for the women that need it most. The pill and other hormonal methods are not cheap and condoms primarily place responsiblity on the male partner. It was heart-breaking to hear "a baby born dead, great relief - the death of an older child, sorrow but again relief" (86) as it must have been for Sanger. Sanger was not on a crusade to put a stop to child birth or to change the understanding that sex was for procreation, but rather to bring peace of mind to the women that so desperatly needed it. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Meredith's statements about birth control and the fact that a woman had no control over her own body. Even today, although many forms of birth control are much more readily available to prevent pregnancy, women still do not have complete control over their bodies due to the regulation of abortion under Roe v. Wade. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
<br />
I also was very touched by "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control". I knew that women had been attempting ways to control the number of children they had for a very long time but I had no idea that someone could self induce an abortion (especially since i really don't know how that works). I also found it so shocking that even married women didn't want to put faith in their husbands desire not to have any more children even though it would reduce the stress on his life and make paying bills easier. I would have thought they would also be glad to have less children to take care of. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to your comment Elizabeth, I'm not so sure it was the fact that they would have less children to take care of so much as the women would be in control of their own bodies and be making family altering decisions. Women were supposed to obey their husbands and if they took a stand and decided that they were going to prevent their family from increasing, then the husband would, in essence, lose a bit of power over his wife. I think that was what terrified them more than anything else. Some men actually were thrilled that their wives were looking into birth control. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
After taking History of Sexuality last semester and discussing Margaret Sanger I was not at all surprised with the "Margaret Sanger's Epihany over Birth Control." It was and still is hard to be a women when it comes to birth control. Women today are far better off than the women of Margaret Sanger's time. It is so much easier for women to obtain birth control today then ever before. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was very suprised to learn when reading Edith Eudora Ammons' piece about life as a female homesteader that women were more successful in staying with their claims by 6%. As she recalled being driven further and further into the unsettled land I can only imagine how disconnecting and daunting that ride must have been. The Ammons sister's hard work is clear proof of a way in which American women were able to take a different route and break the social expectations. After reading about the women who went west with their husbands or in order to find a husband in the past weeks, it was very uplifting to read about the other opportunities the west had for women. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I thought "Wages for Housework" was the best essay, it made me laugh. I thought it was very interesting on how she capitalized certain sentences in order to show her frustration and to get her point across. I also thought this essay sounded very much like a modern day women and her frustration with being a house wife and how it is not looked at as being a job, because a lot more than just cleaning and cooking goes into taking care of a house and family. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In Nellie Bly's essay she says, "I had such a strong belief in the world's greeting me as I greeted it, that I refused to arm myself. I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me,..." (pg6-7) She is amazing in the fact that she was going to attempt to fly around the world and the fact that she was a women was going to make this awesome, but in this quote she seems completely oblivious to the real world, and that not everyone you meet is going to like you, aswell as thinking any man would be willing to protect her. Its like she ready to be considered equal to man by doing this great thing but yet still depend on them for protection. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Gordon's essay in US as Kellye mentions as well as I have responded to her comment above about not being suprised about the differences in white and black women activism, but my question is why could women in general, black and white just come together and be the first ones to over look race and fight the cause of womens rights together? I think if they could have done that would of had a more dominate impact in getting what and where they wanted to be.--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
was also very surprised by Edith Eudora Ammon's piece, but mainly that while they met some resistance in their journey west, they did not seem to get mistreated nearly has much as I would have expected. I would have thought that as two women going west to homestead they would have gotten scoffed at yet I don't recall this being mentioned in the recounting. Is this because it didn't happen or because they chose to ignore it?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the Unequal Sisters reading by Linda Gordon I found very interesting the concept of social motherhood among the black women's welfare reform groups. These women were mostly single and were not biological mothers yet the main issues they focused on were familial in nature. I do not necessarily think that this indicates the selfless mindset of these women, but rather points to how strongly the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle classs status quo, affected everyones' decisions during this time period. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Another point worth mentioning from Gordon's essay was how incredibly interdependent these women were on each other. Ths interdependnce born out of necessity to survive eventually evolved into a powerful social and even political network. Some of these women's groups had real political power; distributing tax money etc. However, for a woman to be truly powerful within these groups she had to have connections to a powerful man, her husband, or father usually as is the case with Brandeis and Beyer. --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech by Palmer in Modern American Women brought up an excellent point. This was the point that most of the people in power equate life for everyone to what their own life is like. So to the men in power at the time, opening the workforce up to women seemed unnatural, dangerous, and threatening. However, this was because they were thinking about their own wives and daughters entering the workforce, which neither the men or most likely the women would have wanted, seeing as they come from upper class families. However, to the less fortunate, opening the workforce ot women was essential. These women needed to work in order to survive, alot of them did not have husbands who could or would support them. I think that this is still a mistake we all make today, not just the politicians, we fail to put ourselves in other peoples' shoes. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
In reading "The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893" in Modern American Women, I found it interesting how Bertha Palmer is obviously struggling with the conflict between the idealized woman and the reality that many women face. At one point she says that it is the board's "belief that every woman, who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studios." And then a few sentences later she talks about how it is only the favored class that can live in these conditions and that the majority of women are living under much poorer conditions. In a way, it seems as though she is still holding those ideals of women, but recognizing that most women cannot live up to them. I guess I'm just wondering how that differs from the rest of the people who simply hold those ideals, and is it even any better to recognize that the majority of women can't live up to the ideals but still hold them anyways? --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In reading "Speaking Out Against Lynching" in Modern American Women, the thing that struck me most is the obvious double standard that exists between sexual relations that happen between a black man and a white woman in comparison to those that exist between a white man and a black woman. I know that I may be looking at this from a present perspective, but it just strikes me that it is considered rape for a black man to have sex with a white woman, but nothing is said when a white man has sex with a black woman (which happened very often). I think that this double standard brings up issues with both race and gender. It brings up issues with gender because it indicates that white women are incapable of consenting to sexual interactions with a black man (but men can consent to sexual relations with a black woman). And it brings up issues of race because of the differential treatment between the races, and thinking about the likeliness that black women have of being raped. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I also thought "Wages for Housework" was a clever and humorous article. Conger-Kaneko seemed to denounce traditional women use her writing style. I thought it was very interesting, though not valid in every case, that she compared women's roles to those of slaves. I would imagine this would be a very persuasive arguement to move women towards equal rights after being compared to the slaves who had been freed for decades. I cannot imagine how women seeking to stay in their tradtional roles would argue against Conger-Kaneko's points? Although I imagine they were probably not interested in reading Progressive Woman. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
After having read some of the above comments about Ida B. Wells' essay, I thought more about her argument and the social and political climate during the time of lynching. I do agree with Jessica that it was somewhat out of fear because the black men were no longer under the control of the white masters. Lynching was one of the ways they could exhibit their control over this sector of society. It obviously didn't have to do with whether black men were actually raping white women; for white men, it was about controlling that sector of society. In response to Mary Beth's comment about Wells' essay, the viewpoint of many white Southern men was not that they were raping black women. It was only their superiority over the inferior race, black women being the most inferior because they were black and women. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
The discussion about moving up by way of housework and domestic services was brought up in the readings, and I believe that it ties in very well with what we've learned about in class. You can see the same sort of thing happening with the end of the Civil War, and clerical work. Like we discussed, women took clerical positions while men were away fighting, but soon after the war ended, those who kept their jobs soon learned that their jobs had become "secretarial." Those who once had the opportunity to move up in the business world while they were clerks soon found themselves stuck in the same place since secretarial work didn't provide much opportunity to elevate. But I agree, the question is, who decides what makes a position honorable? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I've decided that Nellie Bly is my new hero. The way she stood up to her boss and threatened to go to another paper if she wasn't allowed to "travel the world in 80 days" was incredible, especially for a woman of her time. What's even more interesting is how some of the stereotypes she faced still plague women today. For one, she's "too delicate" since she's a woman and would need protection. Second, her boss was concerned she'd have too much luggage, and if you think about women today (I know I, myself, am guilty of this) they pack much more than necessary. She even said herself, "Packing that bag was the most difficult undertaking of my life." It's just interesting to see the correlation and then quite impressive to see how she overcame gender stereotypes to beat "the man" at his own game. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I loved that the excerpt about bicycle riding by Frances Willard was included in the chapter. It's simplicity had the strongest message of encouragement for women to leave behind their usual constraints and go out into the world, to take control of their lives. She points out that for too long women have been constrained by their clothing and appearance. Willard asks women to take uncomplicated modern inventions and free themselves. My favorite quote from the piece was, "They that know nothing fear nothing." (p.18) It was a phrase that offered such quiet strength for the women of that time and even to women now. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I know a few other of my classmates have commented on it, but I felt that I should also comment on the birth control article too. I was also amazed at some of the ways women tried to have abortions. I have to agree though with Kelly that birth control was a way men would lose power over women, but I don't understand why the men wanted to have so many children to try to provide for in his home. Why not use condoms or pull out? Were the men so uncaring they ignored the pain of the female they married and the hunger of their children? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
In response to Ashley W., I don't think the men of that time really thought about the pain of the female in child birth,etc. Just from researching my family, I found that my grandfathers father had 18 children from 2 different wives (the first wife died in childbirth) and birth control in that family was never an option. My grandfather is the youngest and was born in 1923. He told me that his father believed that the more children you had the better off you were because you had more people to work in the fields at harvest time and they felt you could have more livestock because there were more people to share the work. My grandfathers family was totally self sufficient and he says they barely noticed the depression because they were self sufficient. I think maybe a lot of men had the same mindset and didn't see their wives as "suffering" because it was the way they survived. That of course is a rural example I don't know if it would have been the same in the cities but I am sure it was somewhat different.~~MaryBeth C<br />
<br />
Based on chapter 14, about black and white women’s vision of welfare activism, the book states that white women mostly helped out with political work and donations. Black women were more interested in helping there community and their churches. Could this be because black women saw other people as one class level and will help anyone, while white women will help out the upper class with politics to gain more women’s rights? <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I agree with Landon about how women were successful in gaining political power, but how far did that power get you? Even today I feel like women are still seen as the only way of gaining power is by having a strong male influence in the business beside you. <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the “Modern American Women” book, the documents of Jane Addams were very interesting. Jane Addams was unsure of what she wanted to do after college. Most women just get married and have children. She wanted to figure out a way to help people especially women by restoring balance in activities that were along the traditional lines. In 1889 Addams created the Hull House; a place where she developed social services and recreational programs to help the less fortune. If Addams was another woman to break down doors for more opportunities for other women why didn’t women’s ways of work life change? Also this shows that women do not have to get married right after college. <br />
-Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
"The Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home" was an interesting perspective on the home. Instead of telling women they could do it all, she asks women to consider working together with the family and other women to help them combine work and home. It seems so different from the feminist perspective that prevails today where women can do it all: home, work, and family. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
In "Modern American Women" I found this quote "We feel therefore, obliged to state our believe that every woman who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studies." All I have to say to this is wow have times changed since this was written. Women are making it a priority to be an asset to the workforce. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read about Alice Hamilton and how she got a medical degree from the University of MIchigan. (I am biased after growing up in Ann Arbor!) I thought it was interesting to read about her train of thought as to why a medical degree. She pursued medicine not because of an interest but because she knew she could excel in it even as a woman. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found this quote powerful and couldn't not post it. "We may convince the world that ability is not a matter of sex." --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed from these reading is that these women are all they same. They all come from essentially the same place. They are women who are well educated, upper-middle class, and single or married later in life. Where are the accounts of the poorer working class women? -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
While reading "A Woman Homesteader" the only thing that kept popping into my mind was that frustrating game of Oregon Trail. After playing that for hours on end in elementary school, I understand that making the journey westward was nothing but difficult. So reading the entry by Edith was fascinating when she and her sister discussed how easy it would be to "stick it out" on a piece of land for eight months. What I'm curious about, is was it typical for these women to go out by themselves like this? I know in class we talked about men going off on their own to start a new life and help their family, but I don't recall discussing that many women going on their own, especially for financial reasons. And would fathers have been that willing to let their daughters make their own choices, especially ones of this magnitude? It seems kind of out of character in my opinion. Nonetheless, rock on to both of them for being as gutsy as they were. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
It was so sad reading in Mamie Field's article about being African-American teachers along with her sister for African-American children. They got what was barely a building, no space, no blackboard and it was in such a bad location. The part that got to me the most was when she said that the white teachers never cared whether the black children came to school or not no matter waht the reason (poverty) and the fact that since these childrens' parents hadn't gone to school themselves, sometimes they didn't understand the great importance of getting their children educated. -Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
Nellie Bly's article about wanting to be a female world travler started off as a woman trying to prove that she can do what a man can but then turns humorous when she's talking about how to her packing lightly meant stuffing everything, even her moisturizing face cream and sadly parting with her evening dress. Just wasn't really helping our case about how we CAN pack light, even if to us packing light means packing a bit more than a man. - Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
Like Kendall, I also liked the excerpt about Frances Willard riding her bike. A quote that stood out to me was, "I also wanted to help women to a wider world, for I hold that the more interests women and men have in common, in thought, in word, and deed, the happier it will be for the home." My interpretation of what Willard was saying is that it would be beneficial for everyone, both men and women, if women were allowed to experience the world outside the home the way men were allowed to. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
I thought the Jane Addams excerpt was inspirational. Even though she had no idea what she wanted to do after college, she created an organization that had such a huge impact on the community and the country. Not only did she help those who were less fortunate, but she also helped women like herself who did not want to marry and start a family immediately after college - they wanted to achieve something greater. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
Yay for birth contol!!! Reading about Mrs. Sachs case made me sad. It got me thinking how many women died this way? For some reason after reading me it hit me, women didn't just start trying abortions at the turn of the 20th century, this was a practice that I'm sure is as old as time!- Emely Amaya.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments328--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-02-07T07:00:23Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>While reading the primary source documents of the ''Modern American Women'' I found it a bit disconcerting that the women were so similar to the women of today. It is kind of a shame that history repeats itself so fully. I suppose it is evidence that change is gradual and more of an evolution. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Although it was an interesting study, Linda Gordon's study "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945" came very close to simply listing the differences between the two races of activists. Her conclusions did not seem to have a lot of depth. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Justin Mattos on his comment about Linda Gordon's essay. I too felt that that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion. However, I do believe to have a better sense of what was happening, it is good to know that just because welfare groups existed, they didn't all go after the same things. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It does seem like she just listed the differences between the two groups of reformers, however once I saw the tables in the back I was impressed. Until I saw those tables it hadnt sunk in that Gordon actually went back and found real women activist and studied them. Maybe I am just not used to studying history but I thought that was pretty cool. After i saw those tables with the lists of actual women activists I looked at the reading in a whole different light. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I also observed in the primary source documents of ''Modern American Women'' that the stereotypes of women have only changed slightly today. Women are still thought to be more fragile than men, and there is still a need to protect them from harm. It has only been within the last decade that the idea of a working women has gained mainstream acceptance. I wonder if this observation stems from the fact that the primary source documents that I read were from the perspective of educated women. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Chapter 14 of Unequal Sisters deals with the differences in welfare activism between African American and white women. Gordon points out that white women had more of an ability to work politically and seek donations from those who would be more able to help (i.e. congressional representatives or other political figures) while the African American women focused their activities around the community and church. She continues, to point out that white women activists focused more on charity and relief while black women sought to provide for more universal needs such as education and health. If there were poor or unfortunate people in both groups (black and white), why is it that white women activists focused on particular people while black women activists focused on reform that is more general? Did societal norms during this time make it more inappropriate to provide individual charity to black women? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read “Speaking out Against Lynching” by Ida B. Wells. She discusses the harsh punishments that African Americans were subjected to due to the stereotypes that white men and women held. On p age 15 she states, “With the Southern white man, any misalliance existing between a white woman and a colored man is a sufficient foundation for the charge of rape. The southern white man says that it is impossible for a voluntary alliance to exist between a white woman and a colored man, and therefore, the fact of an alliance is a proof of force.” Given this, would it also be considered rape if it were a black woman and a white man? Moreover, who would be at fault, would it be the man forcing himself onto the woman, or the woman because she is black? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading by Wells was interesting. She only discusses the accusations that black men were raping white women. She never mentions black women being raped. Was it just something that they didn't talk about or something that they just took as a fact of life during those times? I thought it interesting that discussing how black men were falsely accused of rape and lynched even when it was well known at the time that it was a concentual relationship, but then went on to say that even when the white man left for war he left the white women to be protected by the black men. So why all of a sudden is the lynching of black men on the rise? Was it because now they were free and more like competition to the whites than they had been before?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth, I do think that to some extent the lynching of black was due to competition, but also due to fear. Before the African Americans were free, white men had never considered them to be a threat. When they left home they trusted that they would return with their home and family in the same state. It never crossed their minds that it would be possible for their family to be in danger because there had never been any reason to mistrust. Wells states on page 15 that "the world has accepted the story that the Negro is a monster which the Southern white man has painted him." With this image that is created, when the African Americans are free, the white men thus see it as the release of "a monster" and they no longer feel safe and trustworthy as they did before, when "the monster" was contained. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
To add on to the discussion so far about the "speaking out against lynching" i also agree that to a certain extent accusing black men of rape was a form of taking blacks out of the workforce competition. As one part of the article says, whites started looking upong blacks as a threat once they saw that they were starting to become educated and acquire money. To me, this is further emphasized by the fact that it wasn't until several generations that whites started making these great rape accusiations against blacks that raises a red flag in my mind as to the purpose of these accusations. - Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
I also found the reading on Wells interesting. In response to Mary Beth's point about the black women not officially being raped I believe it has some background in the idea that black women were naturally more passionate (less pure) than white women and therefore couldn't be raped because they would still be willing to have that relationship. I also agree with Jessica in that i think the lynching increased because there was a greater amount of fear now about the black community being free and the white community felt the need to use fear to control them. Likewise, in the South (where lynching was common) it might have been a way for the white community to maintain control and limit the amount of change that took place despite slavery being over. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to Jessica's question, I think that white women were able to focus more on specific groups, because unlike black women, white women just had to focus on issues of sexual inequality whereas black women had the issues of sexual AND racial inequality going against them, as well as establishing themselves in a newly free world. Chapter 14 of Unequal Sister does highlight that the two major focus point for black women groups was education and health care. These were issues that obviously had to be taken care of after slavery because the whites weren't going to provide it fully for them (yes, a lot of groups DID help) but they knew they had to rely on themselves(as the article shows) to fully develop and not remain stagnant and looked down upon by the white community.- Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
I also found in interesting in Gordon's piece on Welfare that she notes one specific difference. She states that the white groups that were looking for reform were looking at people "other" than themselves. They saw themselves as helping people less fortunate than themselves but still with a "moral" aspect between who was the "worthy and the unworthy poor" (pg 225). In contrast the black groups focused on middle class and poor blacks. The black groups also focused more on education and health instead of charitys like the whites. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
After reading ''Modern American Women'' I do agree with my classmates on how the perception of women has not changed drastically. It is now socially acceptable for a women to go off into the business world and make a name for herself. Even jobs such a teacher and a nurse that were considered women's work are still dominated today by women. Since I am an education major I go into a lot of elementary schools and the staff is female dominated. I think it is wrong that today where anyone can be anything, people still stereotype jobs and classify things as mens work or females work. This eve goes beyond the adults of the nation. We start these stereotypes early in children's lives. I have always remembered when I was younger and would go to Mc Donalds they would ask "would you like a girl toy or a boy toy?" Sometimes yeah I wanted the princess toy but other times I also wanted the hot wheels car. It is so disturbing to know that we are still dealing with this issue. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading the article on Women's welfare activism,I too felt that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion.However on the second page of the article, it talks about the differences of how white and black women were raising money. It says oh of course women raise money but they were also so busy attending White House conferences and correspondence with Supreme Court Justices and the black women it just states they organized bake sales, rummage sales and church dinners. I guess after reading this my biggest pet peeve is that yes white women did have more power in society. However, its not like there were no black women doing the same things. I just don't like how these women are talked down, for what they had their time was just as well spent as a white women. This really just made me feel that white women were more interested in their social lives or making them selves look better and black women worked as a team, they worked for the well being of everyone. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
While reading Chapter 14, I began to think about the possibly that the difference between the perspective of white women and black women on the poor that they helped was a matter of progression or evolution. As the black women received more power, it seemed that they became more like the white women and began to explicitly look down on the poorer black social classes. I saw this occurrence when the author talked about the views of the black poor by educated black women being the same as white women.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
While reading MAW, I came across an exert from Ida B. Wells, which in truth makes sense, but I didn't expect to see exert from something I have read in the past. There piece of the article here touched me almost as much as it touched me then. The black women were not treated equally in any light, and were not considered to be able to be 'raped' because they were not pure and pious like the white women. Part of that comes through in the last paragraph of the exert. It makes me mad to think that people once thought like this, but what is even more scary is some people still do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
After reading a bit more in the Modern American Women book, I find myself getting emotionally involved with the information presented. I felt anger towards the father who was treating his daughter like a sack of trash in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." I felt heartbroke when he slapped her because she was leaving. At the same time I know this happened a lot towards women... and it breaks my heart to know what some women had to go through. I've been lucky to have a father who was supportive in everything I chose and only opposed my decisions when they were bad decisions. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley. I also felt angry towards the father in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." But what I also thought was sad and telling from this piece was how the mother quietly gave the money to the daughter so that she could get away and start over fresh. We all know that parents want a better life for their children than they had themselves. I think that this is a perfect example of a mother wanting her daughter to have a better life than she herself had--almost as though she is hoping that she can live vicariously through her daughter's freedom. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Ashley since I was also touched by some of the readings in Modern American Women. I also was upset at the way the young girl was treated by her father in "An Immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World". I always knew parents treated their daughters in such a harsh way at times, but it was very hard to see how harshly she was treated. I have to say if I was in her position I also would have left home. Though I did enjoy how she points out that she got in so much trouble for taking the girls word that they would get the 2 cents she owed when she says her dad had given away a lot more merchandise without any payment at all. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Bertha Palmer's speech at the opening of the Women's Building was so progressive except for the part where she says: "It willing acknowledges that the industries, arts, and commerce of the world have been for centuries in the hands of men who have carefully trained themselves for the responsibilities devolving upon them, and who have, consequently, without question, contributed vastly more than women to the valuable thought, research, invention, science, art and literature, which have become the rich heritage of the human race." Does she actually believe this? Or is she catering to what the public will most except in order to support her movement? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter) story very interesting as far as the existance of two worlds (old/new) for young immigrant women. I feel like today American woman still struggle with existing in between the Old and the New world. It is amazing how sometimes problems never get solved they just evolve. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Mary Harris seemed incredible against the predominant constructs of gender and the entire system of change in America. Clearly she has struggled greatly in her lifetime and criticized women's methods of change... yet she seems to offer now feasibly alternative route. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
The difference between the white activism and the black activism discussed in Unequal Sisters was not very surprising to me. I figured that since black women were also fighting for civil rights their fight would be stronger. They seemed to have the largest networks of people working toward the cause. They held fundraising fuctions to help raise the money needed to fund their programs. It is easy to understand how these women bonded in the way that they did. The bond that these women grew amongst themselves was largely due to the having to rely on eachother so much. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye about how it wasn't surprising about the differences between black and white activism. The black women had so much more to fight for, and not only that but how education was their most important area of activism instead of voting like for the white women.-- Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
I was impressed with the vast number of organizations that were formed as a result of the fundraising efforts of activist women. I was even more shocked to find the cost of maintaining these organizations and that these women were able to raise the money needed. ---Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to learn how educated these women were. I knew some women were getting degrees but not this many and not African Americans. I also thought it was interesting to see how important, influential, or rich the parents of these women were even the African American women had wealthy parents. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
Another thing I found intersting was the view these women had about the role of women. I would have thought that since these women were out in the work force trying to bring about change they would have supported other women in the work place but they don't. It also was a surprise to learn about how many of the women were single, divorced, widowed, married, or living with a "partner." The interacting and sense of community created amoung these women is amazing. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
It surprises me that black women started to develop social classes just as the white women. Black women who started to gain power, like the power whites had, these black women started to treat the poor and less fortunate black women like a low class. This really bothers me because after everything these women have been through you would except them to try to help each other out, but instead they forget about them and treat them as peasants. What my question is, are these higher powered black women doing this because they are trying to be whiter? Do they care more about upper class societies views on them? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I was also surprised on how the black women started a social class just like the white women, but to try and answer your question(s) Amanda, I don't think they were trying to be whiter but maybe instead were so tired of the white social class they were instead competing now against them on what race was better as well as trying to gain the much wanted respect from white society they have wanted for so long. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of what both Amanda and Michelle said, I think we have to keep in mind that there was a social ideal that all women had to try to live up to. The domestic of separate spheres was still alive and well and I feel like some black women felt that they had to adhere to that doctrine in order to make some headway in the world. Now, I'm not saying that's how all black women felt or acted, but I'm sure it played some sort of part. But what upsets me the most, and it's talked about in Anna Cooper's piece, "Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race," is that black women were subjected to the bottom of the social hierarchy on two accounts: race AND gender. No matter which way they tried to advance, they always had someone trying to hold them back. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Cat and the Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter)piece. Women are stuck dealing with the old and the new world. The problem with todays society is that only some people truly believe in the modern day women however, a good amount of people are so stuck in the past. Its not fair how women have to fight for so much when people need to stop living in the past. --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Along with many other posts about the emotional involvement MAW commands of its readers, I found that "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control" opened my eyes to the desperate and difficult position of being a women with no control over her own body. Still today there are few practical birth control methods for the women that need it most. The pill and other hormonal methods are not cheap and condoms primarily place responsiblity on the male partner. It was heart-breaking to hear "a baby born dead, great relief - the death of an older child, sorrow but again relief" (86) as it must have been for Sanger. Sanger was not on a crusade to put a stop to child birth or to change the understanding that sex was for procreation, but rather to bring peace of mind to the women that so desperatly needed it. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Meredith's statements about birth control and the fact that a woman had no control over her own body. Even today, although many forms of birth control are much more readily available to prevent pregnancy, women still do not have complete control over their bodies due to the regulation of abortion under Roe v. Wade. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
<br />
I also was very touched by "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control". I knew that women had been attempting ways to control the number of children they had for a very long time but I had no idea that someone could self induce an abortion (especially since i really don't know how that works). I also found it so shocking that even married women didn't want to put faith in their husbands desire not to have any more children even though it would reduce the stress on his life and make paying bills easier. I would have thought they would also be glad to have less children to take care of. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to your comment Elizabeth, I'm not so sure it was the fact that they would have less children to take care of so much as the women would be in control of their own bodies and be making family altering decisions. Women were supposed to obey their husbands and if they took a stand and decided that they were going to prevent their family from increasing, then the husband would, in essence, lose a bit of power over his wife. I think that was what terrified them more than anything else. Some men actually were thrilled that their wives were looking into birth control. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
After taking History of Sexuality last semester and discussing Margaret Sanger I was not at all surprised with the "Margaret Sanger's Epihany over Birth Control." It was and still is hard to be a women when it comes to birth control. Women today are far better off than the women of Margaret Sanger's time. It is so much easier for women to obtain birth control today then ever before. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was very suprised to learn when reading Edith Eudora Ammons' piece about life as a female homesteader that women were more successful in staying with their claims by 6%. As she recalled being driven further and further into the unsettled land I can only imagine how disconnecting and daunting that ride must have been. The Ammons sister's hard work is clear proof of a way in which American women were able to take a different route and break the social expectations. After reading about the women who went west with their husbands or in order to find a husband in the past weeks, it was very uplifting to read about the other opportunities the west had for women. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I thought "Wages for Housework" was the best essay, it made me laugh. I thought it was very interesting on how she capitalized certain sentences in order to show her frustration and to get her point across. I also thought this essay sounded very much like a modern day women and her frustration with being a house wife and how it is not looked at as being a job, because a lot more than just cleaning and cooking goes into taking care of a house and family. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In Nellie Bly's essay she says, "I had such a strong belief in the world's greeting me as I greeted it, that I refused to arm myself. I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me,..." (pg6-7) She is amazing in the fact that she was going to attempt to fly around the world and the fact that she was a women was going to make this awesome, but in this quote she seems completely oblivious to the real world, and that not everyone you meet is going to like you, aswell as thinking any man would be willing to protect her. Its like she ready to be considered equal to man by doing this great thing but yet still depend on them for protection. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Gordon's essay in US as Kellye mentions as well as I have responded to her comment above about not being suprised about the differences in white and black women activism, but my question is why could women in general, black and white just come together and be the first ones to over look race and fight the cause of womens rights together? I think if they could have done that would of had a more dominate impact in getting what and where they wanted to be.--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
was also very surprised by Edith Eudora Ammon's piece, but mainly that while they met some resistance in their journey west, they did not seem to get mistreated nearly has much as I would have expected. I would have thought that as two women going west to homestead they would have gotten scoffed at yet I don't recall this being mentioned in the recounting. Is this because it didn't happen or because they chose to ignore it?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the Unequal Sisters reading by Linda Gordon I found very interesting the concept of social motherhood among the black women's welfare reform groups. These women were mostly single and were not biological mothers yet the main issues they focused on were familial in nature. I do not necessarily think that this indicates the selfless mindset of these women, but rather points to how strongly the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle classs status quo, affected everyones' decisions during this time period. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Another point worth mentioning from Gordon's essay was how incredibly interdependent these women were on each other. Ths interdependnce born out of necessity to survive eventually evolved into a powerful social and even political network. Some of these women's groups had real political power; distributing tax money etc. However, for a woman to be truly powerful within these groups she had to have connections to a powerful man, her husband, or father usually as is the case with Brandeis and Beyer. --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech by Palmer in Modern American Women brought up an excellent point. This was the point that most of the people in power equate life for everyone to what their own life is like. So to the men in power at the time, opening the workforce up to women seemed unnatural, dangerous, and threatening. However, this was because they were thinking about their own wives and daughters entering the workforce, which neither the men or most likely the women would have wanted, seeing as they come from upper class families. However, to the less fortunate, opening the workforce ot women was essential. These women needed to work in order to survive, alot of them did not have husbands who could or would support them. I think that this is still a mistake we all make today, not just the politicians, we fail to put ourselves in other peoples' shoes. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
In reading "The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893" in Modern American Women, I found it interesting how Bertha Palmer is obviously struggling with the conflict between the idealized woman and the reality that many women face. At one point she says that it is the board's "belief that every woman, who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studios." And then a few sentences later she talks about how it is only the favored class that can live in these conditions and that the majority of women are living under much poorer conditions. In a way, it seems as though she is still holding those ideals of women, but recognizing that most women cannot live up to them. I guess I'm just wondering how that differs from the rest of the people who simply hold those ideals, and is it even any better to recognize that the majority of women can't live up to the ideals but still hold them anyways? --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In reading "Speaking Out Against Lynching" in Modern American Women, the thing that struck me most is the obvious double standard that exists between sexual relations that happen between a black man and a white woman in comparison to those that exist between a white man and a black woman. I know that I may be looking at this from a present perspective, but it just strikes me that it is considered rape for a black man to have sex with a white woman, but nothing is said when a white man has sex with a black woman (which happened very often). I think that this double standard brings up issues with both race and gender. It brings up issues with gender because it indicates that white women are incapable of consenting to sexual interactions with a black man (but men can consent to sexual relations with a black woman). And it brings up issues of race because of the differential treatment between the races, and thinking about the likeliness that black women have of being raped. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I also thought "Wages for Housework" was a clever and humorous article. Conger-Kaneko seemed to denounce traditional women use her writing style. I thought it was very interesting, though not valid in every case, that she compared women's roles to those of slaves. I would imagine this would be a very persuasive arguement to move women towards equal rights after being compared to the slaves who had been freed for decades. I cannot imagine how women seeking to stay in their tradtional roles would argue against Conger-Kaneko's points? Although I imagine they were probably not interested in reading Progressive Woman. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
After having read some of the above comments about Ida B. Wells' essay, I thought more about her argument and the social and political climate during the time of lynching. I do agree with Jessica that it was somewhat out of fear because the black men were no longer under the control of the white masters. Lynching was one of the ways they could exhibit their control over this sector of society. It obviously didn't have to do with whether black men were actually raping white women; for white men, it was about controlling that sector of society. In response to Mary Beth's comment about Wells' essay, the viewpoint of many white Southern men was not that they were raping black women. It was only their superiority over the inferior race, black women being the most inferior because they were black and women. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
The discussion about moving up by way of housework and domestic services was brought up in the readings, and I believe that it ties in very well with what we've learned about in class. You can see the same sort of thing happening with the end of the Civil War, and clerical work. Like we discussed, women took clerical positions while men were away fighting, but soon after the war ended, those who kept their jobs soon learned that their jobs had become "secretarial." Those who once had the opportunity to move up in the business world while they were clerks soon found themselves stuck in the same place since secretarial work didn't provide much opportunity to elevate. But I agree, the question is, who decides what makes a position honorable? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I've decided that Nellie Bly is my new hero. The way she stood up to her boss and threatened to go to another paper if she wasn't allowed to "travel the world in 80 days" was incredible, especially for a woman of her time. What's even more interesting is how some of the stereotypes she faced still plague women today. For one, she's "too delicate" since she's a woman and would need protection. Second, her boss was concerned she'd have too much luggage, and if you think about women today (I know I, myself, am guilty of this) they pack much more than necessary. She even said herself, "Packing that bag was the most difficult undertaking of my life." It's just interesting to see the correlation and then quite impressive to see how she overcame gender stereotypes to beat "the man" at his own game. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I loved that the excerpt about bicycle riding by Frances Willard was included in the chapter. It's simplicity had the strongest message of encouragement for women to leave behind their usual constraints and go out into the world, to take control of their lives. She points out that for too long women have been constrained by their clothing and appearance. Willard asks women to take uncomplicated modern inventions and free themselves. My favorite quote from the piece was, "They that know nothing fear nothing." (p.18) It was a phrase that offered such quiet strength for the women of that time and even to women now. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I know a few other of my classmates have commented on it, but I felt that I should also comment on the birth control article too. I was also amazed at some of the ways women tried to have abortions. I have to agree though with Kelly that birth control was a way men would lose power over women, but I don't understand why the men wanted to have so many children to try to provide for in his home. Why not use condoms or pull out? Were the men so uncaring they ignored the pain of the female they married and the hunger of their children? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
In response to Ashley W., I don't think the men of that time really thought about the pain of the female in child birth,etc. Just from researching my family, I found that my grandfathers father had 18 children from 2 different wives (the first wife died in childbirth) and birth control in that family was never an option. My grandfather is the youngest and was born in 1923. He told me that his father believed that the more children you had the better off you were because you had more people to work in the fields at harvest time and they felt you could have more livestock because there were more people to share the work. My grandfathers family was totally self sufficient and he says they barely noticed the depression because they were self sufficient. I think maybe a lot of men had the same mindset and didn't see their wives as "suffering" because it was the way they survived. That of course is a rural example I don't know if it would have been the same in the cities but I am sure it was somewhat different.~~MaryBeth C<br />
<br />
Based on chapter 14, about black and white women’s vision of welfare activism, the book states that white women mostly helped out with political work and donations. Black women were more interested in helping there community and their churches. Could this be because black women saw other people as one class level and will help anyone, while white women will help out the upper class with politics to gain more women’s rights? <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I agree with Landon about how women were successful in gaining political power, but how far did that power get you? Even today I feel like women are still seen as the only way of gaining power is by having a strong male influence in the business beside you. <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the “Modern American Women” book, the documents of Jane Addams were very interesting. Jane Addams was unsure of what she wanted to do after college. Most women just get married and have children. She wanted to figure out a way to help people especially women by restoring balance in activities that were along the traditional lines. In 1889 Addams created the Hull House; a place where she developed social services and recreational programs to help the less fortune. If Addams was another woman to break down doors for more opportunities for other women why didn’t women’s ways of work life change? Also this shows that women do not have to get married right after college. <br />
-Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
"The Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home" was an interesting perspective on the home. Instead of telling women they could do it all, she asks women to consider working together with the family and other women to help them combine work and home. It seems so different from the feminist perspective that prevails today where women can do it all: home, work, and family. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
In "Modern American Women" I found this quote "We feel therefore, obliged to state our believe that every woman who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studies." All I have to say to this is wow have times changed since this was written. Women are making it a priority to be an asset to the workforce. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read about Alice Hamilton and how she got a medical degree from the University of MIchigan. (I am biased after growing up in Ann Arbor!) I thought it was interesting to read about her train of thought as to why a medical degree. She pursued medicine not because of an interest but because she knew she could excel in it even as a woman. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found this quote powerful and couldn't not post it. "We may convince the world that ability is not a matter of sex." --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed from these reading is that these women are all they same. They all come from essentially the same place. They are women who are well educated, upper-middle class, and single or married later in life. Where are the accounts of the poorer working class women? -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
While reading "A Woman Homesteader" the only thing that kept popping into my mind was that frustrating game of Oregon Trail. After playing that for hours on end in elementary school, I understand that making the journey westward was nothing but difficult. So reading the entry by Edith was fascinating when she and her sister discussed how easy it would be to "stick it out" on a piece of land for eight months. What I'm curious about, is was it typical for these women to go out by themselves like this? I know in class we talked about men going off on their own to start a new life and help their family, but I don't recall discussing that many women going on their own, especially for financial reasons. And would fathers have been that willing to let their daughters make their own choices, especially ones of this magnitude? It seems kind of out of character in my opinion. Nonetheless, rock on to both of them for being as gutsy as they were. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
It was so sad reading in Mamie Field's article about being African-American teachers along with her sister for African-American children. They got what was barely a building, no space, no blackboard and it was in such a bad location. The part that got to me the most was when she said that the white teachers never cared whether the black children came to school or not no matter waht the reason (poverty) and the fact that since these childrens' parents hadn't gone to school themselves, sometimes they didn't understand the great importance of getting their children educated. -Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
Nellie Bly's article about wanting to be a female world travler started off as a woman trying to prove that she can do what a man can but then turns humorous when she's talking about how to her packing lightly meant stuffing everything, even her moisturizing face cream and sadly parting with her evening dress. Just wasn't really helping our case about how we CAN pack light, even if to us packing light means packing a bit more than a man. - Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
Like Kendall, I also liked the excerpt about Frances Willard riding her bike. A quote that stood out to me was, "I also wanted to help women to a wider world, for I hold that the more interests women and men have in common, in thought, in word, and deed, the happier it will be for the home." My interpretation of what Willard was saying is that it would be beneficial for everyone, both men and women, if women were allowed to experience the world outside the home the way men were allowed to. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
I thought the Jane Addams excerpt was inspirational. Even though she had no idea what she wanted to do after college, she created an organization that had such a huge impact on the community and the country. Not only did she help those who were less fortunate, but she also helped women like herself who did not want to marry and start a family immediately after college - they wanted to achieve something greater. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
Yay for birth contol!!! Reading about Mrs. Sachs case made me sad. It got me thinking how many women died this way? For some reason after reading me it hit me, women didn't just start trying abortions at the turn of the 20th century, this was a practice that I'm sure is as old as time!</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments328--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-02-07T06:47:03Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>While reading the primary source documents of the ''Modern American Women'' I found it a bit disconcerting that the women were so similar to the women of today. It is kind of a shame that history repeats itself so fully. I suppose it is evidence that change is gradual and more of an evolution. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Although it was an interesting study, Linda Gordon's study "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945" came very close to simply listing the differences between the two races of activists. Her conclusions did not seem to have a lot of depth. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Justin Mattos on his comment about Linda Gordon's essay. I too felt that that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion. However, I do believe to have a better sense of what was happening, it is good to know that just because welfare groups existed, they didn't all go after the same things. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It does seem like she just listed the differences between the two groups of reformers, however once I saw the tables in the back I was impressed. Until I saw those tables it hadnt sunk in that Gordon actually went back and found real women activist and studied them. Maybe I am just not used to studying history but I thought that was pretty cool. After i saw those tables with the lists of actual women activists I looked at the reading in a whole different light. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I also observed in the primary source documents of ''Modern American Women'' that the stereotypes of women have only changed slightly today. Women are still thought to be more fragile than men, and there is still a need to protect them from harm. It has only been within the last decade that the idea of a working women has gained mainstream acceptance. I wonder if this observation stems from the fact that the primary source documents that I read were from the perspective of educated women. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Chapter 14 of Unequal Sisters deals with the differences in welfare activism between African American and white women. Gordon points out that white women had more of an ability to work politically and seek donations from those who would be more able to help (i.e. congressional representatives or other political figures) while the African American women focused their activities around the community and church. She continues, to point out that white women activists focused more on charity and relief while black women sought to provide for more universal needs such as education and health. If there were poor or unfortunate people in both groups (black and white), why is it that white women activists focused on particular people while black women activists focused on reform that is more general? Did societal norms during this time make it more inappropriate to provide individual charity to black women? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read “Speaking out Against Lynching” by Ida B. Wells. She discusses the harsh punishments that African Americans were subjected to due to the stereotypes that white men and women held. On p age 15 she states, “With the Southern white man, any misalliance existing between a white woman and a colored man is a sufficient foundation for the charge of rape. The southern white man says that it is impossible for a voluntary alliance to exist between a white woman and a colored man, and therefore, the fact of an alliance is a proof of force.” Given this, would it also be considered rape if it were a black woman and a white man? Moreover, who would be at fault, would it be the man forcing himself onto the woman, or the woman because she is black? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading by Wells was interesting. She only discusses the accusations that black men were raping white women. She never mentions black women being raped. Was it just something that they didn't talk about or something that they just took as a fact of life during those times? I thought it interesting that discussing how black men were falsely accused of rape and lynched even when it was well known at the time that it was a concentual relationship, but then went on to say that even when the white man left for war he left the white women to be protected by the black men. So why all of a sudden is the lynching of black men on the rise? Was it because now they were free and more like competition to the whites than they had been before?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth, I do think that to some extent the lynching of black was due to competition, but also due to fear. Before the African Americans were free, white men had never considered them to be a threat. When they left home they trusted that they would return with their home and family in the same state. It never crossed their minds that it would be possible for their family to be in danger because there had never been any reason to mistrust. Wells states on page 15 that "the world has accepted the story that the Negro is a monster which the Southern white man has painted him." With this image that is created, when the African Americans are free, the white men thus see it as the release of "a monster" and they no longer feel safe and trustworthy as they did before, when "the monster" was contained. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
To add on to the discussion so far about the "speaking out against lynching" i also agree that to a certain extent accusing black men of rape was a form of taking blacks out of the workforce competition. As one part of the article says, whites started looking upong blacks as a threat once they saw that they were starting to become educated and acquire money. To me, this is further emphasized by the fact that it wasn't until several generations that whites started making these great rape accusiations against blacks that raises a red flag in my mind as to the purpose of these accusations. - Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
I also found the reading on Wells interesting. In response to Mary Beth's point about the black women not officially being raped I believe it has some background in the idea that black women were naturally more passionate (less pure) than white women and therefore couldn't be raped because they would still be willing to have that relationship. I also agree with Jessica in that i think the lynching increased because there was a greater amount of fear now about the black community being free and the white community felt the need to use fear to control them. Likewise, in the South (where lynching was common) it might have been a way for the white community to maintain control and limit the amount of change that took place despite slavery being over. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to Jessica's question, I think that white women were able to focus more on specific groups, because unlike black women, white women just had to focus on issues of sexual inequality whereas black women had the issues of sexual AND racial inequality going against them, as well as establishing themselves in a newly free world. Chapter 14 of Unequal Sister does highlight that the two major focus point for black women groups was education and health care. These were issues that obviously had to be taken care of after slavery because the whites weren't going to provide it fully for them (yes, a lot of groups DID help) but they knew they had to rely on themselves(as the article shows) to fully develop and not remain stagnant and looked down upon by the white community.- Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
I also found in interesting in Gordon's piece on Welfare that she notes one specific difference. She states that the white groups that were looking for reform were looking at people "other" than themselves. They saw themselves as helping people less fortunate than themselves but still with a "moral" aspect between who was the "worthy and the unworthy poor" (pg 225). In contrast the black groups focused on middle class and poor blacks. The black groups also focused more on education and health instead of charitys like the whites. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
After reading ''Modern American Women'' I do agree with my classmates on how the perception of women has not changed drastically. It is now socially acceptable for a women to go off into the business world and make a name for herself. Even jobs such a teacher and a nurse that were considered women's work are still dominated today by women. Since I am an education major I go into a lot of elementary schools and the staff is female dominated. I think it is wrong that today where anyone can be anything, people still stereotype jobs and classify things as mens work or females work. This eve goes beyond the adults of the nation. We start these stereotypes early in children's lives. I have always remembered when I was younger and would go to Mc Donalds they would ask "would you like a girl toy or a boy toy?" Sometimes yeah I wanted the princess toy but other times I also wanted the hot wheels car. It is so disturbing to know that we are still dealing with this issue. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading the article on Women's welfare activism,I too felt that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion.However on the second page of the article, it talks about the differences of how white and black women were raising money. It says oh of course women raise money but they were also so busy attending White House conferences and correspondence with Supreme Court Justices and the black women it just states they organized bake sales, rummage sales and church dinners. I guess after reading this my biggest pet peeve is that yes white women did have more power in society. However, its not like there were no black women doing the same things. I just don't like how these women are talked down, for what they had their time was just as well spent as a white women. This really just made me feel that white women were more interested in their social lives or making them selves look better and black women worked as a team, they worked for the well being of everyone. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
While reading Chapter 14, I began to think about the possibly that the difference between the perspective of white women and black women on the poor that they helped was a matter of progression or evolution. As the black women received more power, it seemed that they became more like the white women and began to explicitly look down on the poorer black social classes. I saw this occurrence when the author talked about the views of the black poor by educated black women being the same as white women.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
While reading MAW, I came across an exert from Ida B. Wells, which in truth makes sense, but I didn't expect to see exert from something I have read in the past. There piece of the article here touched me almost as much as it touched me then. The black women were not treated equally in any light, and were not considered to be able to be 'raped' because they were not pure and pious like the white women. Part of that comes through in the last paragraph of the exert. It makes me mad to think that people once thought like this, but what is even more scary is some people still do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
After reading a bit more in the Modern American Women book, I find myself getting emotionally involved with the information presented. I felt anger towards the father who was treating his daughter like a sack of trash in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." I felt heartbroke when he slapped her because she was leaving. At the same time I know this happened a lot towards women... and it breaks my heart to know what some women had to go through. I've been lucky to have a father who was supportive in everything I chose and only opposed my decisions when they were bad decisions. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley. I also felt angry towards the father in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." But what I also thought was sad and telling from this piece was how the mother quietly gave the money to the daughter so that she could get away and start over fresh. We all know that parents want a better life for their children than they had themselves. I think that this is a perfect example of a mother wanting her daughter to have a better life than she herself had--almost as though she is hoping that she can live vicariously through her daughter's freedom. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Ashley since I was also touched by some of the readings in Modern American Women. I also was upset at the way the young girl was treated by her father in "An Immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World". I always knew parents treated their daughters in such a harsh way at times, but it was very hard to see how harshly she was treated. I have to say if I was in her position I also would have left home. Though I did enjoy how she points out that she got in so much trouble for taking the girls word that they would get the 2 cents she owed when she says her dad had given away a lot more merchandise without any payment at all. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Bertha Palmer's speech at the opening of the Women's Building was so progressive except for the part where she says: "It willing acknowledges that the industries, arts, and commerce of the world have been for centuries in the hands of men who have carefully trained themselves for the responsibilities devolving upon them, and who have, consequently, without question, contributed vastly more than women to the valuable thought, research, invention, science, art and literature, which have become the rich heritage of the human race." Does she actually believe this? Or is she catering to what the public will most except in order to support her movement? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter) story very interesting as far as the existance of two worlds (old/new) for young immigrant women. I feel like today American woman still struggle with existing in between the Old and the New world. It is amazing how sometimes problems never get solved they just evolve. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Mary Harris seemed incredible against the predominant constructs of gender and the entire system of change in America. Clearly she has struggled greatly in her lifetime and criticized women's methods of change... yet she seems to offer now feasibly alternative route. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
The difference between the white activism and the black activism discussed in Unequal Sisters was not very surprising to me. I figured that since black women were also fighting for civil rights their fight would be stronger. They seemed to have the largest networks of people working toward the cause. They held fundraising fuctions to help raise the money needed to fund their programs. It is easy to understand how these women bonded in the way that they did. The bond that these women grew amongst themselves was largely due to the having to rely on eachother so much. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye about how it wasn't surprising about the differences between black and white activism. The black women had so much more to fight for, and not only that but how education was their most important area of activism instead of voting like for the white women.-- Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
I was impressed with the vast number of organizations that were formed as a result of the fundraising efforts of activist women. I was even more shocked to find the cost of maintaining these organizations and that these women were able to raise the money needed. ---Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to learn how educated these women were. I knew some women were getting degrees but not this many and not African Americans. I also thought it was interesting to see how important, influential, or rich the parents of these women were even the African American women had wealthy parents. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
Another thing I found intersting was the view these women had about the role of women. I would have thought that since these women were out in the work force trying to bring about change they would have supported other women in the work place but they don't. It also was a surprise to learn about how many of the women were single, divorced, widowed, married, or living with a "partner." The interacting and sense of community created amoung these women is amazing. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
It surprises me that black women started to develop social classes just as the white women. Black women who started to gain power, like the power whites had, these black women started to treat the poor and less fortunate black women like a low class. This really bothers me because after everything these women have been through you would except them to try to help each other out, but instead they forget about them and treat them as peasants. What my question is, are these higher powered black women doing this because they are trying to be whiter? Do they care more about upper class societies views on them? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I was also surprised on how the black women started a social class just like the white women, but to try and answer your question(s) Amanda, I don't think they were trying to be whiter but maybe instead were so tired of the white social class they were instead competing now against them on what race was better as well as trying to gain the much wanted respect from white society they have wanted for so long. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of what both Amanda and Michelle said, I think we have to keep in mind that there was a social ideal that all women had to try to live up to. The domestic of separate spheres was still alive and well and I feel like some black women felt that they had to adhere to that doctrine in order to make some headway in the world. Now, I'm not saying that's how all black women felt or acted, but I'm sure it played some sort of part. But what upsets me the most, and it's talked about in Anna Cooper's piece, "Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race," is that black women were subjected to the bottom of the social hierarchy on two accounts: race AND gender. No matter which way they tried to advance, they always had someone trying to hold them back. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Cat and the Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter)piece. Women are stuck dealing with the old and the new world. The problem with todays society is that only some people truly believe in the modern day women however, a good amount of people are so stuck in the past. Its not fair how women have to fight for so much when people need to stop living in the past. --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Along with many other posts about the emotional involvement MAW commands of its readers, I found that "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control" opened my eyes to the desperate and difficult position of being a women with no control over her own body. Still today there are few practical birth control methods for the women that need it most. The pill and other hormonal methods are not cheap and condoms primarily place responsiblity on the male partner. It was heart-breaking to hear "a baby born dead, great relief - the death of an older child, sorrow but again relief" (86) as it must have been for Sanger. Sanger was not on a crusade to put a stop to child birth or to change the understanding that sex was for procreation, but rather to bring peace of mind to the women that so desperatly needed it. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Meredith's statements about birth control and the fact that a woman had no control over her own body. Even today, although many forms of birth control are much more readily available to prevent pregnancy, women still do not have complete control over their bodies due to the regulation of abortion under Roe v. Wade. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
<br />
I also was very touched by "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control". I knew that women had been attempting ways to control the number of children they had for a very long time but I had no idea that someone could self induce an abortion (especially since i really don't know how that works). I also found it so shocking that even married women didn't want to put faith in their husbands desire not to have any more children even though it would reduce the stress on his life and make paying bills easier. I would have thought they would also be glad to have less children to take care of. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to your comment Elizabeth, I'm not so sure it was the fact that they would have less children to take care of so much as the women would be in control of their own bodies and be making family altering decisions. Women were supposed to obey their husbands and if they took a stand and decided that they were going to prevent their family from increasing, then the husband would, in essence, lose a bit of power over his wife. I think that was what terrified them more than anything else. Some men actually were thrilled that their wives were looking into birth control. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
After taking History of Sexuality last semester and discussing Margaret Sanger I was not at all surprised with the "Margaret Sanger's Epihany over Birth Control." It was and still is hard to be a women when it comes to birth control. Women today are far better off than the women of Margaret Sanger's time. It is so much easier for women to obtain birth control today then ever before. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was very suprised to learn when reading Edith Eudora Ammons' piece about life as a female homesteader that women were more successful in staying with their claims by 6%. As she recalled being driven further and further into the unsettled land I can only imagine how disconnecting and daunting that ride must have been. The Ammons sister's hard work is clear proof of a way in which American women were able to take a different route and break the social expectations. After reading about the women who went west with their husbands or in order to find a husband in the past weeks, it was very uplifting to read about the other opportunities the west had for women. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I thought "Wages for Housework" was the best essay, it made me laugh. I thought it was very interesting on how she capitalized certain sentences in order to show her frustration and to get her point across. I also thought this essay sounded very much like a modern day women and her frustration with being a house wife and how it is not looked at as being a job, because a lot more than just cleaning and cooking goes into taking care of a house and family. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In Nellie Bly's essay she says, "I had such a strong belief in the world's greeting me as I greeted it, that I refused to arm myself. I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me,..." (pg6-7) She is amazing in the fact that she was going to attempt to fly around the world and the fact that she was a women was going to make this awesome, but in this quote she seems completely oblivious to the real world, and that not everyone you meet is going to like you, aswell as thinking any man would be willing to protect her. Its like she ready to be considered equal to man by doing this great thing but yet still depend on them for protection. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Gordon's essay in US as Kellye mentions as well as I have responded to her comment above about not being suprised about the differences in white and black women activism, but my question is why could women in general, black and white just come together and be the first ones to over look race and fight the cause of womens rights together? I think if they could have done that would of had a more dominate impact in getting what and where they wanted to be.--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
was also very surprised by Edith Eudora Ammon's piece, but mainly that while they met some resistance in their journey west, they did not seem to get mistreated nearly has much as I would have expected. I would have thought that as two women going west to homestead they would have gotten scoffed at yet I don't recall this being mentioned in the recounting. Is this because it didn't happen or because they chose to ignore it?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the Unequal Sisters reading by Linda Gordon I found very interesting the concept of social motherhood among the black women's welfare reform groups. These women were mostly single and were not biological mothers yet the main issues they focused on were familial in nature. I do not necessarily think that this indicates the selfless mindset of these women, but rather points to how strongly the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle classs status quo, affected everyones' decisions during this time period. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Another point worth mentioning from Gordon's essay was how incredibly interdependent these women were on each other. Ths interdependnce born out of necessity to survive eventually evolved into a powerful social and even political network. Some of these women's groups had real political power; distributing tax money etc. However, for a woman to be truly powerful within these groups she had to have connections to a powerful man, her husband, or father usually as is the case with Brandeis and Beyer. --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech by Palmer in Modern American Women brought up an excellent point. This was the point that most of the people in power equate life for everyone to what their own life is like. So to the men in power at the time, opening the workforce up to women seemed unnatural, dangerous, and threatening. However, this was because they were thinking about their own wives and daughters entering the workforce, which neither the men or most likely the women would have wanted, seeing as they come from upper class families. However, to the less fortunate, opening the workforce ot women was essential. These women needed to work in order to survive, alot of them did not have husbands who could or would support them. I think that this is still a mistake we all make today, not just the politicians, we fail to put ourselves in other peoples' shoes. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
In reading "The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893" in Modern American Women, I found it interesting how Bertha Palmer is obviously struggling with the conflict between the idealized woman and the reality that many women face. At one point she says that it is the board's "belief that every woman, who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studios." And then a few sentences later she talks about how it is only the favored class that can live in these conditions and that the majority of women are living under much poorer conditions. In a way, it seems as though she is still holding those ideals of women, but recognizing that most women cannot live up to them. I guess I'm just wondering how that differs from the rest of the people who simply hold those ideals, and is it even any better to recognize that the majority of women can't live up to the ideals but still hold them anyways? --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In reading "Speaking Out Against Lynching" in Modern American Women, the thing that struck me most is the obvious double standard that exists between sexual relations that happen between a black man and a white woman in comparison to those that exist between a white man and a black woman. I know that I may be looking at this from a present perspective, but it just strikes me that it is considered rape for a black man to have sex with a white woman, but nothing is said when a white man has sex with a black woman (which happened very often). I think that this double standard brings up issues with both race and gender. It brings up issues with gender because it indicates that white women are incapable of consenting to sexual interactions with a black man (but men can consent to sexual relations with a black woman). And it brings up issues of race because of the differential treatment between the races, and thinking about the likeliness that black women have of being raped. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I also thought "Wages for Housework" was a clever and humorous article. Conger-Kaneko seemed to denounce traditional women use her writing style. I thought it was very interesting, though not valid in every case, that she compared women's roles to those of slaves. I would imagine this would be a very persuasive arguement to move women towards equal rights after being compared to the slaves who had been freed for decades. I cannot imagine how women seeking to stay in their tradtional roles would argue against Conger-Kaneko's points? Although I imagine they were probably not interested in reading Progressive Woman. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
After having read some of the above comments about Ida B. Wells' essay, I thought more about her argument and the social and political climate during the time of lynching. I do agree with Jessica that it was somewhat out of fear because the black men were no longer under the control of the white masters. Lynching was one of the ways they could exhibit their control over this sector of society. It obviously didn't have to do with whether black men were actually raping white women; for white men, it was about controlling that sector of society. In response to Mary Beth's comment about Wells' essay, the viewpoint of many white Southern men was not that they were raping black women. It was only their superiority over the inferior race, black women being the most inferior because they were black and women. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
The discussion about moving up by way of housework and domestic services was brought up in the readings, and I believe that it ties in very well with what we've learned about in class. You can see the same sort of thing happening with the end of the Civil War, and clerical work. Like we discussed, women took clerical positions while men were away fighting, but soon after the war ended, those who kept their jobs soon learned that their jobs had become "secretarial." Those who once had the opportunity to move up in the business world while they were clerks soon found themselves stuck in the same place since secretarial work didn't provide much opportunity to elevate. But I agree, the question is, who decides what makes a position honorable? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I've decided that Nellie Bly is my new hero. The way she stood up to her boss and threatened to go to another paper if she wasn't allowed to "travel the world in 80 days" was incredible, especially for a woman of her time. What's even more interesting is how some of the stereotypes she faced still plague women today. For one, she's "too delicate" since she's a woman and would need protection. Second, her boss was concerned she'd have too much luggage, and if you think about women today (I know I, myself, am guilty of this) they pack much more than necessary. She even said herself, "Packing that bag was the most difficult undertaking of my life." It's just interesting to see the correlation and then quite impressive to see how she overcame gender stereotypes to beat "the man" at his own game. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I loved that the excerpt about bicycle riding by Frances Willard was included in the chapter. It's simplicity had the strongest message of encouragement for women to leave behind their usual constraints and go out into the world, to take control of their lives. She points out that for too long women have been constrained by their clothing and appearance. Willard asks women to take uncomplicated modern inventions and free themselves. My favorite quote from the piece was, "They that know nothing fear nothing." (p.18) It was a phrase that offered such quiet strength for the women of that time and even to women now. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I know a few other of my classmates have commented on it, but I felt that I should also comment on the birth control article too. I was also amazed at some of the ways women tried to have abortions. I have to agree though with Kelly that birth control was a way men would lose power over women, but I don't understand why the men wanted to have so many children to try to provide for in his home. Why not use condoms or pull out? Were the men so uncaring they ignored the pain of the female they married and the hunger of their children? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
In response to Ashley W., I don't think the men of that time really thought about the pain of the female in child birth,etc. Just from researching my family, I found that my grandfathers father had 18 children from 2 different wives (the first wife died in childbirth) and birth control in that family was never an option. My grandfather is the youngest and was born in 1923. He told me that his father believed that the more children you had the better off you were because you had more people to work in the fields at harvest time and they felt you could have more livestock because there were more people to share the work. My grandfathers family was totally self sufficient and he says they barely noticed the depression because they were self sufficient. I think maybe a lot of men had the same mindset and didn't see their wives as "suffering" because it was the way they survived. That of course is a rural example I don't know if it would have been the same in the cities but I am sure it was somewhat different.~~MaryBeth C<br />
<br />
Based on chapter 14, about black and white women’s vision of welfare activism, the book states that white women mostly helped out with political work and donations. Black women were more interested in helping there community and their churches. Could this be because black women saw other people as one class level and will help anyone, while white women will help out the upper class with politics to gain more women’s rights? <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I agree with Landon about how women were successful in gaining political power, but how far did that power get you? Even today I feel like women are still seen as the only way of gaining power is by having a strong male influence in the business beside you. <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the “Modern American Women” book, the documents of Jane Addams were very interesting. Jane Addams was unsure of what she wanted to do after college. Most women just get married and have children. She wanted to figure out a way to help people especially women by restoring balance in activities that were along the traditional lines. In 1889 Addams created the Hull House; a place where she developed social services and recreational programs to help the less fortune. If Addams was another woman to break down doors for more opportunities for other women why didn’t women’s ways of work life change? Also this shows that women do not have to get married right after college. <br />
-Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
"The Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home" was an interesting perspective on the home. Instead of telling women they could do it all, she asks women to consider working together with the family and other women to help them combine work and home. It seems so different from the feminist perspective that prevails today where women can do it all: home, work, and family. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
In "Modern American Women" I found this quote "We feel therefore, obliged to state our believe that every woman who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studies." All I have to say to this is wow have times changed since this was written. Women are making it a priority to be an asset to the workforce. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read about Alice Hamilton and how she got a medical degree from the University of MIchigan. (I am biased after growing up in Ann Arbor!) I thought it was interesting to read about her train of thought as to why a medical degree. She pursued medicine not because of an interest but because she knew she could excel in it even as a woman. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found this quote powerful and couldn't not post it. "We may convince the world that ability is not a matter of sex." --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed from these reading is that these women are all they same. They all come from essentially the same place. They are women who are well educated, upper-middle class, and single or married later in life. Where are the accounts of the poorer working class women? -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
While reading "A Woman Homesteader" the only thing that kept popping into my mind was that frustrating game of Oregon Trail. After playing that for hours on end in elementary school, I understand that making the journey westward was nothing but difficult. So reading the entry by Edith was fascinating when she and her sister discussed how easy it would be to "stick it out" on a piece of land for eight months. What I'm curious about, is was it typical for these women to go out by themselves like this? I know in class we talked about men going off on their own to start a new life and help their family, but I don't recall discussing that many women going on their own, especially for financial reasons. And would fathers have been that willing to let their daughters make their own choices, especially ones of this magnitude? It seems kind of out of character in my opinion. Nonetheless, rock on to both of them for being as gutsy as they were. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
It was so sad reading in Mamie Field's article about being African-American teachers along with her sister for African-American children. They got what was barely a building, no space, no blackboard and it was in such a bad location. The part that got to me the most was when she said that the white teachers never cared whether the black children came to school or not no matter waht the reason (poverty) and the fact that since these childrens' parents hadn't gone to school themselves, sometimes they didn't understand the great importance of getting their children educated. -Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
Like Kendall, I also liked the excerpt about Frances Willard riding her bike. A quote that stood out to me was, "I also wanted to help women to a wider world, for I hold that the more interests women and men have in common, in thought, in word, and deed, the happier it will be for the home." My interpretation of what Willard was saying is that it would be beneficial for everyone, both men and women, if women were allowed to experience the world outside the home the way men were allowed to. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
I thought the Jane Addams excerpt was inspirational. Even though she had no idea what she wanted to do after college, she created an organization that had such a huge impact on the community and the country. Not only did she help those who were less fortunate, but she also helped women like herself who did not want to marry and start a family immediately after college - they wanted to achieve something greater. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
Yay for birth contol!!! Reading about Mrs. Sachs case made me sad. It got me thinking how many women died this way? For some reason after reading me it hit me, women didn't just start trying abortions at the turn of the 20th century, this was a practice that I'm sure is as old as time!</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments328--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-02-07T06:40:40Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>While reading the primary source documents of the ''Modern American Women'' I found it a bit disconcerting that the women were so similar to the women of today. It is kind of a shame that history repeats itself so fully. I suppose it is evidence that change is gradual and more of an evolution. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Although it was an interesting study, Linda Gordon's study "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945" came very close to simply listing the differences between the two races of activists. Her conclusions did not seem to have a lot of depth. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Justin Mattos on his comment about Linda Gordon's essay. I too felt that that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion. However, I do believe to have a better sense of what was happening, it is good to know that just because welfare groups existed, they didn't all go after the same things. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It does seem like she just listed the differences between the two groups of reformers, however once I saw the tables in the back I was impressed. Until I saw those tables it hadnt sunk in that Gordon actually went back and found real women activist and studied them. Maybe I am just not used to studying history but I thought that was pretty cool. After i saw those tables with the lists of actual women activists I looked at the reading in a whole different light. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I also observed in the primary source documents of ''Modern American Women'' that the stereotypes of women have only changed slightly today. Women are still thought to be more fragile than men, and there is still a need to protect them from harm. It has only been within the last decade that the idea of a working women has gained mainstream acceptance. I wonder if this observation stems from the fact that the primary source documents that I read were from the perspective of educated women. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Chapter 14 of Unequal Sisters deals with the differences in welfare activism between African American and white women. Gordon points out that white women had more of an ability to work politically and seek donations from those who would be more able to help (i.e. congressional representatives or other political figures) while the African American women focused their activities around the community and church. She continues, to point out that white women activists focused more on charity and relief while black women sought to provide for more universal needs such as education and health. If there were poor or unfortunate people in both groups (black and white), why is it that white women activists focused on particular people while black women activists focused on reform that is more general? Did societal norms during this time make it more inappropriate to provide individual charity to black women? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read “Speaking out Against Lynching” by Ida B. Wells. She discusses the harsh punishments that African Americans were subjected to due to the stereotypes that white men and women held. On p age 15 she states, “With the Southern white man, any misalliance existing between a white woman and a colored man is a sufficient foundation for the charge of rape. The southern white man says that it is impossible for a voluntary alliance to exist between a white woman and a colored man, and therefore, the fact of an alliance is a proof of force.” Given this, would it also be considered rape if it were a black woman and a white man? Moreover, who would be at fault, would it be the man forcing himself onto the woman, or the woman because she is black? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading by Wells was interesting. She only discusses the accusations that black men were raping white women. She never mentions black women being raped. Was it just something that they didn't talk about or something that they just took as a fact of life during those times? I thought it interesting that discussing how black men were falsely accused of rape and lynched even when it was well known at the time that it was a concentual relationship, but then went on to say that even when the white man left for war he left the white women to be protected by the black men. So why all of a sudden is the lynching of black men on the rise? Was it because now they were free and more like competition to the whites than they had been before?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth, I do think that to some extent the lynching of black was due to competition, but also due to fear. Before the African Americans were free, white men had never considered them to be a threat. When they left home they trusted that they would return with their home and family in the same state. It never crossed their minds that it would be possible for their family to be in danger because there had never been any reason to mistrust. Wells states on page 15 that "the world has accepted the story that the Negro is a monster which the Southern white man has painted him." With this image that is created, when the African Americans are free, the white men thus see it as the release of "a monster" and they no longer feel safe and trustworthy as they did before, when "the monster" was contained. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also found the reading on Wells interesting. In response to Mary Beth's point about the black women not officially being raped I believe it has some background in the idea that black women were naturally more passionate (less pure) than white women and therefore couldn't be raped because they would still be willing to have that relationship. I also agree with Jessica in that i think the lynching increased because there was a greater amount of fear now about the black community being free and the white community felt the need to use fear to control them. Likewise, in the South (where lynching was common) it might have been a way for the white community to maintain control and limit the amount of change that took place despite slavery being over. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to Jessica's question, I think that white women were able to focus more on specific groups, because unlike black women, white women just had to focus on issues of sexual inequality whereas black women had the issues of sexual AND racial inequality going against them, as well as establishing themselves in a newly free world. Chapter 14 of Unequal Sister does highlight that the two major focus point for black women groups was education and health care. These were issues that obviously had to be taken care of after slavery because the whites weren't going to provide it fully for them (yes, a lot of groups DID help) but they knew they had to rely on themselves(as the article shows) to fully develop and not remain stagnant and looked down upon by the white community.- Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
I also found in interesting in Gordon's piece on Welfare that she notes one specific difference. She states that the white groups that were looking for reform were looking at people "other" than themselves. They saw themselves as helping people less fortunate than themselves but still with a "moral" aspect between who was the "worthy and the unworthy poor" (pg 225). In contrast the black groups focused on middle class and poor blacks. The black groups also focused more on education and health instead of charitys like the whites. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
After reading ''Modern American Women'' I do agree with my classmates on how the perception of women has not changed drastically. It is now socially acceptable for a women to go off into the business world and make a name for herself. Even jobs such a teacher and a nurse that were considered women's work are still dominated today by women. Since I am an education major I go into a lot of elementary schools and the staff is female dominated. I think it is wrong that today where anyone can be anything, people still stereotype jobs and classify things as mens work or females work. This eve goes beyond the adults of the nation. We start these stereotypes early in children's lives. I have always remembered when I was younger and would go to Mc Donalds they would ask "would you like a girl toy or a boy toy?" Sometimes yeah I wanted the princess toy but other times I also wanted the hot wheels car. It is so disturbing to know that we are still dealing with this issue. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading the article on Women's welfare activism,I too felt that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion.However on the second page of the article, it talks about the differences of how white and black women were raising money. It says oh of course women raise money but they were also so busy attending White House conferences and correspondence with Supreme Court Justices and the black women it just states they organized bake sales, rummage sales and church dinners. I guess after reading this my biggest pet peeve is that yes white women did have more power in society. However, its not like there were no black women doing the same things. I just don't like how these women are talked down, for what they had their time was just as well spent as a white women. This really just made me feel that white women were more interested in their social lives or making them selves look better and black women worked as a team, they worked for the well being of everyone. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
While reading Chapter 14, I began to think about the possibly that the difference between the perspective of white women and black women on the poor that they helped was a matter of progression or evolution. As the black women received more power, it seemed that they became more like the white women and began to explicitly look down on the poorer black social classes. I saw this occurrence when the author talked about the views of the black poor by educated black women being the same as white women.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
While reading MAW, I came across an exert from Ida B. Wells, which in truth makes sense, but I didn't expect to see exert from something I have read in the past. There piece of the article here touched me almost as much as it touched me then. The black women were not treated equally in any light, and were not considered to be able to be 'raped' because they were not pure and pious like the white women. Part of that comes through in the last paragraph of the exert. It makes me mad to think that people once thought like this, but what is even more scary is some people still do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
After reading a bit more in the Modern American Women book, I find myself getting emotionally involved with the information presented. I felt anger towards the father who was treating his daughter like a sack of trash in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." I felt heartbroke when he slapped her because she was leaving. At the same time I know this happened a lot towards women... and it breaks my heart to know what some women had to go through. I've been lucky to have a father who was supportive in everything I chose and only opposed my decisions when they were bad decisions. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley. I also felt angry towards the father in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." But what I also thought was sad and telling from this piece was how the mother quietly gave the money to the daughter so that she could get away and start over fresh. We all know that parents want a better life for their children than they had themselves. I think that this is a perfect example of a mother wanting her daughter to have a better life than she herself had--almost as though she is hoping that she can live vicariously through her daughter's freedom. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Ashley since I was also touched by some of the readings in Modern American Women. I also was upset at the way the young girl was treated by her father in "An Immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World". I always knew parents treated their daughters in such a harsh way at times, but it was very hard to see how harshly she was treated. I have to say if I was in her position I also would have left home. Though I did enjoy how she points out that she got in so much trouble for taking the girls word that they would get the 2 cents she owed when she says her dad had given away a lot more merchandise without any payment at all. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Bertha Palmer's speech at the opening of the Women's Building was so progressive except for the part where she says: "It willing acknowledges that the industries, arts, and commerce of the world have been for centuries in the hands of men who have carefully trained themselves for the responsibilities devolving upon them, and who have, consequently, without question, contributed vastly more than women to the valuable thought, research, invention, science, art and literature, which have become the rich heritage of the human race." Does she actually believe this? Or is she catering to what the public will most except in order to support her movement? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter) story very interesting as far as the existance of two worlds (old/new) for young immigrant women. I feel like today American woman still struggle with existing in between the Old and the New world. It is amazing how sometimes problems never get solved they just evolve. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Mary Harris seemed incredible against the predominant constructs of gender and the entire system of change in America. Clearly she has struggled greatly in her lifetime and criticized women's methods of change... yet she seems to offer now feasibly alternative route. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
The difference between the white activism and the black activism discussed in Unequal Sisters was not very surprising to me. I figured that since black women were also fighting for civil rights their fight would be stronger. They seemed to have the largest networks of people working toward the cause. They held fundraising fuctions to help raise the money needed to fund their programs. It is easy to understand how these women bonded in the way that they did. The bond that these women grew amongst themselves was largely due to the having to rely on eachother so much. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye about how it wasn't surprising about the differences between black and white activism. The black women had so much more to fight for, and not only that but how education was their most important area of activism instead of voting like for the white women.-- Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
I was impressed with the vast number of organizations that were formed as a result of the fundraising efforts of activist women. I was even more shocked to find the cost of maintaining these organizations and that these women were able to raise the money needed. ---Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to learn how educated these women were. I knew some women were getting degrees but not this many and not African Americans. I also thought it was interesting to see how important, influential, or rich the parents of these women were even the African American women had wealthy parents. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
Another thing I found intersting was the view these women had about the role of women. I would have thought that since these women were out in the work force trying to bring about change they would have supported other women in the work place but they don't. It also was a surprise to learn about how many of the women were single, divorced, widowed, married, or living with a "partner." The interacting and sense of community created amoung these women is amazing. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
It surprises me that black women started to develop social classes just as the white women. Black women who started to gain power, like the power whites had, these black women started to treat the poor and less fortunate black women like a low class. This really bothers me because after everything these women have been through you would except them to try to help each other out, but instead they forget about them and treat them as peasants. What my question is, are these higher powered black women doing this because they are trying to be whiter? Do they care more about upper class societies views on them? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I was also surprised on how the black women started a social class just like the white women, but to try and answer your question(s) Amanda, I don't think they were trying to be whiter but maybe instead were so tired of the white social class they were instead competing now against them on what race was better as well as trying to gain the much wanted respect from white society they have wanted for so long. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of what both Amanda and Michelle said, I think we have to keep in mind that there was a social ideal that all women had to try to live up to. The domestic of separate spheres was still alive and well and I feel like some black women felt that they had to adhere to that doctrine in order to make some headway in the world. Now, I'm not saying that's how all black women felt or acted, but I'm sure it played some sort of part. But what upsets me the most, and it's talked about in Anna Cooper's piece, "Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race," is that black women were subjected to the bottom of the social hierarchy on two accounts: race AND gender. No matter which way they tried to advance, they always had someone trying to hold them back. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Cat and the Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter)piece. Women are stuck dealing with the old and the new world. The problem with todays society is that only some people truly believe in the modern day women however, a good amount of people are so stuck in the past. Its not fair how women have to fight for so much when people need to stop living in the past. --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Along with many other posts about the emotional involvement MAW commands of its readers, I found that "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control" opened my eyes to the desperate and difficult position of being a women with no control over her own body. Still today there are few practical birth control methods for the women that need it most. The pill and other hormonal methods are not cheap and condoms primarily place responsiblity on the male partner. It was heart-breaking to hear "a baby born dead, great relief - the death of an older child, sorrow but again relief" (86) as it must have been for Sanger. Sanger was not on a crusade to put a stop to child birth or to change the understanding that sex was for procreation, but rather to bring peace of mind to the women that so desperatly needed it. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Meredith's statements about birth control and the fact that a woman had no control over her own body. Even today, although many forms of birth control are much more readily available to prevent pregnancy, women still do not have complete control over their bodies due to the regulation of abortion under Roe v. Wade. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
<br />
I also was very touched by "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control". I knew that women had been attempting ways to control the number of children they had for a very long time but I had no idea that someone could self induce an abortion (especially since i really don't know how that works). I also found it so shocking that even married women didn't want to put faith in their husbands desire not to have any more children even though it would reduce the stress on his life and make paying bills easier. I would have thought they would also be glad to have less children to take care of. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to your comment Elizabeth, I'm not so sure it was the fact that they would have less children to take care of so much as the women would be in control of their own bodies and be making family altering decisions. Women were supposed to obey their husbands and if they took a stand and decided that they were going to prevent their family from increasing, then the husband would, in essence, lose a bit of power over his wife. I think that was what terrified them more than anything else. Some men actually were thrilled that their wives were looking into birth control. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
After taking History of Sexuality last semester and discussing Margaret Sanger I was not at all surprised with the "Margaret Sanger's Epihany over Birth Control." It was and still is hard to be a women when it comes to birth control. Women today are far better off than the women of Margaret Sanger's time. It is so much easier for women to obtain birth control today then ever before. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was very suprised to learn when reading Edith Eudora Ammons' piece about life as a female homesteader that women were more successful in staying with their claims by 6%. As she recalled being driven further and further into the unsettled land I can only imagine how disconnecting and daunting that ride must have been. The Ammons sister's hard work is clear proof of a way in which American women were able to take a different route and break the social expectations. After reading about the women who went west with their husbands or in order to find a husband in the past weeks, it was very uplifting to read about the other opportunities the west had for women. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I thought "Wages for Housework" was the best essay, it made me laugh. I thought it was very interesting on how she capitalized certain sentences in order to show her frustration and to get her point across. I also thought this essay sounded very much like a modern day women and her frustration with being a house wife and how it is not looked at as being a job, because a lot more than just cleaning and cooking goes into taking care of a house and family. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In Nellie Bly's essay she says, "I had such a strong belief in the world's greeting me as I greeted it, that I refused to arm myself. I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me,..." (pg6-7) She is amazing in the fact that she was going to attempt to fly around the world and the fact that she was a women was going to make this awesome, but in this quote she seems completely oblivious to the real world, and that not everyone you meet is going to like you, aswell as thinking any man would be willing to protect her. Its like she ready to be considered equal to man by doing this great thing but yet still depend on them for protection. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Gordon's essay in US as Kellye mentions as well as I have responded to her comment above about not being suprised about the differences in white and black women activism, but my question is why could women in general, black and white just come together and be the first ones to over look race and fight the cause of womens rights together? I think if they could have done that would of had a more dominate impact in getting what and where they wanted to be.--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
was also very surprised by Edith Eudora Ammon's piece, but mainly that while they met some resistance in their journey west, they did not seem to get mistreated nearly has much as I would have expected. I would have thought that as two women going west to homestead they would have gotten scoffed at yet I don't recall this being mentioned in the recounting. Is this because it didn't happen or because they chose to ignore it?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the Unequal Sisters reading by Linda Gordon I found very interesting the concept of social motherhood among the black women's welfare reform groups. These women were mostly single and were not biological mothers yet the main issues they focused on were familial in nature. I do not necessarily think that this indicates the selfless mindset of these women, but rather points to how strongly the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle classs status quo, affected everyones' decisions during this time period. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Another point worth mentioning from Gordon's essay was how incredibly interdependent these women were on each other. Ths interdependnce born out of necessity to survive eventually evolved into a powerful social and even political network. Some of these women's groups had real political power; distributing tax money etc. However, for a woman to be truly powerful within these groups she had to have connections to a powerful man, her husband, or father usually as is the case with Brandeis and Beyer. --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech by Palmer in Modern American Women brought up an excellent point. This was the point that most of the people in power equate life for everyone to what their own life is like. So to the men in power at the time, opening the workforce up to women seemed unnatural, dangerous, and threatening. However, this was because they were thinking about their own wives and daughters entering the workforce, which neither the men or most likely the women would have wanted, seeing as they come from upper class families. However, to the less fortunate, opening the workforce ot women was essential. These women needed to work in order to survive, alot of them did not have husbands who could or would support them. I think that this is still a mistake we all make today, not just the politicians, we fail to put ourselves in other peoples' shoes. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
In reading "The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893" in Modern American Women, I found it interesting how Bertha Palmer is obviously struggling with the conflict between the idealized woman and the reality that many women face. At one point she says that it is the board's "belief that every woman, who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studios." And then a few sentences later she talks about how it is only the favored class that can live in these conditions and that the majority of women are living under much poorer conditions. In a way, it seems as though she is still holding those ideals of women, but recognizing that most women cannot live up to them. I guess I'm just wondering how that differs from the rest of the people who simply hold those ideals, and is it even any better to recognize that the majority of women can't live up to the ideals but still hold them anyways? --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In reading "Speaking Out Against Lynching" in Modern American Women, the thing that struck me most is the obvious double standard that exists between sexual relations that happen between a black man and a white woman in comparison to those that exist between a white man and a black woman. I know that I may be looking at this from a present perspective, but it just strikes me that it is considered rape for a black man to have sex with a white woman, but nothing is said when a white man has sex with a black woman (which happened very often). I think that this double standard brings up issues with both race and gender. It brings up issues with gender because it indicates that white women are incapable of consenting to sexual interactions with a black man (but men can consent to sexual relations with a black woman). And it brings up issues of race because of the differential treatment between the races, and thinking about the likeliness that black women have of being raped. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I also thought "Wages for Housework" was a clever and humorous article. Conger-Kaneko seemed to denounce traditional women use her writing style. I thought it was very interesting, though not valid in every case, that she compared women's roles to those of slaves. I would imagine this would be a very persuasive arguement to move women towards equal rights after being compared to the slaves who had been freed for decades. I cannot imagine how women seeking to stay in their tradtional roles would argue against Conger-Kaneko's points? Although I imagine they were probably not interested in reading Progressive Woman. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
After having read some of the above comments about Ida B. Wells' essay, I thought more about her argument and the social and political climate during the time of lynching. I do agree with Jessica that it was somewhat out of fear because the black men were no longer under the control of the white masters. Lynching was one of the ways they could exhibit their control over this sector of society. It obviously didn't have to do with whether black men were actually raping white women; for white men, it was about controlling that sector of society. In response to Mary Beth's comment about Wells' essay, the viewpoint of many white Southern men was not that they were raping black women. It was only their superiority over the inferior race, black women being the most inferior because they were black and women. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
The discussion about moving up by way of housework and domestic services was brought up in the readings, and I believe that it ties in very well with what we've learned about in class. You can see the same sort of thing happening with the end of the Civil War, and clerical work. Like we discussed, women took clerical positions while men were away fighting, but soon after the war ended, those who kept their jobs soon learned that their jobs had become "secretarial." Those who once had the opportunity to move up in the business world while they were clerks soon found themselves stuck in the same place since secretarial work didn't provide much opportunity to elevate. But I agree, the question is, who decides what makes a position honorable? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I've decided that Nellie Bly is my new hero. The way she stood up to her boss and threatened to go to another paper if she wasn't allowed to "travel the world in 80 days" was incredible, especially for a woman of her time. What's even more interesting is how some of the stereotypes she faced still plague women today. For one, she's "too delicate" since she's a woman and would need protection. Second, her boss was concerned she'd have too much luggage, and if you think about women today (I know I, myself, am guilty of this) they pack much more than necessary. She even said herself, "Packing that bag was the most difficult undertaking of my life." It's just interesting to see the correlation and then quite impressive to see how she overcame gender stereotypes to beat "the man" at his own game. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I loved that the excerpt about bicycle riding by Frances Willard was included in the chapter. It's simplicity had the strongest message of encouragement for women to leave behind their usual constraints and go out into the world, to take control of their lives. She points out that for too long women have been constrained by their clothing and appearance. Willard asks women to take uncomplicated modern inventions and free themselves. My favorite quote from the piece was, "They that know nothing fear nothing." (p.18) It was a phrase that offered such quiet strength for the women of that time and even to women now. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I know a few other of my classmates have commented on it, but I felt that I should also comment on the birth control article too. I was also amazed at some of the ways women tried to have abortions. I have to agree though with Kelly that birth control was a way men would lose power over women, but I don't understand why the men wanted to have so many children to try to provide for in his home. Why not use condoms or pull out? Were the men so uncaring they ignored the pain of the female they married and the hunger of their children? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
In response to Ashley W., I don't think the men of that time really thought about the pain of the female in child birth,etc. Just from researching my family, I found that my grandfathers father had 18 children from 2 different wives (the first wife died in childbirth) and birth control in that family was never an option. My grandfather is the youngest and was born in 1923. He told me that his father believed that the more children you had the better off you were because you had more people to work in the fields at harvest time and they felt you could have more livestock because there were more people to share the work. My grandfathers family was totally self sufficient and he says they barely noticed the depression because they were self sufficient. I think maybe a lot of men had the same mindset and didn't see their wives as "suffering" because it was the way they survived. That of course is a rural example I don't know if it would have been the same in the cities but I am sure it was somewhat different.~~MaryBeth C<br />
<br />
Based on chapter 14, about black and white women’s vision of welfare activism, the book states that white women mostly helped out with political work and donations. Black women were more interested in helping there community and their churches. Could this be because black women saw other people as one class level and will help anyone, while white women will help out the upper class with politics to gain more women’s rights? <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I agree with Landon about how women were successful in gaining political power, but how far did that power get you? Even today I feel like women are still seen as the only way of gaining power is by having a strong male influence in the business beside you. <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the “Modern American Women” book, the documents of Jane Addams were very interesting. Jane Addams was unsure of what she wanted to do after college. Most women just get married and have children. She wanted to figure out a way to help people especially women by restoring balance in activities that were along the traditional lines. In 1889 Addams created the Hull House; a place where she developed social services and recreational programs to help the less fortune. If Addams was another woman to break down doors for more opportunities for other women why didn’t women’s ways of work life change? Also this shows that women do not have to get married right after college. <br />
-Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
"The Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home" was an interesting perspective on the home. Instead of telling women they could do it all, she asks women to consider working together with the family and other women to help them combine work and home. It seems so different from the feminist perspective that prevails today where women can do it all: home, work, and family. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
In "Modern American Women" I found this quote "We feel therefore, obliged to state our believe that every woman who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studies." All I have to say to this is wow have times changed since this was written. Women are making it a priority to be an asset to the workforce. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read about Alice Hamilton and how she got a medical degree from the University of MIchigan. (I am biased after growing up in Ann Arbor!) I thought it was interesting to read about her train of thought as to why a medical degree. She pursued medicine not because of an interest but because she knew she could excel in it even as a woman. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found this quote powerful and couldn't not post it. "We may convince the world that ability is not a matter of sex." --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed from these reading is that these women are all they same. They all come from essentially the same place. They are women who are well educated, upper-middle class, and single or married later in life. Where are the accounts of the poorer working class women? -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
While reading "A Woman Homesteader" the only thing that kept popping into my mind was that frustrating game of Oregon Trail. After playing that for hours on end in elementary school, I understand that making the journey westward was nothing but difficult. So reading the entry by Edith was fascinating when she and her sister discussed how easy it would be to "stick it out" on a piece of land for eight months. What I'm curious about, is was it typical for these women to go out by themselves like this? I know in class we talked about men going off on their own to start a new life and help their family, but I don't recall discussing that many women going on their own, especially for financial reasons. And would fathers have been that willing to let their daughters make their own choices, especially ones of this magnitude? It seems kind of out of character in my opinion. Nonetheless, rock on to both of them for being as gutsy as they were. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
It was so sad reading in Mamie Field's article about being African-American teachers along with her sister for African-American children. They got what was barely a building, no space, no blackboard and it was in such a bad location. The part that got to me the most was when she said that the white teachers never cared whether the black children came to school or not no matter waht the reason (poverty) and the fact that since these childrens' parents hadn't gone to school themselves, sometimes they didn't understand the great importance of getting their children educated. -Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
Like Kendall, I also liked the excerpt about Frances Willard riding her bike. A quote that stood out to me was, "I also wanted to help women to a wider world, for I hold that the more interests women and men have in common, in thought, in word, and deed, the happier it will be for the home." My interpretation of what Willard was saying is that it would be beneficial for everyone, both men and women, if women were allowed to experience the world outside the home the way men were allowed to. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
I thought the Jane Addams excerpt was inspirational. Even though she had no idea what she wanted to do after college, she created an organization that had such a huge impact on the community and the country. Not only did she help those who were less fortunate, but she also helped women like herself who did not want to marry and start a family immediately after college - they wanted to achieve something greater. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
Yay for birth contol!!! Reading about Mrs. Sachs case made me sad. It got me thinking how many women died this way? For some reason after reading me it hit me, women didn't just start trying abortions at the turn of the 20th century, this was a practice that I'm sure is as old as time!</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments328--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-02-07T05:48:20Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>While reading the primary source documents of the ''Modern American Women'' I found it a bit disconcerting that the women were so similar to the women of today. It is kind of a shame that history repeats itself so fully. I suppose it is evidence that change is gradual and more of an evolution. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Although it was an interesting study, Linda Gordon's study "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945" came very close to simply listing the differences between the two races of activists. Her conclusions did not seem to have a lot of depth. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Justin Mattos on his comment about Linda Gordon's essay. I too felt that that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion. However, I do believe to have a better sense of what was happening, it is good to know that just because welfare groups existed, they didn't all go after the same things. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It does seem like she just listed the differences between the two groups of reformers, however once I saw the tables in the back I was impressed. Until I saw those tables it hadnt sunk in that Gordon actually went back and found real women activist and studied them. Maybe I am just not used to studying history but I thought that was pretty cool. After i saw those tables with the lists of actual women activists I looked at the reading in a whole different light. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I also observed in the primary source documents of ''Modern American Women'' that the stereotypes of women have only changed slightly today. Women are still thought to be more fragile than men, and there is still a need to protect them from harm. It has only been within the last decade that the idea of a working women has gained mainstream acceptance. I wonder if this observation stems from the fact that the primary source documents that I read were from the perspective of educated women. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Chapter 14 of Unequal Sisters deals with the differences in welfare activism between African American and white women. Gordon points out that white women had more of an ability to work politically and seek donations from those who would be more able to help (i.e. congressional representatives or other political figures) while the African American women focused their activities around the community and church. She continues, to point out that white women activists focused more on charity and relief while black women sought to provide for more universal needs such as education and health. If there were poor or unfortunate people in both groups (black and white), why is it that white women activists focused on particular people while black women activists focused on reform that is more general? Did societal norms during this time make it more inappropriate to provide individual charity to black women? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read “Speaking out Against Lynching” by Ida B. Wells. She discusses the harsh punishments that African Americans were subjected to due to the stereotypes that white men and women held. On p age 15 she states, “With the Southern white man, any misalliance existing between a white woman and a colored man is a sufficient foundation for the charge of rape. The southern white man says that it is impossible for a voluntary alliance to exist between a white woman and a colored man, and therefore, the fact of an alliance is a proof of force.” Given this, would it also be considered rape if it were a black woman and a white man? Moreover, who would be at fault, would it be the man forcing himself onto the woman, or the woman because she is black? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading by Wells was interesting. She only discusses the accusations that black men were raping white women. She never mentions black women being raped. Was it just something that they didn't talk about or something that they just took as a fact of life during those times? I thought it interesting that discussing how black men were falsely accused of rape and lynched even when it was well known at the time that it was a concentual relationship, but then went on to say that even when the white man left for war he left the white women to be protected by the black men. So why all of a sudden is the lynching of black men on the rise? Was it because now they were free and more like competition to the whites than they had been before?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth, I do think that to some extent the lynching of black was due to competition, but also due to fear. Before the African Americans were free, white men had never considered them to be a threat. When they left home they trusted that they would return with their home and family in the same state. It never crossed their minds that it would be possible for their family to be in danger because there had never been any reason to mistrust. Wells states on page 15 that "the world has accepted the story that the Negro is a monster which the Southern white man has painted him." With this image that is created, when the African Americans are free, the white men thus see it as the release of "a monster" and they no longer feel safe and trustworthy as they did before, when "the monster" was contained. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also found the reading on Wells interesting. In response to Mary Beth's point about the black women not officially being raped I believe it has some background in the idea that black women were naturally more passionate (less pure) than white women and therefore couldn't be raped because they would still be willing to have that relationship. I also agree with Jessica in that i think the lynching increased because there was a greater amount of fear now about the black community being free and the white community felt the need to use fear to control them. Likewise, in the South (where lynching was common) it might have been a way for the white community to maintain control and limit the amount of change that took place despite slavery being over. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to Jessica's question, I think that white women were able to focus more on specific groups, because unlike black women, white women just had to focus on issues of sexual inequality whereas black women had the issues of sexual AND racial inequality going against them, as well as establishing themselves in a newly free world. Chapter 14 of Unequal Sister does highlight that the two major focus point for black women groups was education and health care. These were issues that obviously had to be taken care of after slavery because the whites weren't going to provide it fully for them (yes, a lot of groups DID help) but they knew they had to rely on themselves(as the article shows) to fully develop and not remain stagnant and looked down upon by the white community.- Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
I also found in interesting in Gordon's piece on Welfare that she notes one specific difference. She states that the white groups that were looking for reform were looking at people "other" than themselves. They saw themselves as helping people less fortunate than themselves but still with a "moral" aspect between who was the "worthy and the unworthy poor" (pg 225). In contrast the black groups focused on middle class and poor blacks. The black groups also focused more on education and health instead of charitys like the whites. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
After reading ''Modern American Women'' I do agree with my classmates on how the perception of women has not changed drastically. It is now socially acceptable for a women to go off into the business world and make a name for herself. Even jobs such a teacher and a nurse that were considered women's work are still dominated today by women. Since I am an education major I go into a lot of elementary schools and the staff is female dominated. I think it is wrong that today where anyone can be anything, people still stereotype jobs and classify things as mens work or females work. This eve goes beyond the adults of the nation. We start these stereotypes early in children's lives. I have always remembered when I was younger and would go to Mc Donalds they would ask "would you like a girl toy or a boy toy?" Sometimes yeah I wanted the princess toy but other times I also wanted the hot wheels car. It is so disturbing to know that we are still dealing with this issue. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading the article on Women's welfare activism,I too felt that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion.However on the second page of the article, it talks about the differences of how white and black women were raising money. It says oh of course women raise money but they were also so busy attending White House conferences and correspondence with Supreme Court Justices and the black women it just states they organized bake sales, rummage sales and church dinners. I guess after reading this my biggest pet peeve is that yes white women did have more power in society. However, its not like there were no black women doing the same things. I just don't like how these women are talked down, for what they had their time was just as well spent as a white women. This really just made me feel that white women were more interested in their social lives or making them selves look better and black women worked as a team, they worked for the well being of everyone. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
While reading Chapter 14, I began to think about the possibly that the difference between the perspective of white women and black women on the poor that they helped was a matter of progression or evolution. As the black women received more power, it seemed that they became more like the white women and began to explicitly look down on the poorer black social classes. I saw this occurrence when the author talked about the views of the black poor by educated black women being the same as white women.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
While reading MAW, I came across an exert from Ida B. Wells, which in truth makes sense, but I didn't expect to see exert from something I have read in the past. There piece of the article here touched me almost as much as it touched me then. The black women were not treated equally in any light, and were not considered to be able to be 'raped' because they were not pure and pious like the white women. Part of that comes through in the last paragraph of the exert. It makes me mad to think that people once thought like this, but what is even more scary is some people still do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
After reading a bit more in the Modern American Women book, I find myself getting emotionally involved with the information presented. I felt anger towards the father who was treating his daughter like a sack of trash in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." I felt heartbroke when he slapped her because she was leaving. At the same time I know this happened a lot towards women... and it breaks my heart to know what some women had to go through. I've been lucky to have a father who was supportive in everything I chose and only opposed my decisions when they were bad decisions. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley. I also felt angry towards the father in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." But what I also thought was sad and telling from this piece was how the mother quietly gave the money to the daughter so that she could get away and start over fresh. We all know that parents want a better life for their children than they had themselves. I think that this is a perfect example of a mother wanting her daughter to have a better life than she herself had--almost as though she is hoping that she can live vicariously through her daughter's freedom. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Ashley since I was also touched by some of the readings in Modern American Women. I also was upset at the way the young girl was treated by her father in "An Immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World". I always knew parents treated their daughters in such a harsh way at times, but it was very hard to see how harshly she was treated. I have to say if I was in her position I also would have left home. Though I did enjoy how she points out that she got in so much trouble for taking the girls word that they would get the 2 cents she owed when she says her dad had given away a lot more merchandise without any payment at all. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Bertha Palmer's speech at the opening of the Women's Building was so progressive except for the part where she says: "It willing acknowledges that the industries, arts, and commerce of the world have been for centuries in the hands of men who have carefully trained themselves for the responsibilities devolving upon them, and who have, consequently, without question, contributed vastly more than women to the valuable thought, research, invention, science, art and literature, which have become the rich heritage of the human race." Does she actually believe this? Or is she catering to what the public will most except in order to support her movement? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter) story very interesting as far as the existance of two worlds (old/new) for young immigrant women. I feel like today American woman still struggle with existing in between the Old and the New world. It is amazing how sometimes problems never get solved they just evolve. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Mary Harris seemed incredible against the predominant constructs of gender and the entire system of change in America. Clearly she has struggled greatly in her lifetime and criticized women's methods of change... yet she seems to offer now feasibly alternative route. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
The difference between the white activism and the black activism discussed in Unequal Sisters was not very surprising to me. I figured that since black women were also fighting for civil rights their fight would be stronger. They seemed to have the largest networks of people working toward the cause. They held fundraising fuctions to help raise the money needed to fund their programs. It is easy to understand how these women bonded in the way that they did. The bond that these women grew amongst themselves was largely due to the having to rely on eachother so much. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye about how it wasn't surprising about the differences between black and white activism. The black women had so much more to fight for, and not only that but how education was their most important area of activism instead of voting like for the white women.-- Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
I was impressed with the vast number of organizations that were formed as a result of the fundraising efforts of activist women. I was even more shocked to find the cost of maintaining these organizations and that these women were able to raise the money needed. ---Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to learn how educated these women were. I knew some women were getting degrees but not this many and not African Americans. I also thought it was interesting to see how important, influential, or rich the parents of these women were even the African American women had wealthy parents. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
Another thing I found intersting was the view these women had about the role of women. I would have thought that since these women were out in the work force trying to bring about change they would have supported other women in the work place but they don't. It also was a surprise to learn about how many of the women were single, divorced, widowed, married, or living with a "partner." The interacting and sense of community created amoung these women is amazing. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
It surprises me that black women started to develop social classes just as the white women. Black women who started to gain power, like the power whites had, these black women started to treat the poor and less fortunate black women like a low class. This really bothers me because after everything these women have been through you would except them to try to help each other out, but instead they forget about them and treat them as peasants. What my question is, are these higher powered black women doing this because they are trying to be whiter? Do they care more about upper class societies views on them? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I was also surprised on how the black women started a social class just like the white women, but to try and answer your question(s) Amanda, I don't think they were trying to be whiter but maybe instead were so tired of the white social class they were instead competing now against them on what race was better as well as trying to gain the much wanted respect from white society they have wanted for so long. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of what both Amanda and Michelle said, I think we have to keep in mind that there was a social ideal that all women had to try to live up to. The domestic of separate spheres was still alive and well and I feel like some black women felt that they had to adhere to that doctrine in order to make some headway in the world. Now, I'm not saying that's how all black women felt or acted, but I'm sure it played some sort of part. But what upsets me the most, and it's talked about in Anna Cooper's piece, "Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race," is that black women were subjected to the bottom of the social hierarchy on two accounts: race AND gender. No matter which way they tried to advance, they always had someone trying to hold them back. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Cat and the Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter)piece. Women are stuck dealing with the old and the new world. The problem with todays society is that only some people truly believe in the modern day women however, a good amount of people are so stuck in the past. Its not fair how women have to fight for so much when people need to stop living in the past. --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Along with many other posts about the emotional involvement MAW commands of its readers, I found that "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control" opened my eyes to the desperate and difficult position of being a women with no control over her own body. Still today there are few practical birth control methods for the women that need it most. The pill and other hormonal methods are not cheap and condoms primarily place responsiblity on the male partner. It was heart-breaking to hear "a baby born dead, great relief - the death of an older child, sorrow but again relief" (86) as it must have been for Sanger. Sanger was not on a crusade to put a stop to child birth or to change the understanding that sex was for procreation, but rather to bring peace of mind to the women that so desperatly needed it. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
<br />
I also was very touched by "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control". I knew that women had been attempting ways to control the number of children they had for a very long time but I had no idea that someone could self induce an abortion (especially since i really don't know how that works). I also found it so shocking that even married women didn't want to put faith in their husbands desire not to have any more children even though it would reduce the stress on his life and make paying bills easier. I would have thought they would also be glad to have less children to take care of. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to your comment Elizabeth, I'm not so sure it was the fact that they would have less children to take care of so much as the women would be in control of their own bodies and be making family altering decisions. Women were supposed to obey their husbands and if they took a stand and decided that they were going to prevent their family from increasing, then the husband would, in essence, lose a bit of power over his wife. I think that was what terrified them more than anything else. Some men actually were thrilled that their wives were looking into birth control. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
After taking History of Sexuality last semester and discussing Margaret Sanger I was not at all surprised with the "Margaret Sanger's Epihany over Birth Control." It was and still is hard to be a women when it comes to birth control. Women today are far better off than the women of Margaret Sanger's time. It is so much easier for women to obtain birth control today then ever before. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was very suprised to learn when reading Edith Eudora Ammons' piece about life as a female homesteader that women were more successful in staying with their claims by 6%. As she recalled being driven further and further into the unsettled land I can only imagine how disconnecting and daunting that ride must have been. The Ammons sister's hard work is clear proof of a way in which American women were able to take a different route and break the social expectations. After reading about the women who went west with their husbands or in order to find a husband in the past weeks, it was very uplifting to read about the other opportunities the west had for women. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I thought "Wages for Housework" was the best essay, it made me laugh. I thought it was very interesting on how she capitalized certain sentences in order to show her frustration and to get her point across. I also thought this essay sounded very much like a modern day women and her frustration with being a house wife and how it is not looked at as being a job, because a lot more than just cleaning and cooking goes into taking care of a house and family. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In Nellie Bly's essay she says, "I had such a strong belief in the world's greeting me as I greeted it, that I refused to arm myself. I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me,..." (pg6-7) She is amazing in the fact that she was going to attempt to fly around the world and the fact that she was a women was going to make this awesome, but in this quote she seems completely oblivious to the real world, and that not everyone you meet is going to like you, aswell as thinking any man would be willing to protect her. Its like she ready to be considered equal to man by doing this great thing but yet still depend on them for protection. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Gordon's essay in US as Kellye mentions as well as I have responded to her comment above about not being suprised about the differences in white and black women activism, but my question is why could women in general, black and white just come together and be the first ones to over look race and fight the cause of womens rights together? I think if they could have done that would of had a more dominate impact in getting what and where they wanted to be.--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
was also very surprised by Edith Eudora Ammon's piece, but mainly that while they met some resistance in their journey west, they did not seem to get mistreated nearly has much as I would have expected. I would have thought that as two women going west to homestead they would have gotten scoffed at yet I don't recall this being mentioned in the recounting. Is this because it didn't happen or because they chose to ignore it?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the Unequal Sisters reading by Linda Gordon I found very interesting the concept of social motherhood among the black women's welfare reform groups. These women were mostly single and were not biological mothers yet the main issues they focused on were familial in nature. I do not necessarily think that this indicates the selfless mindset of these women, but rather points to how strongly the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle classs status quo, affected everyones' decisions during this time period. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Another point worth mentioning from Gordon's essay was how incredibly interdependent these women were on each other. Ths interdependnce born out of necessity to survive eventually evolved into a powerful social and even political network. Some of these women's groups had real political power; distributing tax money etc. However, for a woman to be truly powerful within these groups she had to have connections to a powerful man, her husband, or father usually as is the case with Brandeis and Beyer. --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech by Palmer in Modern American Women brought up an excellent point. This was the point that most of the people in power equate life for everyone to what their own life is like. So to the men in power at the time, opening the workforce up to women seemed unnatural, dangerous, and threatening. However, this was because they were thinking about their own wives and daughters entering the workforce, which neither the men or most likely the women would have wanted, seeing as they come from upper class families. However, to the less fortunate, opening the workforce ot women was essential. These women needed to work in order to survive, alot of them did not have husbands who could or would support them. I think that this is still a mistake we all make today, not just the politicians, we fail to put ourselves in other peoples' shoes. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
In reading "The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893" in Modern American Women, I found it interesting how Bertha Palmer is obviously struggling with the conflict between the idealized woman and the reality that many women face. At one point she says that it is the board's "belief that every woman, who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studios." And then a few sentences later she talks about how it is only the favored class that can live in these conditions and that the majority of women are living under much poorer conditions. In a way, it seems as though she is still holding those ideals of women, but recognizing that most women cannot live up to them. I guess I'm just wondering how that differs from the rest of the people who simply hold those ideals, and is it even any better to recognize that the majority of women can't live up to the ideals but still hold them anyways? --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In reading "Speaking Out Against Lynching" in Modern American Women, the thing that struck me most is the obvious double standard that exists between sexual relations that happen between a black man and a white woman in comparison to those that exist between a white man and a black woman. I know that I may be looking at this from a present perspective, but it just strikes me that it is considered rape for a black man to have sex with a white woman, but nothing is said when a white man has sex with a black woman (which happened very often). I think that this double standard brings up issues with both race and gender. It brings up issues with gender because it indicates that white women are incapable of consenting to sexual interactions with a black man (but men can consent to sexual relations with a black woman). And it brings up issues of race because of the differential treatment between the races, and thinking about the likeliness that black women have of being raped. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I also thought "Wages for Housework" was a clever and humorous article. Conger-Kaneko seemed to denounce traditional women use her writing style. I thought it was very interesting, though not valid in every case, that she compared women's roles to those of slaves. I would imagine this would be a very persuasive arguement to move women towards equal rights after being compared to the slaves who had been freed for decades. I cannot imagine how women seeking to stay in their tradtional roles would argue against Conger-Kaneko's points? Although I imagine they were probably not interested in reading Progressive Woman. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
After having read some of the above comments about Ida B. Wells' essay, I thought more about her argument and the social and political climate during the time of lynching. I do agree with Jessica that it was somewhat out of fear because the black men were no longer under the control of the white masters. Lynching was one of the ways they could exhibit their control over this sector of society. It obviously didn't have to do with whether black men were actually raping white women; for white men, it was about controlling that sector of society. In response to Mary Beth's comment about Wells' essay, the viewpoint of many white Southern men was not that they were raping black women. It was only their superiority over the inferior race, black women being the most inferior because they were black and women. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
The discussion about moving up by way of housework and domestic services was brought up in the readings, and I believe that it ties in very well with what we've learned about in class. You can see the same sort of thing happening with the end of the Civil War, and clerical work. Like we discussed, women took clerical positions while men were away fighting, but soon after the war ended, those who kept their jobs soon learned that their jobs had become "secretarial." Those who once had the opportunity to move up in the business world while they were clerks soon found themselves stuck in the same place since secretarial work didn't provide much opportunity to elevate. But I agree, the question is, who decides what makes a position honorable? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I've decided that Nellie Bly is my new hero. The way she stood up to her boss and threatened to go to another paper if she wasn't allowed to "travel the world in 80 days" was incredible, especially for a woman of her time. What's even more interesting is how some of the stereotypes she faced still plague women today. For one, she's "too delicate" since she's a woman and would need protection. Second, her boss was concerned she'd have too much luggage, and if you think about women today (I know I, myself, am guilty of this) they pack much more than necessary. She even said herself, "Packing that bag was the most difficult undertaking of my life." It's just interesting to see the correlation and then quite impressive to see how she overcame gender stereotypes to beat "the man" at his own game. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I loved that the excerpt about bicycle riding by Frances Willard was included in the chapter. It's simplicity had the strongest message of encouragement for women to leave behind their usual constraints and go out into the world, to take control of their lives. She points out that for too long women have been constrained by their clothing and appearance. Willard asks women to take uncomplicated modern inventions and free themselves. My favorite quote from the piece was, "They that know nothing fear nothing." (p.18) It was a phrase that offered such quiet strength for the women of that time and even to women now. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I know a few other of my classmates have commented on it, but I felt that I should also comment on the birth control article too. I was also amazed at some of the ways women tried to have abortions. I have to agree though with Kelly that birth control was a way men would lose power over women, but I don't understand why the men wanted to have so many children to try to provide for in his home. Why not use condoms or pull out? Were the men so uncaring they ignored the pain of the female they married and the hunger of their children? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
In response to Ashley W., I don't think the men of that time really thought about the pain of the female in child birth,etc. Just from researching my family, I found that my grandfathers father had 18 children from 2 different wives (the first wife died in childbirth) and birth control in that family was never an option. My grandfather is the youngest and was born in 1923. He told me that his father believed that the more children you had the better off you were because you had more people to work in the fields at harvest time and they felt you could have more livestock because there were more people to share the work. My grandfathers family was totally self sufficient and he says they barely noticed the depression because they were self sufficient. I think maybe a lot of men had the same mindset and didn't see their wives as "suffering" because it was the way they survived. That of course is a rural example I don't know if it would have been the same in the cities but I am sure it was somewhat different.~~MaryBeth C<br />
<br />
Based on chapter 14, about black and white women’s vision of welfare activism, the book states that white women mostly helped out with political work and donations. Black women were more interested in helping there community and their churches. Could this be because black women saw other people as one class level and will help anyone, while white women will help out the upper class with politics to gain more women’s rights? <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I agree with Landon about how women were successful in gaining political power, but how far did that power get you? Even today I feel like women are still seen as the only way of gaining power is by having a strong male influence in the business beside you. <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the “Modern American Women” book, the documents of Jane Addams were very interesting. Jane Addams was unsure of what she wanted to do after college. Most women just get married and have children. She wanted to figure out a way to help people especially women by restoring balance in activities that were along the traditional lines. In 1889 Addams created the Hull House; a place where she developed social services and recreational programs to help the less fortune. If Addams was another woman to break down doors for more opportunities for other women why didn’t women’s ways of work life change? Also this shows that women do not have to get married right after college. <br />
-Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
"The Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home" was an interesting perspective on the home. Instead of telling women they could do it all, she asks women to consider working together with the family and other women to help them combine work and home. It seems so different from the feminist perspective that prevails today where women can do it all: home, work, and family. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
In "Modern American Women" I found this quote "We feel therefore, obliged to state our believe that every woman who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studies." All I have to say to this is wow have times changed since this was written. Women are making it a priority to be an asset to the workforce. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read about Alice Hamilton and how she got a medical degree from the University of MIchigan. (I am biased after growing up in Ann Arbor!) I thought it was interesting to read about her train of thought as to why a medical degree. She pursued medicine not because of an interest but because she knew she could excel in it even as a woman. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found this quote powerful and couldn't not post it. "We may convince the world that ability is not a matter of sex." --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed from these reading is that these women are all they same. They all come from essentially the same place. They are women who are well educated, upper-middle class, and single or married later in life. Where are the accounts of the poorer working class women? -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
While reading "A Woman Homesteader" the only thing that kept popping into my mind was that frustrating game of Oregon Trail. After playing that for hours on end in elementary school, I understand that making the journey westward was nothing but difficult. So reading the entry by Edith was fascinating when she and her sister discussed how easy it would be to "stick it out" on a piece of land for eight months. What I'm curious about, is was it typical for these women to go out by themselves like this? I know in class we talked about men going off on their own to start a new life and help their family, but I don't recall discussing that many women going on their own, especially for financial reasons. And would fathers have been that willing to let their daughters make their own choices, especially ones of this magnitude? It seems kind of out of character in my opinion. Nonetheless, rock on to both of them for being as gutsy as they were. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
It was so sad reading in Mamie Field's article about being African-American teachers along with her sister for African-American children. They got what was barely a building, no space, no blackboard and it was in such a bad location. The part that got to me the most was when she said that the white teachers never cared whether the black children came to school or not no matter waht the reason (poverty) and the fact that since these childrens' parents hadn't gone to school themselves, sometimes they didn't understand the great importance of getting their children educated. -Emely Amaya</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments328--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-02-07T05:47:58Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>While reading the primary source documents of the ''Modern American Women'' I found it a bit disconcerting that the women were so similar to the women of today. It is kind of a shame that history repeats itself so fully. I suppose it is evidence that change is gradual and more of an evolution. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Although it was an interesting study, Linda Gordon's study "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945" came very close to simply listing the differences between the two races of activists. Her conclusions did not seem to have a lot of depth. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Justin Mattos on his comment about Linda Gordon's essay. I too felt that that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion. However, I do believe to have a better sense of what was happening, it is good to know that just because welfare groups existed, they didn't all go after the same things. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It does seem like she just listed the differences between the two groups of reformers, however once I saw the tables in the back I was impressed. Until I saw those tables it hadnt sunk in that Gordon actually went back and found real women activist and studied them. Maybe I am just not used to studying history but I thought that was pretty cool. After i saw those tables with the lists of actual women activists I looked at the reading in a whole different light. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I also observed in the primary source documents of ''Modern American Women'' that the stereotypes of women have only changed slightly today. Women are still thought to be more fragile than men, and there is still a need to protect them from harm. It has only been within the last decade that the idea of a working women has gained mainstream acceptance. I wonder if this observation stems from the fact that the primary source documents that I read were from the perspective of educated women. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Chapter 14 of Unequal Sisters deals with the differences in welfare activism between African American and white women. Gordon points out that white women had more of an ability to work politically and seek donations from those who would be more able to help (i.e. congressional representatives or other political figures) while the African American women focused their activities around the community and church. She continues, to point out that white women activists focused more on charity and relief while black women sought to provide for more universal needs such as education and health. If there were poor or unfortunate people in both groups (black and white), why is it that white women activists focused on particular people while black women activists focused on reform that is more general? Did societal norms during this time make it more inappropriate to provide individual charity to black women? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read “Speaking out Against Lynching” by Ida B. Wells. She discusses the harsh punishments that African Americans were subjected to due to the stereotypes that white men and women held. On p age 15 she states, “With the Southern white man, any misalliance existing between a white woman and a colored man is a sufficient foundation for the charge of rape. The southern white man says that it is impossible for a voluntary alliance to exist between a white woman and a colored man, and therefore, the fact of an alliance is a proof of force.” Given this, would it also be considered rape if it were a black woman and a white man? Moreover, who would be at fault, would it be the man forcing himself onto the woman, or the woman because she is black? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading by Wells was interesting. She only discusses the accusations that black men were raping white women. She never mentions black women being raped. Was it just something that they didn't talk about or something that they just took as a fact of life during those times? I thought it interesting that discussing how black men were falsely accused of rape and lynched even when it was well known at the time that it was a concentual relationship, but then went on to say that even when the white man left for war he left the white women to be protected by the black men. So why all of a sudden is the lynching of black men on the rise? Was it because now they were free and more like competition to the whites than they had been before?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth, I do think that to some extent the lynching of black was due to competition, but also due to fear. Before the African Americans were free, white men had never considered them to be a threat. When they left home they trusted that they would return with their home and family in the same state. It never crossed their minds that it would be possible for their family to be in danger because there had never been any reason to mistrust. Wells states on page 15 that "the world has accepted the story that the Negro is a monster which the Southern white man has painted him." With this image that is created, when the African Americans are free, the white men thus see it as the release of "a monster" and they no longer feel safe and trustworthy as they did before, when "the monster" was contained. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also found the reading on Wells interesting. In response to Mary Beth's point about the black women not officially being raped I believe it has some background in the idea that black women were naturally more passionate (less pure) than white women and therefore couldn't be raped because they would still be willing to have that relationship. I also agree with Jessica in that i think the lynching increased because there was a greater amount of fear now about the black community being free and the white community felt the need to use fear to control them. Likewise, in the South (where lynching was common) it might have been a way for the white community to maintain control and limit the amount of change that took place despite slavery being over. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to Jessica's question, I think that white women were able to focus more on specific groups, because unlike black women, white women just had to focus on issues of sexual inequality whereas black women had the issues of sexual AND racial inequality going against them, as well as establishing themselves in a newly free world. Chapter 14 of Unequal Sister does highlight that the two major focus point for black women groups was education and health care. These were issues that obviously had to be taken care of after slavery because the whites weren't going to provide it fully for them (yes, a lot of groups DID help) but they knew they had to rely on themselves(as the article shows) to fully develop and not remain stagnant and looked down upon by the white community.- Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
I also found in interesting in Gordon's piece on Welfare that she notes one specific difference. She states that the white groups that were looking for reform were looking at people "other" than themselves. They saw themselves as helping people less fortunate than themselves but still with a "moral" aspect between who was the "worthy and the unworthy poor" (pg 225). In contrast the black groups focused on middle class and poor blacks. The black groups also focused more on education and health instead of charitys like the whites. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
After reading ''Modern American Women'' I do agree with my classmates on how the perception of women has not changed drastically. It is now socially acceptable for a women to go off into the business world and make a name for herself. Even jobs such a teacher and a nurse that were considered women's work are still dominated today by women. Since I am an education major I go into a lot of elementary schools and the staff is female dominated. I think it is wrong that today where anyone can be anything, people still stereotype jobs and classify things as mens work or females work. This eve goes beyond the adults of the nation. We start these stereotypes early in children's lives. I have always remembered when I was younger and would go to Mc Donalds they would ask "would you like a girl toy or a boy toy?" Sometimes yeah I wanted the princess toy but other times I also wanted the hot wheels car. It is so disturbing to know that we are still dealing with this issue. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading the article on Women's welfare activism,I too felt that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion.However on the second page of the article, it talks about the differences of how white and black women were raising money. It says oh of course women raise money but they were also so busy attending White House conferences and correspondence with Supreme Court Justices and the black women it just states they organized bake sales, rummage sales and church dinners. I guess after reading this my biggest pet peeve is that yes white women did have more power in society. However, its not like there were no black women doing the same things. I just don't like how these women are talked down, for what they had their time was just as well spent as a white women. This really just made me feel that white women were more interested in their social lives or making them selves look better and black women worked as a team, they worked for the well being of everyone. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
While reading Chapter 14, I began to think about the possibly that the difference between the perspective of white women and black women on the poor that they helped was a matter of progression or evolution. As the black women received more power, it seemed that they became more like the white women and began to explicitly look down on the poorer black social classes. I saw this occurrence when the author talked about the views of the black poor by educated black women being the same as white women.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
While reading MAW, I came across an exert from Ida B. Wells, which in truth makes sense, but I didn't expect to see exert from something I have read in the past. There piece of the article here touched me almost as much as it touched me then. The black women were not treated equally in any light, and were not considered to be able to be 'raped' because they were not pure and pious like the white women. Part of that comes through in the last paragraph of the exert. It makes me mad to think that people once thought like this, but what is even more scary is some people still do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
After reading a bit more in the Modern American Women book, I find myself getting emotionally involved with the information presented. I felt anger towards the father who was treating his daughter like a sack of trash in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." I felt heartbroke when he slapped her because she was leaving. At the same time I know this happened a lot towards women... and it breaks my heart to know what some women had to go through. I've been lucky to have a father who was supportive in everything I chose and only opposed my decisions when they were bad decisions. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley. I also felt angry towards the father in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." But what I also thought was sad and telling from this piece was how the mother quietly gave the money to the daughter so that she could get away and start over fresh. We all know that parents want a better life for their children than they had themselves. I think that this is a perfect example of a mother wanting her daughter to have a better life than she herself had--almost as though she is hoping that she can live vicariously through her daughter's freedom. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Ashley since I was also touched by some of the readings in Modern American Women. I also was upset at the way the young girl was treated by her father in "An Immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World". I always knew parents treated their daughters in such a harsh way at times, but it was very hard to see how harshly she was treated. I have to say if I was in her position I also would have left home. Though I did enjoy how she points out that she got in so much trouble for taking the girls word that they would get the 2 cents she owed when she says her dad had given away a lot more merchandise without any payment at all. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Bertha Palmer's speech at the opening of the Women's Building was so progressive except for the part where she says: "It willing acknowledges that the industries, arts, and commerce of the world have been for centuries in the hands of men who have carefully trained themselves for the responsibilities devolving upon them, and who have, consequently, without question, contributed vastly more than women to the valuable thought, research, invention, science, art and literature, which have become the rich heritage of the human race." Does she actually believe this? Or is she catering to what the public will most except in order to support her movement? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter) story very interesting as far as the existance of two worlds (old/new) for young immigrant women. I feel like today American woman still struggle with existing in between the Old and the New world. It is amazing how sometimes problems never get solved they just evolve. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Mary Harris seemed incredible against the predominant constructs of gender and the entire system of change in America. Clearly she has struggled greatly in her lifetime and criticized women's methods of change... yet she seems to offer now feasibly alternative route. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
The difference between the white activism and the black activism discussed in Unequal Sisters was not very surprising to me. I figured that since black women were also fighting for civil rights their fight would be stronger. They seemed to have the largest networks of people working toward the cause. They held fundraising fuctions to help raise the money needed to fund their programs. It is easy to understand how these women bonded in the way that they did. The bond that these women grew amongst themselves was largely due to the having to rely on eachother so much. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye about how it wasn't surprising about the differences between black and white activism. The black women had so much more to fight for, and not only that but how education was their most important area of activism instead of voting like for the white women.-- Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
I was impressed with the vast number of organizations that were formed as a result of the fundraising efforts of activist women. I was even more shocked to find the cost of maintaining these organizations and that these women were able to raise the money needed. ---Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to learn how educated these women were. I knew some women were getting degrees but not this many and not African Americans. I also thought it was interesting to see how important, influential, or rich the parents of these women were even the African American women had wealthy parents. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
Another thing I found intersting was the view these women had about the role of women. I would have thought that since these women were out in the work force trying to bring about change they would have supported other women in the work place but they don't. It also was a surprise to learn about how many of the women were single, divorced, widowed, married, or living with a "partner." The interacting and sense of community created amoung these women is amazing. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
It surprises me that black women started to develop social classes just as the white women. Black women who started to gain power, like the power whites had, these black women started to treat the poor and less fortunate black women like a low class. This really bothers me because after everything these women have been through you would except them to try to help each other out, but instead they forget about them and treat them as peasants. What my question is, are these higher powered black women doing this because they are trying to be whiter? Do they care more about upper class societies views on them? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I was also surprised on how the black women started a social class just like the white women, but to try and answer your question(s) Amanda, I don't think they were trying to be whiter but maybe instead were so tired of the white social class they were instead competing now against them on what race was better as well as trying to gain the much wanted respect from white society they have wanted for so long. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of what both Amanda and Michelle said, I think we have to keep in mind that there was a social ideal that all women had to try to live up to. The domestic of separate spheres was still alive and well and I feel like some black women felt that they had to adhere to that doctrine in order to make some headway in the world. Now, I'm not saying that's how all black women felt or acted, but I'm sure it played some sort of part. But what upsets me the most, and it's talked about in Anna Cooper's piece, "Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race," is that black women were subjected to the bottom of the social hierarchy on two accounts: race AND gender. No matter which way they tried to advance, they always had someone trying to hold them back. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Cat and the Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter)piece. Women are stuck dealing with the old and the new world. The problem with todays society is that only some people truly believe in the modern day women however, a good amount of people are so stuck in the past. Its not fair how women have to fight for so much when people need to stop living in the past. --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Along with many other posts about the emotional involvement MAW commands of its readers, I found that "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control" opened my eyes to the desperate and difficult position of being a women with no control over her own body. Still today there are few practical birth control methods for the women that need it most. The pill and other hormonal methods are not cheap and condoms primarily place responsiblity on the male partner. It was heart-breaking to hear "a baby born dead, great relief - the death of an older child, sorrow but again relief" (86) as it must have been for Sanger. Sanger was not on a crusade to put a stop to child birth or to change the understanding that sex was for procreation, but rather to bring peace of mind to the women that so desperatly needed it. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
<br />
I also was very touched by "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control". I knew that women had been attempting ways to control the number of children they had for a very long time but I had no idea that someone could self induce an abortion (especially since i really don't know how that works). I also found it so shocking that even married women didn't want to put faith in their husbands desire not to have any more children even though it would reduce the stress on his life and make paying bills easier. I would have thought they would also be glad to have less children to take care of. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to your comment Elizabeth, I'm not so sure it was the fact that they would have less children to take care of so much as the women would be in control of their own bodies and be making family altering decisions. Women were supposed to obey their husbands and if they took a stand and decided that they were going to prevent their family from increasing, then the husband would, in essence, lose a bit of power over his wife. I think that was what terrified them more than anything else. Some men actually were thrilled that their wives were looking into birth control. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
After taking History of Sexuality last semester and discussing Margaret Sanger I was not at all surprised with the "Margaret Sanger's Epihany over Birth Control." It was and still is hard to be a women when it comes to birth control. Women today are far better off than the women of Margaret Sanger's time. It is so much easier for women to obtain birth control today then ever before. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was very suprised to learn when reading Edith Eudora Ammons' piece about life as a female homesteader that women were more successful in staying with their claims by 6%. As she recalled being driven further and further into the unsettled land I can only imagine how disconnecting and daunting that ride must have been. The Ammons sister's hard work is clear proof of a way in which American women were able to take a different route and break the social expectations. After reading about the women who went west with their husbands or in order to find a husband in the past weeks, it was very uplifting to read about the other opportunities the west had for women. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I thought "Wages for Housework" was the best essay, it made me laugh. I thought it was very interesting on how she capitalized certain sentences in order to show her frustration and to get her point across. I also thought this essay sounded very much like a modern day women and her frustration with being a house wife and how it is not looked at as being a job, because a lot more than just cleaning and cooking goes into taking care of a house and family. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In Nellie Bly's essay she says, "I had such a strong belief in the world's greeting me as I greeted it, that I refused to arm myself. I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me,..." (pg6-7) She is amazing in the fact that she was going to attempt to fly around the world and the fact that she was a women was going to make this awesome, but in this quote she seems completely oblivious to the real world, and that not everyone you meet is going to like you, aswell as thinking any man would be willing to protect her. Its like she ready to be considered equal to man by doing this great thing but yet still depend on them for protection. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Gordon's essay in US as Kellye mentions as well as I have responded to her comment above about not being suprised about the differences in white and black women activism, but my question is why could women in general, black and white just come together and be the first ones to over look race and fight the cause of womens rights together? I think if they could have done that would of had a more dominate impact in getting what and where they wanted to be.--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
was also very surprised by Edith Eudora Ammon's piece, but mainly that while they met some resistance in their journey west, they did not seem to get mistreated nearly has much as I would have expected. I would have thought that as two women going west to homestead they would have gotten scoffed at yet I don't recall this being mentioned in the recounting. Is this because it didn't happen or because they chose to ignore it?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the Unequal Sisters reading by Linda Gordon I found very interesting the concept of social motherhood among the black women's welfare reform groups. These women were mostly single and were not biological mothers yet the main issues they focused on were familial in nature. I do not necessarily think that this indicates the selfless mindset of these women, but rather points to how strongly the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle classs status quo, affected everyones' decisions during this time period. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Another point worth mentioning from Gordon's essay was how incredibly interdependent these women were on each other. Ths interdependnce born out of necessity to survive eventually evolved into a powerful social and even political network. Some of these women's groups had real political power; distributing tax money etc. However, for a woman to be truly powerful within these groups she had to have connections to a powerful man, her husband, or father usually as is the case with Brandeis and Beyer. --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech by Palmer in Modern American Women brought up an excellent point. This was the point that most of the people in power equate life for everyone to what their own life is like. So to the men in power at the time, opening the workforce up to women seemed unnatural, dangerous, and threatening. However, this was because they were thinking about their own wives and daughters entering the workforce, which neither the men or most likely the women would have wanted, seeing as they come from upper class families. However, to the less fortunate, opening the workforce ot women was essential. These women needed to work in order to survive, alot of them did not have husbands who could or would support them. I think that this is still a mistake we all make today, not just the politicians, we fail to put ourselves in other peoples' shoes. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
In reading "The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893" in Modern American Women, I found it interesting how Bertha Palmer is obviously struggling with the conflict between the idealized woman and the reality that many women face. At one point she says that it is the board's "belief that every woman, who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studios." And then a few sentences later she talks about how it is only the favored class that can live in these conditions and that the majority of women are living under much poorer conditions. In a way, it seems as though she is still holding those ideals of women, but recognizing that most women cannot live up to them. I guess I'm just wondering how that differs from the rest of the people who simply hold those ideals, and is it even any better to recognize that the majority of women can't live up to the ideals but still hold them anyways? --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In reading "Speaking Out Against Lynching" in Modern American Women, the thing that struck me most is the obvious double standard that exists between sexual relations that happen between a black man and a white woman in comparison to those that exist between a white man and a black woman. I know that I may be looking at this from a present perspective, but it just strikes me that it is considered rape for a black man to have sex with a white woman, but nothing is said when a white man has sex with a black woman (which happened very often). I think that this double standard brings up issues with both race and gender. It brings up issues with gender because it indicates that white women are incapable of consenting to sexual interactions with a black man (but men can consent to sexual relations with a black woman). And it brings up issues of race because of the differential treatment between the races, and thinking about the likeliness that black women have of being raped. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I also thought "Wages for Housework" was a clever and humorous article. Conger-Kaneko seemed to denounce traditional women use her writing style. I thought it was very interesting, though not valid in every case, that she compared women's roles to those of slaves. I would imagine this would be a very persuasive arguement to move women towards equal rights after being compared to the slaves who had been freed for decades. I cannot imagine how women seeking to stay in their tradtional roles would argue against Conger-Kaneko's points? Although I imagine they were probably not interested in reading Progressive Woman. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
After having read some of the above comments about Ida B. Wells' essay, I thought more about her argument and the social and political climate during the time of lynching. I do agree with Jessica that it was somewhat out of fear because the black men were no longer under the control of the white masters. Lynching was one of the ways they could exhibit their control over this sector of society. It obviously didn't have to do with whether black men were actually raping white women; for white men, it was about controlling that sector of society. In response to Mary Beth's comment about Wells' essay, the viewpoint of many white Southern men was not that they were raping black women. It was only their superiority over the inferior race, black women being the most inferior because they were black and women. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
The discussion about moving up by way of housework and domestic services was brought up in the readings, and I believe that it ties in very well with what we've learned about in class. You can see the same sort of thing happening with the end of the Civil War, and clerical work. Like we discussed, women took clerical positions while men were away fighting, but soon after the war ended, those who kept their jobs soon learned that their jobs had become "secretarial." Those who once had the opportunity to move up in the business world while they were clerks soon found themselves stuck in the same place since secretarial work didn't provide much opportunity to elevate. But I agree, the question is, who decides what makes a position honorable? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I've decided that Nellie Bly is my new hero. The way she stood up to her boss and threatened to go to another paper if she wasn't allowed to "travel the world in 80 days" was incredible, especially for a woman of her time. What's even more interesting is how some of the stereotypes she faced still plague women today. For one, she's "too delicate" since she's a woman and would need protection. Second, her boss was concerned she'd have too much luggage, and if you think about women today (I know I, myself, am guilty of this) they pack much more than necessary. She even said herself, "Packing that bag was the most difficult undertaking of my life." It's just interesting to see the correlation and then quite impressive to see how she overcame gender stereotypes to beat "the man" at his own game. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I loved that the excerpt about bicycle riding by Frances Willard was included in the chapter. It's simplicity had the strongest message of encouragement for women to leave behind their usual constraints and go out into the world, to take control of their lives. She points out that for too long women have been constrained by their clothing and appearance. Willard asks women to take uncomplicated modern inventions and free themselves. My favorite quote from the piece was, "They that know nothing fear nothing." (p.18) It was a phrase that offered such quiet strength for the women of that time and even to women now. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I know a few other of my classmates have commented on it, but I felt that I should also comment on the birth control article too. I was also amazed at some of the ways women tried to have abortions. I have to agree though with Kelly that birth control was a way men would lose power over women, but I don't understand why the men wanted to have so many children to try to provide for in his home. Why not use condoms or pull out? Were the men so uncaring they ignored the pain of the female they married and the hunger of their children? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
In response to Ashley W., I don't think the men of that time really thought about the pain of the female in child birth,etc. Just from researching my family, I found that my grandfathers father had 18 children from 2 different wives (the first wife died in childbirth) and birth control in that family was never an option. My grandfather is the youngest and was born in 1923. He told me that his father believed that the more children you had the better off you were because you had more people to work in the fields at harvest time and they felt you could have more livestock because there were more people to share the work. My grandfathers family was totally self sufficient and he says they barely noticed the depression because they were self sufficient. I think maybe a lot of men had the same mindset and didn't see their wives as "suffering" because it was the way they survived. That of course is a rural example I don't know if it would have been the same in the cities but I am sure it was somewhat different.~~MaryBeth C<br />
<br />
Based on chapter 14, about black and white women’s vision of welfare activism, the book states that white women mostly helped out with political work and donations. Black women were more interested in helping there community and their churches. Could this be because black women saw other people as one class level and will help anyone, while white women will help out the upper class with politics to gain more women’s rights? <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I agree with Landon about how women were successful in gaining political power, but how far did that power get you? Even today I feel like women are still seen as the only way of gaining power is by having a strong male influence in the business beside you. <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the “Modern American Women” book, the documents of Jane Addams were very interesting. Jane Addams was unsure of what she wanted to do after college. Most women just get married and have children. She wanted to figure out a way to help people especially women by restoring balance in activities that were along the traditional lines. In 1889 Addams created the Hull House; a place where she developed social services and recreational programs to help the less fortune. If Addams was another woman to break down doors for more opportunities for other women why didn’t women’s ways of work life change? Also this shows that women do not have to get married right after college. <br />
-Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
"The Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home" was an interesting perspective on the home. Instead of telling women they could do it all, she asks women to consider working together with the family and other women to help them combine work and home. It seems so different from the feminist perspective that prevails today where women can do it all: home, work, and family. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
In "Modern American Women" I found this quote "We feel therefore, obliged to state our believe that every woman who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studies." All I have to say to this is wow have times changed since this was written. Women are making it a priority to be an asset to the workforce. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read about Alice Hamilton and how she got a medical degree from the University of MIchigan. (I am biased after growing up in Ann Arbor!) I thought it was interesting to read about her train of thought as to why a medical degree. She pursued medicine not because of an interest but because she knew she could excel in it even as a woman. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found this quote powerful and couldn't not post it. "We may convince the world that ability is not a matter of sex." --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed from these reading is that these women are all they same. They all come from essentially the same place. They are women who are well educated, upper-middle class, and single or married later in life. Where are the accounts of the poorer working class women? -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
While reading "A Woman Homesteader" the only thing that kept popping into my mind was that frustrating game of Oregon Trail. After playing that for hours on end in elementary school, I understand that making the journey westward was nothing but difficult. So reading the entry by Edith was fascinating when she and her sister discussed how easy it would be to "stick it out" on a piece of land for eight months. What I'm curious about, is was it typical for these women to go out by themselves like this? I know in class we talked about men going off on their own to start a new life and help their family, but I don't recall discussing that many women going on their own, especially for financial reasons. And would fathers have been that willing to let their daughters make their own choices, especially ones of this magnitude? It seems kind of out of character in my opinion. Nonetheless, rock on to both of them for being as gutsy as they were. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
It was so sad reading in Mamie Field's article about being African-American teachers along with her sister for African-American children. They got what was barely a building, no space, no blackboard and it was in such a bad location. The part that got to me the most was when she said that the white teachers never cared whether the black children came to school or not no matter waht the reason (poverty) and the fact that since these childrens' parents hadn't gone to school themselves, sometimes they didn't understand the great importance of getting their children educated. Emely Amaya</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments328--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-02-05T01:21:25Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>While reading the primary source documents of the ''Modern American Women'' I found it a bit disconcerting that the women were so similar to the women of today. It is kind of a shame that history repeats itself so fully. I suppose it is evidence that change is gradual and more of an evolution. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Although it was an interesting study, Linda Gordon's study "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945" came very close to simply listing the differences between the two races of activists. Her conclusions did not seem to have a lot of depth. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Justin Mattos on his comment about Linda Gordon's essay. I too felt that that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion. However, I do believe to have a better sense of what was happening, it is good to know that just because welfare groups existed, they didn't all go after the same things. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also observed in the primary source documents of ''Modern American Women'' that the stereotypes of women have only changed slightly today. Women are still thought to be more fragile than men, and there is still a need to protect them from harm. It has only been within the last decade that the idea of a working women has gained mainstream acceptance. I wonder if this observation stems from the fact that the primary source documents that I read were from the perspective of educated women. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Chapter 14 of Unequal Sisters deals with the differences in welfare activism between African American and white women. Gordon points out that white women had more of an ability to work politically and seek donations from those who would be more able to help (i.e. congressional representatives or other political figures) while the African American women focused their activities around the community and church. She continues, to point out that white women activists focused more on charity and relief while black women sought to provide for more universal needs such as education and health. If there were poor or unfortunate people in both groups (black and white), why is it that white women activists focused on particular people while black women activists focused on reform that is more general? Did societal norms during this time make it more inappropriate to provide individual charity to black women? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read “Speaking out Against Lynching” by Ida B. Wells. She discusses the harsh punishments that African Americans were subjected to due to the stereotypes that white men and women held. On p age 15 she states, “With the Southern white man, any misalliance existing between a white woman and a colored man is a sufficient foundation for the charge of rape. The southern white man says that it is impossible for a voluntary alliance to exist between a white woman and a colored man, and therefore, the fact of an alliance is a proof of force.” Given this, would it also be considered rape if it were a black woman and a white man? Moreover, who would be at fault, would it be the man forcing himself onto the woman, or the woman because she is black? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
In response to Jessica's question, I think that white women were able to focus more on specific groups, because unlike black women, white women just had to focus on issues of sexual inequality whereas black women had the issues of sexual AND racial inequality going against them, as well as establishing themselves in a newly free world. Chapter 14 of Unequal Sister does highlight that the two major focus point for black women groups was education and healthcare. These were issues that obviously had to be taken care of after slavery because the whites weren't going to provide it fully for them (yes, a lot of groups DID help) but they knew they had to rely on themselves(as the article shows) to fully develop and not remain stagnant and looked down upon by the white community.- Emely Amaya.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_5_Questions/Comments328--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-02-05T01:07:10Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Harriet Brunkhurst's article I found it sad to read how the mother of working women expected so much more of their working daughters than of their working sons. Not only was being looked down upon for being in the same level as men bad enoough, but they were expected to cook, clean and do other odd end things around the house after a tiresome day at work, while the sons did nothing but relax after a tiresome day at work. The part that most hit me was Cecil's story. Her mother has her work and wants to hear nothing about how Cecil is tired from work yet she has the nerver to say "John is so tired when he returns from work" about her husband!!! -Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
I find it kind of interesting how the political events taking place in China had a big effect on the way Chinese people in Ameica lived. I admire how the women in Chinese in America helped the Revoultionary cause back in the homeland and helped liberize the women both here in America and in China by allowing them to unbind their feet, go out in public and learn to read and be educated and become independent from men.- Emely Amaya</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_5_Questions/Comments328--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-02-04T05:56:30Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Harriet Brunkhurst's article I found it sad to read how the mother of working women expected so much more of their working daughters than of their working sons. Not only was being looked down upon for being in the same level as men bad enoough, but they were expected to cook, clean and do other odd end things around the house after a tiresome day at work, while the sons did nothing but relax after a tiresome day at work. The part that most hit me was Cecil's story. Her mother has her work and wants to hear nothing about how Cecil is tired from work yet she has the nerver to say "John is so tired when he returns from work" about her husband!!! -Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
I find it kind of interesting how the political events taking place in China had a big effect on the way Chinese people in Ameica lived. I admire how the women in Chinese in America helped the Revoultionary cause back in the homeland and helped liberize the women both here in America and in China by allowing them to unbind their feet, go out in public and learn to read and be educated and become independent from men.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_5_Questions/Comments328--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-02-04T05:55:56Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Harriet Brunkhurst's article I found it sad to read how the mother of working women expected so much more of their working daughters than of their working sons. Not only was being looked down upon for being in the same level as men bad enoough, but they were expected to cook, clean and do other odd end things around the house after a tiresome day at work, while the sons did nothing but relax after a tiresome day at work. The part that most hit me was Cecil's story. Her mother has her work and wants to hear nothing about how Cecil is tired from work yet she has the nerver to say "John is so tired when he returns from work" about her husband!!! -Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
I find it kind of interesting how the political events taking place in China had a big effect on the way Chinese people in Ameica lived. I admire how the women in Chinese in America helped the Revoultionary cause back in the homeland and helped liberize the women both here in America and in China by allowing them to unbind their feet, go out in public and learn to read and be educated and independent.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_5_Questions/Comments328--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-02-04T05:55:23Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Harriet Brunkhurst's article I found it sad to read how the mother of working women expected so much more of their working daughters than of their working sons. Not only was being looked down upon for being in the same level as men bad enoough, but they were expected to cook, clean and do other odd end things around the house after a tiresome day at work, while the sons did nothing but relax after a tiresome day at work. The part that most hit me was Cecil's story. Her mother has her work and wants to hear nothing about how Cecil is tired from work yet she has the nerver to say "John is so tired when he returns from work" about her husband!!! -Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
I find it kind of interesting how the political events taking place in China had a big effect on the way Chinese people in Ameica lived. I admire how the women in America helped the Revoultionary cause back in the homeland and helped liberize the women both here in America and in China by allowing them to unbind their feet, go out in public and learn to read and be educated and independent.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_5_Questions/Comments328--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-02-04T05:22:05Z<p>199.111.64.195: New page: In Harriet Brunkhurst's article I found it sad to read how the mother of working women expected so much more of their working daughters than of their working sons. Not only was being looke...</p>
<hr />
<div>In Harriet Brunkhurst's article I found it sad to read how the mother of working women expected so much more of their working daughters than of their working sons. Not only was being looked down upon for being in the same level as men bad enoough, but they were expected to cook, clean and do other odd end things around the house after a tiresome day at work, while the sons did nothing but relax after a tiresome day at work. The part that most hit me was Cecil's story. Her mother has her work and wants to hear nothing about how Cecil is tired from work yet she has the nerver to say "John is so tired when he returns from work" about her husband!!! -Emely Amaya</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments328--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-02-04T05:21:25Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>While reading the primary source documents of the ''Modern American Women'' I found it a bit disconcerting that the women were so similar to the women of today. It is kind of a shame that history repeats itself so fully. I suppose it is evidence that change is gradual and more of an evolution. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Although it was an interesting study, Linda Gordon's study "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945" came very close to simply listing the differences between the two races of activists. Her conclusions did not seem to have a lot of depth. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I also observed in the primary source documents of ''Modern American Women'' that the stereotypes of women have only changed slightly today. Women are still thought to be more fragile than men, and there is still a need to protect them from harm. It has only been within the last decade that the idea of a working women has gained mainstream acceptance. I wonder if this observation stems from the fact that the primary source documents that I read were from the perspective of educated women. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Chapter 14 of Unequal Sisters deals with the differences in welfare activism between African American and white women. Gordon points out that white women had more of an ability to work politically and seek donations from those who would be more able to help (i.e. congressional representatives or other political figures) while the African American women focused their activities around the community and church. She continues, to point out that white women activists focused more on charity and relief while black women sought to provide for more universal needs such as education and health. If there were poor or unfortunate people in both groups (black and white), why is it that white women activists focused on particular people while black women activists focused on reform that is more general? Did societal norms during this time make it more inappropriate to provide individual charity to black women? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read “Speaking out Against Lynching” by Ida B. Wells. She discusses the harsh punishments that African Americans were subjected to due to the stereotypes that white men and women held. On p age 15 she states, “With the Southern white man, any misalliance existing between a white woman and a colored man is a sufficient foundation for the charge of rape. The southern white man says that it is impossible for a voluntary alliance to exist between a white woman and a colored man, and therefore, the fact of an alliance is a proof of force.” Given this, would it also be considered rape if it were a black woman and a white man? Moreover, who would be at fault, would it be the man forcing himself onto the woman, or the woman because she is black? --Jessica Kilday</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments328--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-02-04T04:50:02Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>While reading the primary source documents of the ''Modern American Women'' I found it a bit disconcerting that the women were so similar to the women of today. It is kind of a shame that history repeats itself so fully. I suppose it is evidence that change is gradual and more of an evolution. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Although it was an interesting study, Linda Gordon's study "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945" came very close to simply listing the differences between the two races of activists. Her conclusions did not seem to have a lot of depth. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I also observed in the primary source documents of ''Modern American Women'' that the stereotypes of women have only changed slightly today. Women are still thought to be more fragile than men, and there is still a need to protect them from harm. It has only been within the last decade that the idea of a working women has gained mainstream acceptance. I wonder if this observation stems from the fact that the primary source documents that I read were from the perspective of educated women. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Chapter 14 of Unequal Sisters deals with the differences in welfare activism between African American and white women. Gordon points out that white women had more of an ability to work politically and seek donations from those who would be more able to help (i.e. congressional representatives or other political figures) while the African American women focused their activities around the community and church. She continues, to point out that white women activists focused more on charity and relief while black women sought to provide for more universal needs such as education and health. If there were poor or unfortunate people in both groups (black and white), why is it that white women activists focused on particular people while black women activists focused on reform that is more general? Did societal norms during this time make it more inappropriate to provide individual charity to black women? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read “Speaking out Against Lynching” by Ida B. Wells. She discusses the harsh punishments that African Americans were subjected to due to the stereotypes that white men and women held. On p age 15 she states, “With the Southern white man, any misalliance existing between a white woman and a colored man is a sufficient foundation for the charge of rape. The southern white man says that it is impossible for a voluntary alliance to exist between a white woman and a colored man, and therefore, the fact of an alliance is a proof of force.” Given this, would it also be considered rape if it were a black woman and a white man? Moreover, who would be at fault, would it be the man forcing himself onto the woman, or the woman because she is black? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
In Harriet Brunkhurst's article I found it sad to read how the mother of working women expected so much more of their working daughters than of their working sons. Not only was being looked down upon for being in the same level as men bad enoough, but they were expected to cook, clean and do other odd end things around the house after a tiresome day at work, while the sons did nothing but relax after a tiresome day at work. The part that most hit me was Cecil's story. Her mother has her work and wants to hear nothing about how Cecil is tired from work yet she has the nerver to say "John is so tired when he returns from work" about her husband!!! -Emely Amaya</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_3_Questions/Comments328--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T08:00:12Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>The one thing that immediately struck me while I began reading the Castaneda piece was the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how, to me, that distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. Castaneda points out how Spanish women were always purer and more mysterious; romanticized in a sense. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure on pretty much every count. Does anyone else feel that this stereotype between the two ethnicities still holds up today or is that just me? Based on general opinion, I feel as though this major difference still sticks out in people's minds (not saying that this distinction is right in any sense.) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was extremely impressed by the scale of the Cherokee Seminary school. For it's time, it seemed like an impressive operation for a people so tremendously discriminated against in America, excepting the multiple burnings down of the building! I was, however, struck by the authors constant use of the word "progressive", which to me is usually a positive word, meaning moving toward improved living/way of life and education for the public. The author used it so negatively though, as a way to describe the discriminating, racially-mixed Cherokee girls and their families usually. Looking at her writings from a historians perspective I see how the word might have been used by the people themselves as a justifier of their own belief of superiority, but the author should not have used it herself because it makes it seem as though she is drawing the line herself between the status of tradition verse progression and pure-blood verse mixed-blood.~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
The readings this week largely had to do with how historians have struggled to characterize women by race and gender. Women of other races were frequently overlooked. As Castaneda points out in chapter four, when women were studied, it was either because of their significance in relation to someone important, such as a governor. The experiences of any other women would be generalized to stereotype women of that particular race overall. This is interesting to keep in mind when reading “The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barceló in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe” by Gonzalez, in which he discusses how the life of one woman (Dona Gertrudis Barceló) impacted the image that people held of Spanish-Mexican women. Why is it that the lives and experiences of minority women could see easily and readily be generalized? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Mihesuah. The article described the all female seminary for Cherokee girls. When examining the experiences of Cherokee women in an all female setting, it easier to see the impact that race and economics played in their lives. You no longer have the issue of breaking down the study by gender and race, nor do you have the question of which plays a more significant role. In looking at the experiences of the Cherokee women in this school, it is easy to see that segregation occurred even when the playing field seemed to be leveled. The more white blood the females had, the more accepted they were by others. Additionally, it would be more likely that they would be able to marry and be economically and culturally successful. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading about the female seminary for the Cherokee girls was very interesting. It seems odd to me that there was such an emphasis placed on the percentage of cherokee vs white blood you had. It was an Indian school but it seems that to be accepted or what the girls felt was preferred was to be as "white" as possible, but yet they still talked about the percent, however small, of Cherokee blood they had. Most of the girls in the pictures to me did not "look" like a typical Cherokee and if the emphasis was on being as "white" as possible why did they even attend the seminary, why not go to a white school. Were they that segregated that even a small amount of Cherokee blood would prevent them from going to a white school, and who would know if you didn't say anything about what percent white you were? ~~Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
While reading "Gender, Race, and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" and "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" by Antonia I. Castaneda, I wondered whether it were true that only Westerners studied the history of Hispanic women until the 1970s or 1980s. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe" by Deena J. Gonzalez, I found it interesting that during that time it was so easy to step outside the boundaries of the perceptions of the general populace. The case of interesting women like Barcelo is very similar to the inability of the Native Americans to see the ships of Cortez until Cortez's men pointed them out to them.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It is strange that in the "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876" "stone-woman" was considered a problem/disease. From what I understand, having sex through prostitution is not an enjoyable experience.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
My favorite reading out of all of these essays was "To Dark to Be Angels" by Devon Mihesuah, because my great grandmother was apparently 1/4 cherokee, so it was like reading apart of her history. But what I found so interesting about this essay was how these cherokee women were trying to live up to a white persons society, or "adapting to society's 'whiteness'."(187) For so many years the European society in America had tried to civilize Indians, and get them out of farming and hunting, and in this reading it was like they gave up their fight of keeping their heritage and decided to try and fit in to white society. Why? There was all of the sudden the whiter you looked the better off you were, and this often left the full blooded cherokee women feeling inferior to white yet still.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Deena Gonzalez's essay on Gertrudis Barcelo describes a very interesting women. She basically went against what all the other women in society were expected to be like. She was rich and most interesting was that she made her saloon the center of the town's social and economic life, as well as military and political people coming to her for advise (255). Wasn't that unheard of in those days? How was it that she was able to lead this life and other women didn't, or did they try? --Michelle Marduesz<br />
<br />
Castaneda's article caused me to think on how the problem with the history of CA and its residents before Anglos is a problem with many areas. What I mean by that is a history that does integrate race, gender, and culture or class as categories of historical analysis (page 71) is a problem are for many places. It just really strikes a bit harder when you read a little of the historiography on some of the problems of the already published and out there history. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was impressed and slightly confused on the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary. I was impressed because even though the school burned down they rebuilt it and it still exists (at least the ending made it sound that way). I was confused because if the whiter you were the better, why did full-blooded traditionalist Cherokees send their daughters there? Were they trying to get an upperhand on the white man? Even if it meant learning to write and read the language in order to better fight the white man? It had me confused. Also, if it was a Cherokee school, why girls go who were barely even Cherokee?, like the one mentioned on page 186 who was only 1/32 Cherokee. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The essay "Too Dark to be Angels" concludes by stating that the seminary was a progressive success. I can not help but question this outcome based on what I read. I have no doubts that the seminary provided short term advantages to its attendees as it related to social and economic status however, it appears also that the women let petty matters of snobbery and ego undermine the overall mission of the seminary (which I imagine was to uplift the Cherokee nation through education). It seems that by attending this seminary Cherokees were destroying themselves from the inside out. The women learned to feel either superior or inferior and therefore they could not remain united as an ethnic group. Also, the fact that whites were put on such a high pedestal made the Cherokees vulnerable to manipulation in the future. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Bancroft's qoute "a race halfway between the proud Castillian and the lowly root digger." existing "halfway between savage and civilization." on page 59 of Casteneda's essay is reprehensible. It caused me to quesiton the root cause of such racism, and prejudice. What makes someone racist? Is it truly just because the other person looks different? Is it about pre-conceived notions or hearsay, turned hateful stereotypes? Could it be a morally corrupt individual looking for a way to dehumanize a group, in order to justify poor treatment (i.e. stealing Indian land or slavery)? It seems there has to be some underlying motive for racism, besides just the color of one's skin vs. antohers'. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
After doing the readings, "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862" attracted my attention the most, and I struggled to figure out why. I think this document raises a lot of questions about gender norms during the time period, in a substantially different way than the other documents in Major Problems. It's clear from the other readings that rape and domination of Native Americans was not uncommon. "A Citizen Protests" raises the questions about the response to these acts by average citizens. The author of the letter labels the rapists brutes, who should be punished "in justice to decency, humanity, and civilization." However, its clear the author's morals aren't widely shared, why else would his or her letter to the editor be anonymous? ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly and her thoughts on the Castaneda piece and how it described the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how the distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. It is pointed out that Spanish women were always purer held higher up in societies eyes. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure in every way. Basically no matter how corny this sounds, Spanish women are classy and Mexican women are trashy. This is still seen today, even in my mind sometimes you think of Mexican you think lower class. However, when you think Spanish, you see a women wearing bright colors beautiful clothes.I wonder do we think this way because Spain is located in Europe and when Eurpoe comes to mind you think of places like Milan or Paris? --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I had the same questions about the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary as Ashley. What I didn't understand was why whiter was better? I found it interesting that full-blood Cherokees were sending their children to this extremely expensive school to become whiter. Is it to try to become equals with white people or is it to pull ahead of them? What I really don't understand is why are the Cherokees trying to wipe out their culture. That is what happened when we first settled the Indians became "whiter" and look at where they are now, language has been lost, traditions stories the list goes on. To me it seems like this school was good for the purpose of education but I felt as if it took away culture. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Antonia Castaneda's essay makes some far-reaching claims that are not completely warranted. Castaneda credits the biased work of Bancroft with informing all later popular and scholarly works with specific stereotypes of Spanish women (pg 59). While perhaps not central to Castaneda's essay I don't understand how one, or even a few historical scholars could be solely responsible for passing on biased perceptions. I think Castaneda ignores other ways that negative stereotypes get passed on. The fact that these negative stereotypes persist in persons who are not scholars of history indicates that later scholars might not have adopted the same stereotypes that Bancroft did solely because he did, but because they embraced these stereotypes in their daily lives. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I found the documents about women in the Trans-Mississippi Frontier West incredibly interesting and shocking at the same time. The Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes were the most shocking of the collection. Was this a common phenomenon at this time? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda's points about the female Cherokee seminary. I feel that the Cherokees were attending this school in hopes of becoming 'whiter', which did result in a dilution of their culture. One must wonder if they saw this as a negative thing, however. They saw that whites had the money, the land, and the privilege. Is it possible that they willingly sacrificed their unique culture in hopes of attaining these things that whites had and they did not? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I think Matt brings up an interesting point about "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862," in mentioning that the letter was anonymous. To our minds, the opinions shared seem to be the norm, but the simple fact that the writer of this letter felt the need to keep their opinions anonymous definitely demonstrates that these opinions were not the norm. This reflects a sad fact of race and gender norms of the time. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
As I was reading "Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples," a few things really struck me. First, I was amazed by the conflict between the young girl and her mother and that the young girl wanted to leave her family. I was also amazed that it was ultimately the mother's decision whether or not to send the young girl away, and in fact the father was not mentioned at all. I think that this highlights a cultural difference between the Dakotas and the white Americans. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I thought that an important and likely common racial and gender issue was highlighted in "Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, Requests an Army Pension, 1908." She mentioned that the father of her daughter was a white man. Sadly, I think that this was all too common, and denotes how white men took advantage of enslaved women. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
Mihesuah's piece about the diluded culture of the Cherokee women shows the power of the white, middle classed ideal. I thought the school's class system was very interesting and exposed how strong the force to wipe out Native American presence really was. I felt as if the Cherokee culture was breeded out with each new generation of students striving for white ideals. I wondered if perhaps within my own Eastern European ancestory a similiar process of acculturation took place. For now although I consider myself American I still have a sense of Polish pride, but after reading about the Cherokee seminary perhaps my ancestors strove to break apart from their cultural ties? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I found the article "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" to be extremely disturbing. As if it weren't bad enough to be sold to someone for my body the rules were absurd. I'm not sure which one was worse "if she concieves, she shall serve one year more" or "if she should escape and be recovered, then her time shall never expire." Who came up with these ideas and rules and how is this accepted in any society?? - Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
Growing up we've all been exposed to different stereotypes of various classifications of individuals. After doing the readings this week, it makes me question what did other races and genders think of whites? what were white femailes stereotyped as and has it changed throughout the years? It the perception change depending on who you talk to and do different backgrounds have varying perceptions? I'm curious as to how the "typical" white woman was portrayed. - Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
While reading Castaneda's article in the section "The Spanish Borderlands School" it became clear that the mention of Spanish Mexican women from Bolton and previous historians was often very political. Their place revolved around the rivalary of Mexican and Euro-American males. They were only significant when their lives involved or revolved around men. From a romanticized stereotype of Spanish women came the notion that they preferred white men. Realistically Americans wanted to hear of their superiority over Mexicans. Their role was to be an American conquest resulting in dominance over Mexican males. This proves Castandeda's point that the history of women needs to be reexamined under a lens unbiased by "Anglo North American(s)". -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I agree with Rose about the documents of Chinese prostitutes. I could not believe that women actually agreed to those rules such as if she is sick for fifteen days then she will serve another month or if she conceives then she will serve another year. The money they received must have been a good enough amount for them, but is it really worth it to lose your life by selling your body to someone? -Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
When reading Castaneda's article I couldn't help but think how we do romanticize the Spanish American women of the western frontier. Presented in movies and books, the Spanish woman in America has developed this myth of beauty and grace in the California frontier. On the other hand, the Mexican American woman is thought of as dirty and poor, perhaps a prostitute. Again there are modern images in movies and popular culture referencing that stereotyped past. When I was reading the article, the stereotypes of a romantic Spanish woman against the beggar-like figure of a Mexican woman from the western frontier were at the forefront of my thoughts. Like last week's articles, Castaneda's article shows how important it is to analyze all facets of women's history regardless of race. It also made me think how difficult it must be for historians to separate fact from fiction especially with these images of the old West still around today. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
When I read the Castaneda essay, it angered me that historians in the past stereotyped Mexican women as immoral and sexually and racially impure simply because they did not live under the norms of middle class white women - pure, pious, domestic, and submissive. It was also unfortunate in both Castaneda's essay as well as in the anonymous letter to the editor of the Beacon that Native women in the West were viewed as objects of sexual conquest by white soldiers and settlers. - Marilyn<br />
<br />
It was sad to read that the intent of the Cherokee seminary schools for females was to teach girls to conform to the ideals of white society instead of learning about and maintaining their own Cherokee heritage. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly W's question regarding the two ethnicities, I believe that it does exist. I had the opportunity to visit Mexico a number of years ago and was surprised to hear the derogatory comments made by the Mexican workers in regard to the tourists from South America, which they referred to as "Spanish". There seems to be a perception or attitude within the hispanic (or Latino) community; namely, "Spanish" descent ranks high, Mexican follows, and then the Mayans. This order in hierarchy is not that much different from the one that existed in colonial Mexico and Middle America, which placed Spaniards on top, then Spanish born in Mexico, Mestizos (Spanish/native females), Indians, then Blacks.-LisaM<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me in our reading "Genderm Race and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" was the differentiation made between "Mexican" women and "Spanish" Women. This distinction reminded me a lot of the idea that many East Coast Americans held during this time period that "black" women were filled with lust and passion and thereful immoral while "White" women were pure and pious and the most moral of all. Only in this case the "Mexican" women were in the place of the black women and the "Spanish" women in the place of the white women".- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In Modern Problem I found it interesting that someone reported the raping of the native americans on the ranch in "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California". I had assumed that if the people felt that the natives were so unimportant that they wouldn't have bothered reporting or complaining about the treatment these women received even though it was appalling. I also found the reading on the Selling of Chinese Prostitutes interesting because the terms they were given were little better than the terms of slavery and even if they had an "end" in site it would get pushed back because every one gets sick and they would have a month added on for that and of course in the profession of prostitution the likelihood of getting pregnant is of course high, so that would be another year. What was the likelihood of these women ever actually gaining their freedom? -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Castaneda's piece was very interesting to me because the distinction among Spanish and Mexican women is true for me. I'm half Spanish, half Latin American and I get treated differently depending on which nationality I say I am (least to say I say Spanish more often than Latin American). I can also say the discription of their men made me laugh because I, unfortunantly don't disagree after all these years that have passed since this took place. It's not that they're savage men, it's just what has been culturally seen as acceptable which I think is very unfortunate and should change! -Emely A.<br />
<br />
<br />
Before reading Devon Mihesuah's article on the class system in the Cherokee semiaries, I didn't have any prior knowldege to these schools, how they were instructed and would've thouht that the teacher would be white. I found it surprising that whites would hire mixed-Cherokees to teach these children, having already deprived THEM of their roots and brainwashing them into doing this to the younger generation. I found it kind of sad that the teachers believed that the more white the Cherokee girl had in her, the smarter she was whereas pure Cherokee girls as pathetic for holding on to their traditional ways and not advancing up to the ideals of the white world which was "better". Emely A.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_3_Questions/Comments328--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T07:59:36Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>The one thing that immediately struck me while I began reading the Castaneda piece was the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how, to me, that distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. Castaneda points out how Spanish women were always purer and more mysterious; romanticized in a sense. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure on pretty much every count. Does anyone else feel that this stereotype between the two ethnicities still holds up today or is that just me? Based on general opinion, I feel as though this major difference still sticks out in people's minds (not saying that this distinction is right in any sense.) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was extremely impressed by the scale of the Cherokee Seminary school. For it's time, it seemed like an impressive operation for a people so tremendously discriminated against in America, excepting the multiple burnings down of the building! I was, however, struck by the authors constant use of the word "progressive", which to me is usually a positive word, meaning moving toward improved living/way of life and education for the public. The author used it so negatively though, as a way to describe the discriminating, racially-mixed Cherokee girls and their families usually. Looking at her writings from a historians perspective I see how the word might have been used by the people themselves as a justifier of their own belief of superiority, but the author should not have used it herself because it makes it seem as though she is drawing the line herself between the status of tradition verse progression and pure-blood verse mixed-blood.~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
The readings this week largely had to do with how historians have struggled to characterize women by race and gender. Women of other races were frequently overlooked. As Castaneda points out in chapter four, when women were studied, it was either because of their significance in relation to someone important, such as a governor. The experiences of any other women would be generalized to stereotype women of that particular race overall. This is interesting to keep in mind when reading “The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barceló in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe” by Gonzalez, in which he discusses how the life of one woman (Dona Gertrudis Barceló) impacted the image that people held of Spanish-Mexican women. Why is it that the lives and experiences of minority women could see easily and readily be generalized? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Mihesuah. The article described the all female seminary for Cherokee girls. When examining the experiences of Cherokee women in an all female setting, it easier to see the impact that race and economics played in their lives. You no longer have the issue of breaking down the study by gender and race, nor do you have the question of which plays a more significant role. In looking at the experiences of the Cherokee women in this school, it is easy to see that segregation occurred even when the playing field seemed to be leveled. The more white blood the females had, the more accepted they were by others. Additionally, it would be more likely that they would be able to marry and be economically and culturally successful. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading about the female seminary for the Cherokee girls was very interesting. It seems odd to me that there was such an emphasis placed on the percentage of cherokee vs white blood you had. It was an Indian school but it seems that to be accepted or what the girls felt was preferred was to be as "white" as possible, but yet they still talked about the percent, however small, of Cherokee blood they had. Most of the girls in the pictures to me did not "look" like a typical Cherokee and if the emphasis was on being as "white" as possible why did they even attend the seminary, why not go to a white school. Were they that segregated that even a small amount of Cherokee blood would prevent them from going to a white school, and who would know if you didn't say anything about what percent white you were? ~~Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
While reading "Gender, Race, and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" and "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" by Antonia I. Castaneda, I wondered whether it were true that only Westerners studied the history of Hispanic women until the 1970s or 1980s. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe" by Deena J. Gonzalez, I found it interesting that during that time it was so easy to step outside the boundaries of the perceptions of the general populace. The case of interesting women like Barcelo is very similar to the inability of the Native Americans to see the ships of Cortez until Cortez's men pointed them out to them.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It is strange that in the "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876" "stone-woman" was considered a problem/disease. From what I understand, having sex through prostitution is not an enjoyable experience.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
My favorite reading out of all of these essays was "To Dark to Be Angels" by Devon Mihesuah, because my great grandmother was apparently 1/4 cherokee, so it was like reading apart of her history. But what I found so interesting about this essay was how these cherokee women were trying to live up to a white persons society, or "adapting to society's 'whiteness'."(187) For so many years the European society in America had tried to civilize Indians, and get them out of farming and hunting, and in this reading it was like they gave up their fight of keeping their heritage and decided to try and fit in to white society. Why? There was all of the sudden the whiter you looked the better off you were, and this often left the full blooded cherokee women feeling inferior to white yet still.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Deena Gonzalez's essay on Gertrudis Barcelo describes a very interesting women. She basically went against what all the other women in society were expected to be like. She was rich and most interesting was that she made her saloon the center of the town's social and economic life, as well as military and political people coming to her for advise (255). Wasn't that unheard of in those days? How was it that she was able to lead this life and other women didn't, or did they try? --Michelle Marduesz<br />
<br />
Castaneda's article caused me to think on how the problem with the history of CA and its residents before Anglos is a problem with many areas. What I mean by that is a history that does integrate race, gender, and culture or class as categories of historical analysis (page 71) is a problem are for many places. It just really strikes a bit harder when you read a little of the historiography on some of the problems of the already published and out there history. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was impressed and slightly confused on the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary. I was impressed because even though the school burned down they rebuilt it and it still exists (at least the ending made it sound that way). I was confused because if the whiter you were the better, why did full-blooded traditionalist Cherokees send their daughters there? Were they trying to get an upperhand on the white man? Even if it meant learning to write and read the language in order to better fight the white man? It had me confused. Also, if it was a Cherokee school, why girls go who were barely even Cherokee?, like the one mentioned on page 186 who was only 1/32 Cherokee. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The essay "Too Dark to be Angels" concludes by stating that the seminary was a progressive success. I can not help but question this outcome based on what I read. I have no doubts that the seminary provided short term advantages to its attendees as it related to social and economic status however, it appears also that the women let petty matters of snobbery and ego undermine the overall mission of the seminary (which I imagine was to uplift the Cherokee nation through education). It seems that by attending this seminary Cherokees were destroying themselves from the inside out. The women learned to feel either superior or inferior and therefore they could not remain united as an ethnic group. Also, the fact that whites were put on such a high pedestal made the Cherokees vulnerable to manipulation in the future. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Bancroft's qoute "a race halfway between the proud Castillian and the lowly root digger." existing "halfway between savage and civilization." on page 59 of Casteneda's essay is reprehensible. It caused me to quesiton the root cause of such racism, and prejudice. What makes someone racist? Is it truly just because the other person looks different? Is it about pre-conceived notions or hearsay, turned hateful stereotypes? Could it be a morally corrupt individual looking for a way to dehumanize a group, in order to justify poor treatment (i.e. stealing Indian land or slavery)? It seems there has to be some underlying motive for racism, besides just the color of one's skin vs. antohers'. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
After doing the readings, "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862" attracted my attention the most, and I struggled to figure out why. I think this document raises a lot of questions about gender norms during the time period, in a substantially different way than the other documents in Major Problems. It's clear from the other readings that rape and domination of Native Americans was not uncommon. "A Citizen Protests" raises the questions about the response to these acts by average citizens. The author of the letter labels the rapists brutes, who should be punished "in justice to decency, humanity, and civilization." However, its clear the author's morals aren't widely shared, why else would his or her letter to the editor be anonymous? ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly and her thoughts on the Castaneda piece and how it described the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how the distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. It is pointed out that Spanish women were always purer held higher up in societies eyes. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure in every way. Basically no matter how corny this sounds, Spanish women are classy and Mexican women are trashy. This is still seen today, even in my mind sometimes you think of Mexican you think lower class. However, when you think Spanish, you see a women wearing bright colors beautiful clothes.I wonder do we think this way because Spain is located in Europe and when Eurpoe comes to mind you think of places like Milan or Paris? --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I had the same questions about the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary as Ashley. What I didn't understand was why whiter was better? I found it interesting that full-blood Cherokees were sending their children to this extremely expensive school to become whiter. Is it to try to become equals with white people or is it to pull ahead of them? What I really don't understand is why are the Cherokees trying to wipe out their culture. That is what happened when we first settled the Indians became "whiter" and look at where they are now, language has been lost, traditions stories the list goes on. To me it seems like this school was good for the purpose of education but I felt as if it took away culture. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Antonia Castaneda's essay makes some far-reaching claims that are not completely warranted. Castaneda credits the biased work of Bancroft with informing all later popular and scholarly works with specific stereotypes of Spanish women (pg 59). While perhaps not central to Castaneda's essay I don't understand how one, or even a few historical scholars could be solely responsible for passing on biased perceptions. I think Castaneda ignores other ways that negative stereotypes get passed on. The fact that these negative stereotypes persist in persons who are not scholars of history indicates that later scholars might not have adopted the same stereotypes that Bancroft did solely because he did, but because they embraced these stereotypes in their daily lives. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I found the documents about women in the Trans-Mississippi Frontier West incredibly interesting and shocking at the same time. The Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes were the most shocking of the collection. Was this a common phenomenon at this time? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda's points about the female Cherokee seminary. I feel that the Cherokees were attending this school in hopes of becoming 'whiter', which did result in a dilution of their culture. One must wonder if they saw this as a negative thing, however. They saw that whites had the money, the land, and the privilege. Is it possible that they willingly sacrificed their unique culture in hopes of attaining these things that whites had and they did not? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I think Matt brings up an interesting point about "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862," in mentioning that the letter was anonymous. To our minds, the opinions shared seem to be the norm, but the simple fact that the writer of this letter felt the need to keep their opinions anonymous definitely demonstrates that these opinions were not the norm. This reflects a sad fact of race and gender norms of the time. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
As I was reading "Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples," a few things really struck me. First, I was amazed by the conflict between the young girl and her mother and that the young girl wanted to leave her family. I was also amazed that it was ultimately the mother's decision whether or not to send the young girl away, and in fact the father was not mentioned at all. I think that this highlights a cultural difference between the Dakotas and the white Americans. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I thought that an important and likely common racial and gender issue was highlighted in "Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, Requests an Army Pension, 1908." She mentioned that the father of her daughter was a white man. Sadly, I think that this was all too common, and denotes how white men took advantage of enslaved women. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
Mihesuah's piece about the diluded culture of the Cherokee women shows the power of the white, middle classed ideal. I thought the school's class system was very interesting and exposed how strong the force to wipe out Native American presence really was. I felt as if the Cherokee culture was breeded out with each new generation of students striving for white ideals. I wondered if perhaps within my own Eastern European ancestory a similiar process of acculturation took place. For now although I consider myself American I still have a sense of Polish pride, but after reading about the Cherokee seminary perhaps my ancestors strove to break apart from their cultural ties? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I found the article "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" to be extremely disturbing. As if it weren't bad enough to be sold to someone for my body the rules were absurd. I'm not sure which one was worse "if she concieves, she shall serve one year more" or "if she should escape and be recovered, then her time shall never expire." Who came up with these ideas and rules and how is this accepted in any society?? - Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
Growing up we've all been exposed to different stereotypes of various classifications of individuals. After doing the readings this week, it makes me question what did other races and genders think of whites? what were white femailes stereotyped as and has it changed throughout the years? It the perception change depending on who you talk to and do different backgrounds have varying perceptions? I'm curious as to how the "typical" white woman was portrayed. - Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
While reading Castaneda's article in the section "The Spanish Borderlands School" it became clear that the mention of Spanish Mexican women from Bolton and previous historians was often very political. Their place revolved around the rivalary of Mexican and Euro-American males. They were only significant when their lives involved or revolved around men. From a romanticized stereotype of Spanish women came the notion that they preferred white men. Realistically Americans wanted to hear of their superiority over Mexicans. Their role was to be an American conquest resulting in dominance over Mexican males. This proves Castandeda's point that the history of women needs to be reexamined under a lens unbiased by "Anglo North American(s)". -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I agree with Rose about the documents of Chinese prostitutes. I could not believe that women actually agreed to those rules such as if she is sick for fifteen days then she will serve another month or if she conceives then she will serve another year. The money they received must have been a good enough amount for them, but is it really worth it to lose your life by selling your body to someone? -Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
When reading Castaneda's article I couldn't help but think how we do romanticize the Spanish American women of the western frontier. Presented in movies and books, the Spanish woman in America has developed this myth of beauty and grace in the California frontier. On the other hand, the Mexican American woman is thought of as dirty and poor, perhaps a prostitute. Again there are modern images in movies and popular culture referencing that stereotyped past. When I was reading the article, the stereotypes of a romantic Spanish woman against the beggar-like figure of a Mexican woman from the western frontier were at the forefront of my thoughts. Like last week's articles, Castaneda's article shows how important it is to analyze all facets of women's history regardless of race. It also made me think how difficult it must be for historians to separate fact from fiction especially with these images of the old West still around today. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
When I read the Castaneda essay, it angered me that historians in the past stereotyped Mexican women as immoral and sexually and racially impure simply because they did not live under the norms of middle class white women - pure, pious, domestic, and submissive. It was also unfortunate in both Castaneda's essay as well as in the anonymous letter to the editor of the Beacon that Native women in the West were viewed as objects of sexual conquest by white soldiers and settlers. - Marilyn<br />
<br />
It was sad to read that the intent of the Cherokee seminary schools for females was to teach girls to conform to the ideals of white society instead of learning about and maintaining their own Cherokee heritage. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly W's question regarding the two ethnicities, I believe that it does exist. I had the opportunity to visit Mexico a number of years ago and was surprised to hear the derogatory comments made by the Mexican workers in regard to the tourists from South America, which they referred to as "Spanish". There seems to be a perception or attitude within the hispanic (or Latino) community; namely, "Spanish" descent ranks high, Mexican follows, and then the Mayans. This order in hierarchy is not that much different from the one that existed in colonial Mexico and Middle America, which placed Spaniards on top, then Spanish born in Mexico, Mestizos (Spanish/native females), Indians, then Blacks.-LisaM<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me in our reading "Genderm Race and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" was the differentiation made between "Mexican" women and "Spanish" Women. This distinction reminded me a lot of the idea that many East Coast Americans held during this time period that "black" women were filled with lust and passion and thereful immoral while "White" women were pure and pious and the most moral of all. Only in this case the "Mexican" women were in the place of the black women and the "Spanish" women in the place of the white women".- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In Modern Problem I found it interesting that someone reported the raping of the native americans on the ranch in "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California". I had assumed that if the people felt that the natives were so unimportant that they wouldn't have bothered reporting or complaining about the treatment these women received even though it was appalling. I also found the reading on the Selling of Chinese Prostitutes interesting because the terms they were given were little better than the terms of slavery and even if they had an "end" in site it would get pushed back because every one gets sick and they would have a month added on for that and of course in the profession of prostitution the likelihood of getting pregnant is of course high, so that would be another year. What was the likelihood of these women ever actually gaining their freedom? -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Castaneda's piece was very interesting to me because the distinction among Spanish and Mexican women is true for me. I'm half Spanish, half Latin American and I get treated differently depending on which nationality I say I am (least to say I say Spanish more often than Latin American). I can also say the discription of their men made me laugh because I, unfortunantly don't disagree after all these years that have passed since this took place. It's not that they're savage men, it's just what has been culturally seen as acceptable which I think is very unfortunate and should change! -Emely A.<br />
<br />
<br />
Before reading Devon Mihesuah's article on the class system in the Cherokee semiaries, I didn't have any prior knowldege to these schools, how they were instructed and would've thouht that the teacher would be white. I found it surprising that whites would hire mixed-Cherokees to teach these children, having already deprived THEM of their roots and brainwashing them into doing this to the younger generation. I found it kind of sad that the teachers believed that the more white the Cherokee girl had in her, the smarter she was whereas pure Cherokee girls as pathetic for holding on to their traditional ways and not advancing up to the ideals of the white world. Emely A.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_3_Questions/Comments328--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T07:34:16Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>The one thing that immediately struck me while I began reading the Castaneda piece was the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how, to me, that distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. Castaneda points out how Spanish women were always purer and more mysterious; romanticized in a sense. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure on pretty much every count. Does anyone else feel that this stereotype between the two ethnicities still holds up today or is that just me? Based on general opinion, I feel as though this major difference still sticks out in people's minds (not saying that this distinction is right in any sense.) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was extremely impressed by the scale of the Cherokee Seminary school. For it's time, it seemed like an impressive operation for a people so tremendously discriminated against in America, excepting the multiple burnings down of the building! I was, however, struck by the authors constant use of the word "progressive", which to me is usually a positive word, meaning moving toward improved living/way of life and education for the public. The author used it so negatively though, as a way to describe the discriminating, racially-mixed Cherokee girls and their families usually. Looking at her writings from a historians perspective I see how the word might have been used by the people themselves as a justifier of their own belief of superiority, but the author should not have used it herself because it makes it seem as though she is drawing the line herself between the status of tradition verse progression and pure-blood verse mixed-blood.~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
The readings this week largely had to do with how historians have struggled to characterize women by race and gender. Women of other races were frequently overlooked. As Castaneda points out in chapter four, when women were studied, it was either because of their significance in relation to someone important, such as a governor. The experiences of any other women would be generalized to stereotype women of that particular race overall. This is interesting to keep in mind when reading “The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barceló in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe” by Gonzalez, in which he discusses how the life of one woman (Dona Gertrudis Barceló) impacted the image that people held of Spanish-Mexican women. Why is it that the lives and experiences of minority women could see easily and readily be generalized? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Mihesuah. The article described the all female seminary for Cherokee girls. When examining the experiences of Cherokee women in an all female setting, it easier to see the impact that race and economics played in their lives. You no longer have the issue of breaking down the study by gender and race, nor do you have the question of which plays a more significant role. In looking at the experiences of the Cherokee women in this school, it is easy to see that segregation occurred even when the playing field seemed to be leveled. The more white blood the females had, the more accepted they were by others. Additionally, it would be more likely that they would be able to marry and be economically and culturally successful. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading about the female seminary for the Cherokee girls was very interesting. It seems odd to me that there was such an emphasis placed on the percentage of cherokee vs white blood you had. It was an Indian school but it seems that to be accepted or what the girls felt was preferred was to be as "white" as possible, but yet they still talked about the percent, however small, of Cherokee blood they had. Most of the girls in the pictures to me did not "look" like a typical Cherokee and if the emphasis was on being as "white" as possible why did they even attend the seminary, why not go to a white school. Were they that segregated that even a small amount of Cherokee blood would prevent them from going to a white school, and who would know if you didn't say anything about what percent white you were? ~~Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
While reading "Gender, Race, and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" and "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" by Antonia I. Castaneda, I wondered whether it were true that only Westerners studied the history of Hispanic women until the 1970s or 1980s. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe" by Deena J. Gonzalez, I found it interesting that during that time it was so easy to step outside the boundaries of the perceptions of the general populace. The case of interesting women like Barcelo is very similar to the inability of the Native Americans to see the ships of Cortez until Cortez's men pointed them out to them.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It is strange that in the "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876" "stone-woman" was considered a problem/disease. From what I understand, having sex through prostitution is not an enjoyable experience.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
My favorite reading out of all of these essays was "To Dark to Be Angels" by Devon Mihesuah, because my great grandmother was apparently 1/4 cherokee, so it was like reading apart of her history. But what I found so interesting about this essay was how these cherokee women were trying to live up to a white persons society, or "adapting to society's 'whiteness'."(187) For so many years the European society in America had tried to civilize Indians, and get them out of farming and hunting, and in this reading it was like they gave up their fight of keeping their heritage and decided to try and fit in to white society. Why? There was all of the sudden the whiter you looked the better off you were, and this often left the full blooded cherokee women feeling inferior to white yet still.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Deena Gonzalez's essay on Gertrudis Barcelo describes a very interesting women. She basically went against what all the other women in society were expected to be like. She was rich and most interesting was that she made her saloon the center of the town's social and economic life, as well as military and political people coming to her for advise (255). Wasn't that unheard of in those days? How was it that she was able to lead this life and other women didn't, or did they try? --Michelle Marduesz<br />
<br />
Castaneda's article caused me to think on how the problem with the history of CA and its residents before Anglos is a problem with many areas. What I mean by that is a history that does integrate race, gender, and culture or class as categories of historical analysis (page 71) is a problem are for many places. It just really strikes a bit harder when you read a little of the historiography on some of the problems of the already published and out there history. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was impressed and slightly confused on the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary. I was impressed because even though the school burned down they rebuilt it and it still exists (at least the ending made it sound that way). I was confused because if the whiter you were the better, why did full-blooded traditionalist Cherokees send their daughters there? Were they trying to get an upperhand on the white man? Even if it meant learning to write and read the language in order to better fight the white man? It had me confused. Also, if it was a Cherokee school, why girls go who were barely even Cherokee?, like the one mentioned on page 186 who was only 1/32 Cherokee. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The essay "Too Dark to be Angels" concludes by stating that the seminary was a progressive success. I can not help but question this outcome based on what I read. I have no doubts that the seminary provided short term advantages to its attendees as it related to social and economic status however, it appears also that the women let petty matters of snobbery and ego undermine the overall mission of the seminary (which I imagine was to uplift the Cherokee nation through education). It seems that by attending this seminary Cherokees were destroying themselves from the inside out. The women learned to feel either superior or inferior and therefore they could not remain united as an ethnic group. Also, the fact that whites were put on such a high pedestal made the Cherokees vulnerable to manipulation in the future. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Bancroft's qoute "a race halfway between the proud Castillian and the lowly root digger." existing "halfway between savage and civilization." on page 59 of Casteneda's essay is reprehensible. It caused me to quesiton the root cause of such racism, and prejudice. What makes someone racist? Is it truly just because the other person looks different? Is it about pre-conceived notions or hearsay, turned hateful stereotypes? Could it be a morally corrupt individual looking for a way to dehumanize a group, in order to justify poor treatment (i.e. stealing Indian land or slavery)? It seems there has to be some underlying motive for racism, besides just the color of one's skin vs. antohers'. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
After doing the readings, "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862" attracted my attention the most, and I struggled to figure out why. I think this document raises a lot of questions about gender norms during the time period, in a substantially different way than the other documents in Major Problems. It's clear from the other readings that rape and domination of Native Americans was not uncommon. "A Citizen Protests" raises the questions about the response to these acts by average citizens. The author of the letter labels the rapists brutes, who should be punished "in justice to decency, humanity, and civilization." However, its clear the author's morals aren't widely shared, why else would his or her letter to the editor be anonymous? ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly and her thoughts on the Castaneda piece and how it described the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how the distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. It is pointed out that Spanish women were always purer held higher up in societies eyes. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure in every way. Basically no matter how corny this sounds, Spanish women are classy and Mexican women are trashy. This is still seen today, even in my mind sometimes you think of Mexican you think lower class. However, when you think Spanish, you see a women wearing bright colors beautiful clothes.I wonder do we think this way because Spain is located in Europe and when Eurpoe comes to mind you think of places like Milan or Paris? --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I had the same questions about the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary as Ashley. What I didn't understand was why whiter was better? I found it interesting that full-blood Cherokees were sending their children to this extremely expensive school to become whiter. Is it to try to become equals with white people or is it to pull ahead of them? What I really don't understand is why are the Cherokees trying to wipe out their culture. That is what happened when we first settled the Indians became "whiter" and look at where they are now, language has been lost, traditions stories the list goes on. To me it seems like this school was good for the purpose of education but I felt as if it took away culture. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Antonia Castaneda's essay makes some far-reaching claims that are not completely warranted. Castaneda credits the biased work of Bancroft with informing all later popular and scholarly works with specific stereotypes of Spanish women (pg 59). While perhaps not central to Castaneda's essay I don't understand how one, or even a few historical scholars could be solely responsible for passing on biased perceptions. I think Castaneda ignores other ways that negative stereotypes get passed on. The fact that these negative stereotypes persist in persons who are not scholars of history indicates that later scholars might not have adopted the same stereotypes that Bancroft did solely because he did, but because they embraced these stereotypes in their daily lives. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I found the documents about women in the Trans-Mississippi Frontier West incredibly interesting and shocking at the same time. The Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes were the most shocking of the collection. Was this a common phenomenon at this time? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda's points about the female Cherokee seminary. I feel that the Cherokees were attending this school in hopes of becoming 'whiter', which did result in a dilution of their culture. One must wonder if they saw this as a negative thing, however. They saw that whites had the money, the land, and the privilege. Is it possible that they willingly sacrificed their unique culture in hopes of attaining these things that whites had and they did not? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I think Matt brings up an interesting point about "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862," in mentioning that the letter was anonymous. To our minds, the opinions shared seem to be the norm, but the simple fact that the writer of this letter felt the need to keep their opinions anonymous definitely demonstrates that these opinions were not the norm. This reflects a sad fact of race and gender norms of the time. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
As I was reading "Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples," a few things really struck me. First, I was amazed by the conflict between the young girl and her mother and that the young girl wanted to leave her family. I was also amazed that it was ultimately the mother's decision whether or not to send the young girl away, and in fact the father was not mentioned at all. I think that this highlights a cultural difference between the Dakotas and the white Americans. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I thought that an important and likely common racial and gender issue was highlighted in "Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, Requests an Army Pension, 1908." She mentioned that the father of her daughter was a white man. Sadly, I think that this was all too common, and denotes how white men took advantage of enslaved women. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
Mihesuah's piece about the diluded culture of the Cherokee women shows the power of the white, middle classed ideal. I thought the school's class system was very interesting and exposed how strong the force to wipe out Native American presence really was. I felt as if the Cherokee culture was breeded out with each new generation of students striving for white ideals. I wondered if perhaps within my own Eastern European ancestory a similiar process of acculturation took place. For now although I consider myself American I still have a sense of Polish pride, but after reading about the Cherokee seminary perhaps my ancestors strove to break apart from their cultural ties? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I found the article "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" to be extremely disturbing. As if it weren't bad enough to be sold to someone for my body the rules were absurd. I'm not sure which one was worse "if she concieves, she shall serve one year more" or "if she should escape and be recovered, then her time shall never expire." Who came up with these ideas and rules and how is this accepted in any society?? - Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
Growing up we've all been exposed to different stereotypes of various classifications of individuals. After doing the readings this week, it makes me question what did other races and genders think of whites? what were white femailes stereotyped as and has it changed throughout the years? It the perception change depending on who you talk to and do different backgrounds have varying perceptions? I'm curious as to how the "typical" white woman was portrayed. - Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
While reading Castaneda's article in the section "The Spanish Borderlands School" it became clear that the mention of Spanish Mexican women from Bolton and previous historians was often very political. Their place revolved around the rivalary of Mexican and Euro-American males. They were only significant when their lives involved or revolved around men. From a romanticized stereotype of Spanish women came the notion that they preferred white men. Realistically Americans wanted to hear of their superiority over Mexicans. Their role was to be an American conquest resulting in dominance over Mexican males. This proves Castandeda's point that the history of women needs to be reexamined under a lens unbiased by "Anglo North American(s)". -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I agree with Rose about the documents of Chinese prostitutes. I could not believe that women actually agreed to those rules such as if she is sick for fifteen days then she will serve another month or if she conceives then she will serve another year. The money they received must have been a good enough amount for them, but is it really worth it to lose your life by selling your body to someone? -Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
When reading Castaneda's article I couldn't help but think how we do romanticize the Spanish American women of the western frontier. Presented in movies and books, the Spanish woman in America has developed this myth of beauty and grace in the California frontier. On the other hand, the Mexican American woman is thought of as dirty and poor, perhaps a prostitute. Again there are modern images in movies and popular culture referencing that stereotyped past. When I was reading the article, the stereotypes of a romantic Spanish woman against the beggar-like figure of a Mexican woman from the western frontier were at the forefront of my thoughts. Like last week's articles, Castaneda's article shows how important it is to analyze all facets of women's history regardless of race. It also made me think how difficult it must be for historians to separate fact from fiction especially with these images of the old West still around today. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
When I read the Castaneda essay, it angered me that historians in the past stereotyped Mexican women as immoral and sexually and racially impure simply because they did not live under the norms of middle class white women - pure, pious, domestic, and submissive. It was also unfortunate in both Castaneda's essay as well as in the anonymous letter to the editor of the Beacon that Native women in the West were viewed as objects of sexual conquest by white soldiers and settlers. - Marilyn<br />
<br />
It was sad to read that the intent of the Cherokee seminary schools for females was to teach girls to conform to the ideals of white society instead of learning about and maintaining their own Cherokee heritage. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly W's question regarding the two ethnicities, I believe that it does exist. I had the opportunity to visit Mexico a number of years ago and was surprised to hear the derogatory comments made by the Mexican workers in regard to the tourists from South America, which they referred to as "Spanish". There seems to be a perception or attitude within the hispanic (or Latino) community; namely, "Spanish" descent ranks high, Mexican follows, and then the Mayans. This order in hierarchy is not that much different from the one that existed in colonial Mexico and Middle America, which placed Spaniards on top, then Spanish born in Mexico, Mestizos (Spanish/native females), Indians, then Blacks.-LisaM<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me in our reading "Genderm Race and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" was the differentiation made between "Mexican" women and "Spanish" Women. This distinction reminded me a lot of the idea that many East Coast Americans held during this time period that "black" women were filled with lust and passion and thereful immoral while "White" women were pure and pious and the most moral of all. Only in this case the "Mexican" women were in the place of the black women and the "Spanish" women in the place of the white women".- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In Modern Problem I found it interesting that someone reported the raping of the native americans on the ranch in "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California". I had assumed that if the people felt that the natives were so unimportant that they wouldn't have bothered reporting or complaining about the treatment these women received even though it was appalling. I also found the reading on the Selling of Chinese Prostitutes interesting because the terms they were given were little better than the terms of slavery and even if they had an "end" in site it would get pushed back because every one gets sick and they would have a month added on for that and of course in the profession of prostitution the likelihood of getting pregnant is of course high, so that would be another year. What was the likelihood of these women ever actually gaining their freedom? -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Castaneda's piece was very interesting to me because the distinction among Spanish and Mexican women is true for me. I'm half Spanish, half Latin American and I get treated differently depending on which nationality I say I am (least to say I say Spanish more often than Latin American). I can also say the discription of their men made me laugh because I, unfortunantly don't disagree after all these years that have passed since this took place. It's not that they're savage men, it's just what has been culturally seen as acceptable which I think is very unfortunate and should change! -Emely A.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_3_Questions/Comments328--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T07:26:40Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>The one thing that immediately struck me while I began reading the Castaneda piece was the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how, to me, that distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. Castaneda points out how Spanish women were always purer and more mysterious; romanticized in a sense. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure on pretty much every count. Does anyone else feel that this stereotype between the two ethnicities still holds up today or is that just me? Based on general opinion, I feel as though this major difference still sticks out in people's minds (not saying that this distinction is right in any sense.) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was extremely impressed by the scale of the Cherokee Seminary school. For it's time, it seemed like an impressive operation for a people so tremendously discriminated against in America, excepting the multiple burnings down of the building! I was, however, struck by the authors constant use of the word "progressive", which to me is usually a positive word, meaning moving toward improved living/way of life and education for the public. The author used it so negatively though, as a way to describe the discriminating, racially-mixed Cherokee girls and their families usually. Looking at her writings from a historians perspective I see how the word might have been used by the people themselves as a justifier of their own belief of superiority, but the author should not have used it herself because it makes it seem as though she is drawing the line herself between the status of tradition verse progression and pure-blood verse mixed-blood.~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
The readings this week largely had to do with how historians have struggled to characterize women by race and gender. Women of other races were frequently overlooked. As Castaneda points out in chapter four, when women were studied, it was either because of their significance in relation to someone important, such as a governor. The experiences of any other women would be generalized to stereotype women of that particular race overall. This is interesting to keep in mind when reading “The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barceló in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe” by Gonzalez, in which he discusses how the life of one woman (Dona Gertrudis Barceló) impacted the image that people held of Spanish-Mexican women. Why is it that the lives and experiences of minority women could see easily and readily be generalized? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Mihesuah. The article described the all female seminary for Cherokee girls. When examining the experiences of Cherokee women in an all female setting, it easier to see the impact that race and economics played in their lives. You no longer have the issue of breaking down the study by gender and race, nor do you have the question of which plays a more significant role. In looking at the experiences of the Cherokee women in this school, it is easy to see that segregation occurred even when the playing field seemed to be leveled. The more white blood the females had, the more accepted they were by others. Additionally, it would be more likely that they would be able to marry and be economically and culturally successful. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading about the female seminary for the Cherokee girls was very interesting. It seems odd to me that there was such an emphasis placed on the percentage of cherokee vs white blood you had. It was an Indian school but it seems that to be accepted or what the girls felt was preferred was to be as "white" as possible, but yet they still talked about the percent, however small, of Cherokee blood they had. Most of the girls in the pictures to me did not "look" like a typical Cherokee and if the emphasis was on being as "white" as possible why did they even attend the seminary, why not go to a white school. Were they that segregated that even a small amount of Cherokee blood would prevent them from going to a white school, and who would know if you didn't say anything about what percent white you were? ~~Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
While reading "Gender, Race, and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" and "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" by Antonia I. Castaneda, I wondered whether it were true that only Westerners studied the history of Hispanic women until the 1970s or 1980s. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe" by Deena J. Gonzalez, I found it interesting that during that time it was so easy to step outside the boundaries of the perceptions of the general populace. The case of interesting women like Barcelo is very similar to the inability of the Native Americans to see the ships of Cortez until Cortez's men pointed them out to them.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It is strange that in the "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876" "stone-woman" was considered a problem/disease. From what I understand, having sex through prostitution is not an enjoyable experience.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
My favorite reading out of all of these essays was "To Dark to Be Angels" by Devon Mihesuah, because my great grandmother was apparently 1/4 cherokee, so it was like reading apart of her history. But what I found so interesting about this essay was how these cherokee women were trying to live up to a white persons society, or "adapting to society's 'whiteness'."(187) For so many years the European society in America had tried to civilize Indians, and get them out of farming and hunting, and in this reading it was like they gave up their fight of keeping their heritage and decided to try and fit in to white society. Why? There was all of the sudden the whiter you looked the better off you were, and this often left the full blooded cherokee women feeling inferior to white yet still.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Deena Gonzalez's essay on Gertrudis Barcelo describes a very interesting women. She basically went against what all the other women in society were expected to be like. She was rich and most interesting was that she made her saloon the center of the town's social and economic life, as well as military and political people coming to her for advise (255). Wasn't that unheard of in those days? How was it that she was able to lead this life and other women didn't, or did they try? --Michelle Marduesz<br />
<br />
Castaneda's article caused me to think on how the problem with the history of CA and its residents before Anglos is a problem with many areas. What I mean by that is a history that does integrate race, gender, and culture or class as categories of historical analysis (page 71) is a problem are for many places. It just really strikes a bit harder when you read a little of the historiography on some of the problems of the already published and out there history. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was impressed and slightly confused on the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary. I was impressed because even though the school burned down they rebuilt it and it still exists (at least the ending made it sound that way). I was confused because if the whiter you were the better, why did full-blooded traditionalist Cherokees send their daughters there? Were they trying to get an upperhand on the white man? Even if it meant learning to write and read the language in order to better fight the white man? It had me confused. Also, if it was a Cherokee school, why girls go who were barely even Cherokee?, like the one mentioned on page 186 who was only 1/32 Cherokee. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The essay "Too Dark to be Angels" concludes by stating that the seminary was a progressive success. I can not help but question this outcome based on what I read. I have no doubts that the seminary provided short term advantages to its attendees as it related to social and economic status however, it appears also that the women let petty matters of snobbery and ego undermine the overall mission of the seminary (which I imagine was to uplift the Cherokee nation through education). It seems that by attending this seminary Cherokees were destroying themselves from the inside out. The women learned to feel either superior or inferior and therefore they could not remain united as an ethnic group. Also, the fact that whites were put on such a high pedestal made the Cherokees vulnerable to manipulation in the future. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Bancroft's qoute "a race halfway between the proud Castillian and the lowly root digger." existing "halfway between savage and civilization." on page 59 of Casteneda's essay is reprehensible. It caused me to quesiton the root cause of such racism, and prejudice. What makes someone racist? Is it truly just because the other person looks different? Is it about pre-conceived notions or hearsay, turned hateful stereotypes? Could it be a morally corrupt individual looking for a way to dehumanize a group, in order to justify poor treatment (i.e. stealing Indian land or slavery)? It seems there has to be some underlying motive for racism, besides just the color of one's skin vs. antohers'. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
After doing the readings, "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862" attracted my attention the most, and I struggled to figure out why. I think this document raises a lot of questions about gender norms during the time period, in a substantially different way than the other documents in Major Problems. It's clear from the other readings that rape and domination of Native Americans was not uncommon. "A Citizen Protests" raises the questions about the response to these acts by average citizens. The author of the letter labels the rapists brutes, who should be punished "in justice to decency, humanity, and civilization." However, its clear the author's morals aren't widely shared, why else would his or her letter to the editor be anonymous? ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly and her thoughts on the Castaneda piece and how it described the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how the distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. It is pointed out that Spanish women were always purer held higher up in societies eyes. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure in every way. Basically no matter how corny this sounds, Spanish women are classy and Mexican women are trashy. This is still seen today, even in my mind sometimes you think of Mexican you think lower class. However, when you think Spanish, you see a women wearing bright colors beautiful clothes.I wonder do we think this way because Spain is located in Europe and when Eurpoe comes to mind you think of places like Milan or Paris? --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I had the same questions about the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary as Ashley. What I didn't understand was why whiter was better? I found it interesting that full-blood Cherokees were sending their children to this extremely expensive school to become whiter. Is it to try to become equals with white people or is it to pull ahead of them? What I really don't understand is why are the Cherokees trying to wipe out their culture. That is what happened when we first settled the Indians became "whiter" and look at where they are now, language has been lost, traditions stories the list goes on. To me it seems like this school was good for the purpose of education but I felt as if it took away culture. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Antonia Castaneda's essay makes some far-reaching claims that are not completely warranted. Castaneda credits the biased work of Bancroft with informing all later popular and scholarly works with specific stereotypes of Spanish women (pg 59). While perhaps not central to Castaneda's essay I don't understand how one, or even a few historical scholars could be solely responsible for passing on biased perceptions. I think Castaneda ignores other ways that negative stereotypes get passed on. The fact that these negative stereotypes persist in persons who are not scholars of history indicates that later scholars might not have adopted the same stereotypes that Bancroft did solely because he did, but because they embraced these stereotypes in their daily lives. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I found the documents about women in the Trans-Mississippi Frontier West incredibly interesting and shocking at the same time. The Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes were the most shocking of the collection. Was this a common phenomenon at this time? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda's points about the female Cherokee seminary. I feel that the Cherokees were attending this school in hopes of becoming 'whiter', which did result in a dilution of their culture. One must wonder if they saw this as a negative thing, however. They saw that whites had the money, the land, and the privilege. Is it possible that they willingly sacrificed their unique culture in hopes of attaining these things that whites had and they did not? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I think Matt brings up an interesting point about "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862," in mentioning that the letter was anonymous. To our minds, the opinions shared seem to be the norm, but the simple fact that the writer of this letter felt the need to keep their opinions anonymous definitely demonstrates that these opinions were not the norm. This reflects a sad fact of race and gender norms of the time. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
As I was reading "Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples," a few things really struck me. First, I was amazed by the conflict between the young girl and her mother and that the young girl wanted to leave her family. I was also amazed that it was ultimately the mother's decision whether or not to send the young girl away, and in fact the father was not mentioned at all. I think that this highlights a cultural difference between the Dakotas and the white Americans. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I thought that an important and likely common racial and gender issue was highlighted in "Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, Requests an Army Pension, 1908." She mentioned that the father of her daughter was a white man. Sadly, I think that this was all too common, and denotes how white men took advantage of enslaved women. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
Mihesuah's piece about the diluded culture of the Cherokee women shows the power of the white, middle classed ideal. I thought the school's class system was very interesting and exposed how strong the force to wipe out Native American presence really was. I felt as if the Cherokee culture was breeded out with each new generation of students striving for white ideals. I wondered if perhaps within my own Eastern European ancestory a similiar process of acculturation took place. For now although I consider myself American I still have a sense of Polish pride, but after reading about the Cherokee seminary perhaps my ancestors strove to break apart from their cultural ties? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I found the article "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" to be extremely disturbing. As if it weren't bad enough to be sold to someone for my body the rules were absurd. I'm not sure which one was worse "if she concieves, she shall serve one year more" or "if she should escape and be recovered, then her time shall never expire." Who came up with these ideas and rules and how is this accepted in any society?? - Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
Growing up we've all been exposed to different stereotypes of various classifications of individuals. After doing the readings this week, it makes me question what did other races and genders think of whites? what were white femailes stereotyped as and has it changed throughout the years? It the perception change depending on who you talk to and do different backgrounds have varying perceptions? I'm curious as to how the "typical" white woman was portrayed. - Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
While reading Castaneda's article in the section "The Spanish Borderlands School" it became clear that the mention of Spanish Mexican women from Bolton and previous historians was often very political. Their place revolved around the rivalary of Mexican and Euro-American males. They were only significant when their lives involved or revolved around men. From a romanticized stereotype of Spanish women came the notion that they preferred white men. Realistically Americans wanted to hear of their superiority over Mexicans. Their role was to be an American conquest resulting in dominance over Mexican males. This proves Castandeda's point that the history of women needs to be reexamined under a lens unbiased by "Anglo North American(s)". -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I agree with Rose about the documents of Chinese prostitutes. I could not believe that women actually agreed to those rules such as if she is sick for fifteen days then she will serve another month or if she conceives then she will serve another year. The money they received must have been a good enough amount for them, but is it really worth it to lose your life by selling your body to someone? -Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
When reading Castaneda's article I couldn't help but think how we do romanticize the Spanish American women of the western frontier. Presented in movies and books, the Spanish woman in America has developed this myth of beauty and grace in the California frontier. On the other hand, the Mexican American woman is thought of as dirty and poor, perhaps a prostitute. Again there are modern images in movies and popular culture referencing that stereotyped past. When I was reading the article, the stereotypes of a romantic Spanish woman against the beggar-like figure of a Mexican woman from the western frontier were at the forefront of my thoughts. Like last week's articles, Castaneda's article shows how important it is to analyze all facets of women's history regardless of race. It also made me think how difficult it must be for historians to separate fact from fiction especially with these images of the old West still around today. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
When I read the Castaneda essay, it angered me that historians in the past stereotyped Mexican women as immoral and sexually and racially impure simply because they did not live under the norms of middle class white women - pure, pious, domestic, and submissive. It was also unfortunate in both Castaneda's essay as well as in the anonymous letter to the editor of the Beacon that Native women in the West were viewed as objects of sexual conquest by white soldiers and settlers. - Marilyn<br />
<br />
It was sad to read that the intent of the Cherokee seminary schools for females was to teach girls to conform to the ideals of white society instead of learning about and maintaining their own Cherokee heritage. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly W's question regarding the two ethnicities, I believe that it does exist. I had the opportunity to visit Mexico a number of years ago and was surprised to hear the derogatory comments made by the Mexican workers in regard to the tourists from South America, which they referred to as "Spanish". There seems to be a perception or attitude within the hispanic (or Latino) community; namely, "Spanish" descent ranks high, Mexican follows, and then the Mayans. This order in hierarchy is not that much different from the one that existed in colonial Mexico and Middle America, which placed Spaniards on top, then Spanish born in Mexico, Mestizos (Spanish/native females), Indians, then Blacks.-LisaM<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me in our reading "Genderm Race and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" was the differentiation made between "Mexican" women and "Spanish" Women. This distinction reminded me a lot of the idea that many East Coast Americans held during this time period that "black" women were filled with lust and passion and thereful immoral while "White" women were pure and pious and the most moral of all. Only in this case the "Mexican" women were in the place of the black women and the "Spanish" women in the place of the white women".- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In Modern Problem I found it interesting that someone reported the raping of the native americans on the ranch in "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California". I had assumed that if the people felt that the natives were so unimportant that they wouldn't have bothered reporting or complaining about the treatment these women received even though it was appalling. I also found the reading on the Selling of Chinese Prostitutes interesting because the terms they were given were little better than the terms of slavery and even if they had an "end" in site it would get pushed back because every one gets sick and they would have a month added on for that and of course in the profession of prostitution the likelihood of getting pregnant is of course high, so that would be another year. What was the likelihood of these women ever actually gaining their freedom? -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Castaneda's piece was very interesting to me because the distinction among Spanish and Mexican women is true for me. I'm half Spanish, half Latin American and I get treated differently depending on which nationality I say I am (least to say I say Spanish more often than Latin American). I can also say the discription of their men made me laugh because I, unfortunantly don't disagree after all these years that have passed since this took place. It's not the they're saveage men, it's just what has been culturally seen as acceptable which I think is very unfortunate and should change! -Emely A.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_3_Questions/Comments328--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T07:23:43Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>The one thing that immediately struck me while I began reading the Castaneda piece was the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how, to me, that distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. Castaneda points out how Spanish women were always purer and more mysterious; romanticized in a sense. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure on pretty much every count. Does anyone else feel that this stereotype between the two ethnicities still holds up today or is that just me? Based on general opinion, I feel as though this major difference still sticks out in people's minds (not saying that this distinction is right in any sense.) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was extremely impressed by the scale of the Cherokee Seminary school. For it's time, it seemed like an impressive operation for a people so tremendously discriminated against in America, excepting the multiple burnings down of the building! I was, however, struck by the authors constant use of the word "progressive", which to me is usually a positive word, meaning moving toward improved living/way of life and education for the public. The author used it so negatively though, as a way to describe the discriminating, racially-mixed Cherokee girls and their families usually. Looking at her writings from a historians perspective I see how the word might have been used by the people themselves as a justifier of their own belief of superiority, but the author should not have used it herself because it makes it seem as though she is drawing the line herself between the status of tradition verse progression and pure-blood verse mixed-blood.~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
The readings this week largely had to do with how historians have struggled to characterize women by race and gender. Women of other races were frequently overlooked. As Castaneda points out in chapter four, when women were studied, it was either because of their significance in relation to someone important, such as a governor. The experiences of any other women would be generalized to stereotype women of that particular race overall. This is interesting to keep in mind when reading “The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barceló in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe” by Gonzalez, in which he discusses how the life of one woman (Dona Gertrudis Barceló) impacted the image that people held of Spanish-Mexican women. Why is it that the lives and experiences of minority women could see easily and readily be generalized? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Mihesuah. The article described the all female seminary for Cherokee girls. When examining the experiences of Cherokee women in an all female setting, it easier to see the impact that race and economics played in their lives. You no longer have the issue of breaking down the study by gender and race, nor do you have the question of which plays a more significant role. In looking at the experiences of the Cherokee women in this school, it is easy to see that segregation occurred even when the playing field seemed to be leveled. The more white blood the females had, the more accepted they were by others. Additionally, it would be more likely that they would be able to marry and be economically and culturally successful. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading about the female seminary for the Cherokee girls was very interesting. It seems odd to me that there was such an emphasis placed on the percentage of cherokee vs white blood you had. It was an Indian school but it seems that to be accepted or what the girls felt was preferred was to be as "white" as possible, but yet they still talked about the percent, however small, of Cherokee blood they had. Most of the girls in the pictures to me did not "look" like a typical Cherokee and if the emphasis was on being as "white" as possible why did they even attend the seminary, why not go to a white school. Were they that segregated that even a small amount of Cherokee blood would prevent them from going to a white school, and who would know if you didn't say anything about what percent white you were? ~~Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
While reading "Gender, Race, and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" and "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" by Antonia I. Castaneda, I wondered whether it were true that only Westerners studied the history of Hispanic women until the 1970s or 1980s. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe" by Deena J. Gonzalez, I found it interesting that during that time it was so easy to step outside the boundaries of the perceptions of the general populace. The case of interesting women like Barcelo is very similar to the inability of the Native Americans to see the ships of Cortez until Cortez's men pointed them out to them.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It is strange that in the "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876" "stone-woman" was considered a problem/disease. From what I understand, having sex through prostitution is not an enjoyable experience.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
My favorite reading out of all of these essays was "To Dark to Be Angels" by Devon Mihesuah, because my great grandmother was apparently 1/4 cherokee, so it was like reading apart of her history. But what I found so interesting about this essay was how these cherokee women were trying to live up to a white persons society, or "adapting to society's 'whiteness'."(187) For so many years the European society in America had tried to civilize Indians, and get them out of farming and hunting, and in this reading it was like they gave up their fight of keeping their heritage and decided to try and fit in to white society. Why? There was all of the sudden the whiter you looked the better off you were, and this often left the full blooded cherokee women feeling inferior to white yet still.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Deena Gonzalez's essay on Gertrudis Barcelo describes a very interesting women. She basically went against what all the other women in society were expected to be like. She was rich and most interesting was that she made her saloon the center of the town's social and economic life, as well as military and political people coming to her for advise (255). Wasn't that unheard of in those days? How was it that she was able to lead this life and other women didn't, or did they try? --Michelle Marduesz<br />
<br />
Castaneda's article caused me to think on how the problem with the history of CA and its residents before Anglos is a problem with many areas. What I mean by that is a history that does integrate race, gender, and culture or class as categories of historical analysis (page 71) is a problem are for many places. It just really strikes a bit harder when you read a little of the historiography on some of the problems of the already published and out there history. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was impressed and slightly confused on the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary. I was impressed because even though the school burned down they rebuilt it and it still exists (at least the ending made it sound that way). I was confused because if the whiter you were the better, why did full-blooded traditionalist Cherokees send their daughters there? Were they trying to get an upperhand on the white man? Even if it meant learning to write and read the language in order to better fight the white man? It had me confused. Also, if it was a Cherokee school, why girls go who were barely even Cherokee?, like the one mentioned on page 186 who was only 1/32 Cherokee. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The essay "Too Dark to be Angels" concludes by stating that the seminary was a progressive success. I can not help but question this outcome based on what I read. I have no doubts that the seminary provided short term advantages to its attendees as it related to social and economic status however, it appears also that the women let petty matters of snobbery and ego undermine the overall mission of the seminary (which I imagine was to uplift the Cherokee nation through education). It seems that by attending this seminary Cherokees were destroying themselves from the inside out. The women learned to feel either superior or inferior and therefore they could not remain united as an ethnic group. Also, the fact that whites were put on such a high pedestal made the Cherokees vulnerable to manipulation in the future. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Bancroft's qoute "a race halfway between the proud Castillian and the lowly root digger." existing "halfway between savage and civilization." on page 59 of Casteneda's essay is reprehensible. It caused me to quesiton the root cause of such racism, and prejudice. What makes someone racist? Is it truly just because the other person looks different? Is it about pre-conceived notions or hearsay, turned hateful stereotypes? Could it be a morally corrupt individual looking for a way to dehumanize a group, in order to justify poor treatment (i.e. stealing Indian land or slavery)? It seems there has to be some underlying motive for racism, besides just the color of one's skin vs. antohers'. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
After doing the readings, "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862" attracted my attention the most, and I struggled to figure out why. I think this document raises a lot of questions about gender norms during the time period, in a substantially different way than the other documents in Major Problems. It's clear from the other readings that rape and domination of Native Americans was not uncommon. "A Citizen Protests" raises the questions about the response to these acts by average citizens. The author of the letter labels the rapists brutes, who should be punished "in justice to decency, humanity, and civilization." However, its clear the author's morals aren't widely shared, why else would his or her letter to the editor be anonymous? ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly and her thoughts on the Castaneda piece and how it described the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how the distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. It is pointed out that Spanish women were always purer held higher up in societies eyes. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure in every way. Basically no matter how corny this sounds, Spanish women are classy and Mexican women are trashy. This is still seen today, even in my mind sometimes you think of Mexican you think lower class. However, when you think Spanish, you see a women wearing bright colors beautiful clothes.I wonder do we think this way because Spain is located in Europe and when Eurpoe comes to mind you think of places like Milan or Paris? --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I had the same questions about the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary as Ashley. What I didn't understand was why whiter was better? I found it interesting that full-blood Cherokees were sending their children to this extremely expensive school to become whiter. Is it to try to become equals with white people or is it to pull ahead of them? What I really don't understand is why are the Cherokees trying to wipe out their culture. That is what happened when we first settled the Indians became "whiter" and look at where they are now, language has been lost, traditions stories the list goes on. To me it seems like this school was good for the purpose of education but I felt as if it took away culture. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Antonia Castaneda's essay makes some far-reaching claims that are not completely warranted. Castaneda credits the biased work of Bancroft with informing all later popular and scholarly works with specific stereotypes of Spanish women (pg 59). While perhaps not central to Castaneda's essay I don't understand how one, or even a few historical scholars could be solely responsible for passing on biased perceptions. I think Castaneda ignores other ways that negative stereotypes get passed on. The fact that these negative stereotypes persist in persons who are not scholars of history indicates that later scholars might not have adopted the same stereotypes that Bancroft did solely because he did, but because they embraced these stereotypes in their daily lives. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I found the documents about women in the Trans-Mississippi Frontier West incredibly interesting and shocking at the same time. The Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes were the most shocking of the collection. Was this a common phenomenon at this time? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda's points about the female Cherokee seminary. I feel that the Cherokees were attending this school in hopes of becoming 'whiter', which did result in a dilution of their culture. One must wonder if they saw this as a negative thing, however. They saw that whites had the money, the land, and the privilege. Is it possible that they willingly sacrificed their unique culture in hopes of attaining these things that whites had and they did not? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I think Matt brings up an interesting point about "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862," in mentioning that the letter was anonymous. To our minds, the opinions shared seem to be the norm, but the simple fact that the writer of this letter felt the need to keep their opinions anonymous definitely demonstrates that these opinions were not the norm. This reflects a sad fact of race and gender norms of the time. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
As I was reading "Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples," a few things really struck me. First, I was amazed by the conflict between the young girl and her mother and that the young girl wanted to leave her family. I was also amazed that it was ultimately the mother's decision whether or not to send the young girl away, and in fact the father was not mentioned at all. I think that this highlights a cultural difference between the Dakotas and the white Americans. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I thought that an important and likely common racial and gender issue was highlighted in "Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, Requests an Army Pension, 1908." She mentioned that the father of her daughter was a white man. Sadly, I think that this was all too common, and denotes how white men took advantage of enslaved women. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
Mihesuah's piece about the diluded culture of the Cherokee women shows the power of the white, middle classed ideal. I thought the school's class system was very interesting and exposed how strong the force to wipe out Native American presence really was. I felt as if the Cherokee culture was breeded out with each new generation of students striving for white ideals. I wondered if perhaps within my own Eastern European ancestory a similiar process of acculturation took place. For now although I consider myself American I still have a sense of Polish pride, but after reading about the Cherokee seminary perhaps my ancestors strove to break apart from their cultural ties? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I found the article "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" to be extremely disturbing. As if it weren't bad enough to be sold to someone for my body the rules were absurd. I'm not sure which one was worse "if she concieves, she shall serve one year more" or "if she should escape and be recovered, then her time shall never expire." Who came up with these ideas and rules and how is this accepted in any society?? - Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
Growing up we've all been exposed to different stereotypes of various classifications of individuals. After doing the readings this week, it makes me question what did other races and genders think of whites? what were white femailes stereotyped as and has it changed throughout the years? It the perception change depending on who you talk to and do different backgrounds have varying perceptions? I'm curious as to how the "typical" white woman was portrayed. - Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
While reading Castaneda's article in the section "The Spanish Borderlands School" it became clear that the mention of Spanish Mexican women from Bolton and previous historians was often very political. Their place revolved around the rivalary of Mexican and Euro-American males. They were only significant when their lives involved or revolved around men. From a romanticized stereotype of Spanish women came the notion that they preferred white men. Realistically Americans wanted to hear of their superiority over Mexicans. Their role was to be an American conquest resulting in dominance over Mexican males. This proves Castandeda's point that the history of women needs to be reexamined under a lens unbiased by "Anglo North American(s)". -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I agree with Rose about the documents of Chinese prostitutes. I could not believe that women actually agreed to those rules such as if she is sick for fifteen days then she will serve another month or if she conceives then she will serve another year. The money they received must have been a good enough amount for them, but is it really worth it to lose your life by selling your body to someone? -Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
When reading Castaneda's article I couldn't help but think how we do romanticize the Spanish American women of the western frontier. Presented in movies and books, the Spanish woman in America has developed this myth of beauty and grace in the California frontier. On the other hand, the Mexican American woman is thought of as dirty and poor, perhaps a prostitute. Again there are modern images in movies and popular culture referencing that stereotyped past. When I was reading the article, the stereotypes of a romantic Spanish woman against the beggar-like figure of a Mexican woman from the western frontier were at the forefront of my thoughts. Like last week's articles, Castaneda's article shows how important it is to analyze all facets of women's history regardless of race. It also made me think how difficult it must be for historians to separate fact from fiction especially with these images of the old West still around today. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
When I read the Castaneda essay, it angered me that historians in the past stereotyped Mexican women as immoral and sexually and racially impure simply because they did not live under the norms of middle class white women - pure, pious, domestic, and submissive. It was also unfortunate in both Castaneda's essay as well as in the anonymous letter to the editor of the Beacon that Native women in the West were viewed as objects of sexual conquest by white soldiers and settlers. - Marilyn<br />
<br />
It was sad to read that the intent of the Cherokee seminary schools for females was to teach girls to conform to the ideals of white society instead of learning about and maintaining their own Cherokee heritage. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly W's question regarding the two ethnicities, I believe that it does exist. I had the opportunity to visit Mexico a number of years ago and was surprised to hear the derogatory comments made by the Mexican workers in regard to the tourists from South America, which they referred to as "Spanish". There seems to be a perception or attitude within the hispanic (or Latino) community; namely, "Spanish" descent ranks high, Mexican follows, and then the Mayans. This order in hierarchy is not that much different from the one that existed in colonial Mexico and Middle America, which placed Spaniards on top, then Spanish born in Mexico, Mestizos (Spanish/native females), Indians, then Blacks.-LisaM<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me in our reading "Genderm Race and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" was the differentiation made between "Mexican" women and "Spanish" Women. This distinction reminded me a lot of the idea that many East Coast Americans held during this time period that "black" women were filled with lust and passion and thereful immoral while "White" women were pure and pious and the most moral of all. Only in this case the "Mexican" women were in the place of the black women and the "Spanish" women in the place of the white women".- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In Modern Problem I found it interesting that someone reported the raping of the native americans on the ranch in "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California". I had assumed that if the people felt that the natives were so unimportant that they wouldn't have bothered reporting or complaining about the treatment these women received even though it was appalling. I also found the reading on the Selling of Chinese Prostitutes interesting because the terms they were given were little better than the terms of slavery and even if they had an "end" in site it would get pushed back because every one gets sick and they would have a month added on for that and of course in the profession of prostitution the likelihood of getting pregnant is of course high, so that would be another year. What was the likelihood of these women ever actually gaining their freedom? -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Castaneda's piece was very interesting to me because the distinction among Spanish and Mexican women is true for me. I'm half Spanish, half Latin American and I get treated differently depending on which nationality I say I am (least to say I say Spanish more often than Latin American). Emely A.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_2_Questions/Comments328--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-24T04:29:27Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting that the concept of a separation between freedom and suffrage that existed during the Post-Civil War period is very well upheld assumption today. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
The gradual disenfranchisement and barring from political participation of black women seems to be an interesting example of white society's influence on black culture. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
What were the similarities between the political participation of black women and political participation of the women of immigrant groups and other minorities? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting in the reading where the author discussed the concept of family being the "unifying thread" that bound African Americans together. She says that "the notion of family members as having a mutual and continuing responsibility to help each other and to prepare for hard times" (pg 125). Wouldn't that have been true of any family during the reconstruction period, black or white? ~~Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
I agree with Justin that it is interesting to see how the African American women were gradually pushed out of the political arena after having been so active and vocal. I think it is funny how the women would "take sactions" (pg 135),such as abstaining from sexual relations, against men that voted for the Democratic party! ~~ Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
The concept that I found most intriguing overall in the reading was the conflicting views of freedom and suffrage being an individual possession versus communal. This led to the different treatment of people who voted against the popular view. To someone who thought individuals were responsible to only themselves they would view hostility against other voters as opposing the libreal democratic process whereas in the African American community, where suffrage was viewed as a collective possesion, it was right to be hostile towards those who threatened the well being of the whole community. -Karly Kovalcik<br />
<br />
Although the difference may be slight on paper, there is a huge difference between the African American woman's perspective that her husband votes for her in a way that represents her political beliefs and ideologies versus a white woman's perspective that her husband voted for her without consulting with her because he acted individually in a way that was best for his wife and children. -Karly Kovalcik<br />
<br />
After reading the article I made a decision that I had previously I had been flip-flopping between. I now believe that there needs to be subcategories of the women's history to include at least, but not limiting to, African American Women's history. The history seems to be so different just from the article we had to read. Such as, the black women feeling that they were equally part of the vote that the black men casted. I don't remember ever hearing about that before, at least with white women, but then again I haven't taken a women's history course before either -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Ashley. After reading this article, it has become clear to me that women's history needs definite subcategories. But that just makes me thing about how many subcategories can we really delve into? I mean, if you think of how many different subject classes are offered to us within our history department, all of which normally pertain to "men's history," do we need all of those categories for women's history as well? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
The other thing I found interesting in the article by Elsa Brown was just how the women and men viewed the 'sense of the vote' at first. Such as the vote casted by the men was equally the women's vote, and how the black republican politicians were able to get (well, it seems like the article was meaning quite a few) many of the black women to reject black male democratic voters. Also, just the fact the black women to fight to even get to vote in Richmond's First African Baptist Church astounded me with the way the article was talking about community earlier on. It definitely feels like slowly, but surely, the women were losing the political say they had through their men. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
In chapter 8, Brown gives examples of the freed African American trying to regain the importance of ''the family''. The church was impacted by the new seating integration, families lived together in support, and even none relatives were taken into homes that had room in racial solidarity. Single and widowed women lived together, sharing incomes and responsibility over child care. In a way, black women were improving and strengthening the idea of ''the family'' that white society held such virtue in. By living as sisters with none relatives, but former "fellow servants", African American women created an even stronger sense of female solidarity and sisterhood than white women. While many white women of the time looked down on excessive charity (even to single women with children), black women were united. I believe the lacking sense of sisterhood among all white women and failure to unite with African American women hurt them in the struggle for suffrage.--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
The experience of slavery created a need to embrace other African Americans, so it is not surprising that they reached out to the community of African Americans during the Reconstruction Era and beyond. It was family and a sense of community that held African Americans together. "Whether one eats or starves in this setting depends on the available resources within the community as a whole."(126) This essay reminded me of a conversation that I had with a senior African American woman in Georgia, who told me that during the violence of the 1950s communities of African Americans posted neighborhood watches. According to the story, white males, sometimes intoxicated, would drive through black communities seeking victims. The men took on the responsibility of protecting the citizens within the community. This women said that they seldom left the neighborhood due to potential violence, and there was no need to because school, church, and markets were all within the perimeter of the black community.--LisaM<br />
<br />
The concept that the freedom and political liberty of U.S. citizens was not synonymous (130) seems a blatent contradition to present day eyes. As we all know, the black codes in the Reconstruction Era disenfranchised large populations of blacks. Brown's essay states that black women felt they had a stake in the man's choice in voting. I recall in Georgia history, the sizeable female black population was considered a threat if allowed to vote; black women were inclined to vote Republican, and the South were Democrats.--LisaM<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Karly about how there is a huge difference between the African American woman's perspective that her husband votes for her representing her political beliefs and to a white woman's perspective that the husband voted for her without consulting with her. That he voted for who he though was best for him and his wife and children. I think it shows that even though all men are superior when it comes to women, African American men have more respect to their wives then a white man does to his. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Something that I found interesting in the reading was when it discussed how blacks were active participants throughout the state constitutional convention. African Americans both male and female crowded the galleries speaking their opinions letting their voices be heard. It says " White women, for example, certainly on occasion sat in the convention's gallery as visitors silently observing the proceedings..."(pg129). African American women were standing besides the men that "represented" them and took part in trying to make changes, while the white women sat there quietly letting their men make decisions for them. I just find this funny because you would think a white women would have a little more part in politics; but I guess an African American woman didn't have much to loose if she spoke out of turn or defended her own ideas. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that Brown discussed the varying ways to interpret the word “freedom.” For black women, freedom was the ability to remain close to the community and help the family. She stated that for black women, “the charity of this penniless negress in receiving another poverty-stricken creature under her roof was characteristic of the freedmen” (p. 126). On the other hand, from the perspective of white men and women, freedom was the ability to get ahead and better oneself. For example, Brown states, “freedpeople should adopt naturally those habits of thrift, diligence, and acquisitiveness that were a cornerstone of free labor ideology” (p.127). This highlights an important difference in perspective. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Brown talks a lot about the difference between freedom and political liberty. There was debate on whether or not civil right should be an “inherent corollary to freedom.” She mentions the views of Gibson when discussing this point, in which he suggests, “persons who had not yet learned to regulate their lives appropriately—to be thrifty, industrious, and diligent—were not yet capable of responsibly exercising liberty. Those not capable of political liberty would rely on those capable of it to protect their freedom” (p 130). In the time following the civil war, women did not have the right to vote, given this statement, is it because society did not view them as “capable of the responsibility?” Moreover, is this, to some extent true today, with the definition of “capable”, not applying to gender, but to age? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
In Browns essay I thought it was interesting on page 129 that during debates white women were silent and the African Americans were not. Instead they participated and loudly; however Brown doesn't say whether the African Amercians were men or women or both. Why were the white women silent? <br />
Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
What was also intersting to me in Browns essay was that Southern Black women and men debated the issue of woman suffrage (131). I assume this is because Black men were in the same boat as women in general because they didn't have much rights either so they understood the frustration of not having certain rights and in this case the right to vote. <br />
Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In response to your assumption Michelle, I'm going to agree somewhat, and say that black men also debated the issue of women's suffrage, because they too had to struggle to have a political voice. They had a difficult time obtaining the right to vote themselves, so they also had to persuade women to help them and back them up while trying to get a shot at the vote. This, of course, led to a massive debate over whether or not black men or women as a gender should be granted the right to vote first, and caused quite a stir when it was granted to men. There were quite a few men, though, like Frederick Douglass I believe, who supported the woman's right to vote. They understood what it was like to be considered politically naive, so I'm sure that helped in some way. - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that during the Reconstruction Era while men and women who had been slaves focused on finding the families that they had been separated from the white society surrounding these families found something wrong with the fact the black community latched onto the families they had around them. It seemed odd that they would have such a negative view on the fact that these people had such a strong desire to help out family members or even simply other people who experienced the difficulties of slavery with them. I would have thought that this would have been something that would have been admired instead of mocked. They were helping others out which was something that I had understood was the duty of any Christian, especially during this time period where the majority of the nation was Christian. Was it simply because they were a different skin color than them? Or was it because many white people during this period were so focused on improving their lot in life that they couldn't have cared less about how the others were doing? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading how although the black women in communities were denied the right to actually cast a vote in elections they still made their political opinions known. I especially enjoyed reading that these women would threaten their husbands in order to insure they voted in a way that represented not only his opinions but also hers as well! - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in Brown's essay was that while African Americans were TECHNICALLY exteneded all the freedoms and liberties afforded the white male populous, there were still social norms and restraints (that were more powerful than any amendment) that constrained their freedoms. These could be seen explicitly in the south, and more subtly in the North but they definetly existed. However, even in the time of Jim Crow laws, and a time when women (white or black) still could not vote, in the African American community black women had real power. On page 130 Brown talks about how black culture had both an internal and external political structure. In the internal structure black women had just as much power as the men. So why was this not the case with the white culture of the day? Did the conditions within slavery equalize black men and women, is this something that carried over from their culture in Africa, or were black women simply more strong willed and outspoken? - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Another point worth discussing from the reading was the incredibly gernerous and nuclear support system African Americans set up during reconstruction. Brown talks about how the ex-slaves would depend on one another, for food, shelter, and money. Sometimes they would even go so far as to share bank accounts. Although I admire their genorosity and envy their sense of community, I have to wonder if African American Society as a whole in the long run would not have been better off if the individuals would have put their extra money to a productive use for themselves individually, rather than dontating it to the poor. If families with extra money(time or space)would have invested this money - in businesses, or in education for their offspring the African American community may ascended to equality alot sooner than they did(assuming they have). - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The white characterization of newly freed blacks as "lazy and shiftless" because of their sense of collective responsibility was simply ignorance of their own history. During the Revolutionary Period and Founding, it was not uncommon for people to quarter soldiers and economically help one another due to oppression from their common foe - the British. The individualistic and free labor ideology in white America really took hold with the opening of the frontier. As an oppressed people, it was only natural that the black community would bond in such a way in the face of the oppression and discrimination which they would continue to face for another 100+ years. Phil N.<br />
<br />
Another note from late 18th, early 19th century: As far as whites had been concerned at first, only the middle and upper classes of white males had access to the ballot box. Freedom and suffrage were not linked until this time, starting with the Jacksonian period. Before that, almost 200 years had elapsed in which the franchise being the domain of the upper classes was never seriously challenged. - Phil N.<br />
<br />
I think Brown's piece brings to light a clear division between Black and White women in this time period: active vs. passive. Black women were just as active in their communities as Black men were. Their work was respected and acknowledged in the community while White women were conforming to a societal ideal that discouraged the "work" that was alongside men. After the civil war there was a window for African Americans to actively shape their own place in American society and the women were a very strong force in that. I wondered while reading if this difference of racial culture from the post-civil war period is infiltrated into American culture today? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda on how African American men treated their wives more respectively with voting than white men did. African American men consulted with their wives about who was best for the position for them and their children. White men just voted for whom they believed was best for the position without talking to their wives. Could the reason for this be because African Americans were treated unequally or naturally they just had more respect for their wives? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
What I also found interesting was how black Republican politicians in the south “took women’s participation seriously and publicly encouraged them to abstain from sexual relations with any man who voted Democratic.” I think that is getting too much into the personal life. Some women actually left their husbands or broke off the wedding until the election was over. Black Republican politicians in a way could brain-wash these women in the South. Could this be because the politicians are encouraging women to participate and are showing acknowledgment towards them? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
Reading this article just emphasizes how much more of a struggle African American women had, especially in the political realm. Some historians tend to forget that black women had to struggle because not only were they of another race, but they were also of the "weaker" gender. So reading about how much they actually did, and how active they were in politics, it shows just how impressive and how determined they were to make a stand and get something accomplished. Granted, things didn't happen overnight, but for those women who actively participated in making a voice for themselves they showed just how much some women really wanted to be able to have a say. I think that makes sense. If it doesn't, ask me in class. - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found it interesting the different ways that women found to become involved in politics before they had the right to vote. It seems as though women became truly invested in their husband's political stance and tried to influence him. It seems much more as though the men had to think of the group when they cast their vote, rather than simply voting for themselves. It's almost as though the women held the men accountable for their votes. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I noticed that a sense of community seemed to be an important factor in discussing southern black women's political history. Community seems to be incredibly important to southern black women during this time. It is interesting to think of the many different communities to which they likely belonged, and the influence that they had on each of these communities. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that freed slaves were NOT most enthused about the possibility to work for pay, but rather what meant more to them was mobility... and therefore to pursue the enjoyment of life by minimizing the "time spent at work." - Cat<br />
<br />
One thing this reading definitely highlights is that historians must be very vigilant about the reflection of their own social assumptions and political expectations in their work. - Cat<br />
<br />
I was surprised the author said women were "encouraged" to withhold sex and marriage in an effort to get their husbands to vote Republican. Who was encouraging them? I thought this type of female power wielding was looked down upon by society. - Cat<br />
<br />
As I was reading about the Black community and it's power over the individual I began thinking about collective women. Will it ever be possible to unite American women politically in a fashion similar to the Black community so that by voting the "wrong" way it would be a disgrace towards women of all races? That the Black community understood that "the issue...was not autonomy but responsibility" (136) played such a strong role in shaping the Reconstruction era. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
<br />
I may have missed it, but what were the views of the Democrats? Why were women so opposed to Democrats? Women were carrying weapons and withholding sex, and men feared them. One Woman said that “If a colored man votes the Democratic ticket he has sold himself”. I am interested to know what exactly the Democratic views were and why women were so disturbed with them. Was it just colored women or were white women opposed to the Democrats as well? <br />
Women have not always been able to vote, however we see in Brown’s essay that they make there feelings heard and well known.—Nikole Wellman <br />
<br />
Beverly Nash was a state senator in 1872 and proposed a woman’s suffrage amendment to the state constitution. Women were not allowed to vote yet but they are holding a political office. How is this so? --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
What is a Whipper?—Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
I found the quote "Their fates were intimately tied together; individual freedom could be achieved only through collective autonomy" to be very frustrating. Not only is it bad enough a woman is considered a salve but in order for her to gain freedom everyone else must be freed as well. I can't even comprehend what that have been like. We're thankful to have atleast some individualism in society today. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found it quite ironic to read about Elizabeth Botume and Beaufort South Carolina which is where I'm from and my parents currently live. If you told me today that in the 2008 presidential election I could not vote due to my gender I'd most likely laugh and then scream in your face. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I like that how even though women were not allowed to vote they still had a great influence over who won the elections. The power that they seemed to have over their husbands in certain areas was impressive. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting that the girls of Cherokee Female Seminary all identified themselves as Cherokee eventhough they had different social, economic and ancestral backgrounds, even with identifying the same they still created a class system from economic status. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was really intrigued by the discussion of how those in power expected the free blacks to remain in one place and be a stable working force, but blacks worked against this by moving in order to be in places that they wanted to be or in order to be closer to their families. In African American history, we learned that movement was one thing that was really valued by slaves, and often used as a form of resistance. I wonder if the reason they moved around so much was that it was the only way they could truly feel free. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye about the influential power of women. I feel that this is a power that women have wielded throughout the ages. One can see the influence that mistresses had over powerful kings in history, and even in our own history, you can see it in Abigail Adam's correspondence with her husband while he was at the constitutional convention. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I think that the reason that so many politicians were encouraging women to withhold sex from their husbands because they realized that it would be quite an effective way to make husbands pay attention and change their votes. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I wonder what or if the future of African Americans would've been different if the newly freed slaves had not been so mobile and settled down and fit into the white capitalistic model of earninig the highest wage possible. - Emely A.</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_1_Questions/Comments328--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-17T13:54:33Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is not a real post.<br />
<br />
I agree.<br />
<br />
You're both wrong. -- Sarah H.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that fatherhood was not seen as a natural thing but instead was viewed as being "social". Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I would have thought that it would have also been seen as natural for the man to also assume a fatherly role despite his involvement in the public sphere. Is this because the men were already doing so much that being a fatherly figure just couldn't always be an important role? Or is it because if they were expected to show a more emotional side of them they would be considered less of a man because they wouldn't be acting tough? - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read in "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" that some Black Women scholars feel that even today the importance of black women and their roles in society are being overlooked in the fields of women's studies! I understood that it took a little while for scholars to realize that they had to look at the difference ethnicities differently as far as their experiences in society but I had no idea that there were aspects that were still being overlooked. I also liked the statement Leslie Alexander made in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the essay that in order to truly understand the experiences of women that scholars must become willing to explore the differences of the cultures instead of simply ignoring the fact that they are different. I thought that was a very good point. - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
The theme of the four essays is to tackle the question, what is the meaning and importance in studying women’s history? In the first essay, Haulman points out that the study of women’s history has changed over time. It first focused on the measurable contributions of women to American society and then shifted to focus more on the private lives of women in their home life. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note in the second essay that Bock brings up many different theories with which to compare the role of men and women in society. When examining the dichotomies suggested it is interesting to consider not only how women have affected society but also how the norms of society influenced the role of women. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
More than one of the essays point out that many subjects in American women’s history has been concentrated on white middle class women. It is important to look at the role of culture and ethnicity in women’s studies because all of these factors affect the experiences and challenges of women in society. The study of women is not static; it is changing, and shaped by many different factors, and it is important to consider more than one. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
In the essay "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History," I found it interesting that the women's liberation movement in the United States was mainly about gender oppression. The movements were middle class white women who wrote about the history of white women in the West. Though, women of color looked towards third-world liberation movements for support instead of women's liberation movements. Only if women of all different ethnicities joined together earlier would women's rights have developed earlier? Also women of color's gender oppression was different than white women's gender oppression in that colored women had to struggle with race and class unlike white women who mostly struggled with class. --Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found it interesting in the first point Nature vs. Culture that fatherhood was not seen as natural but social. Women scholars challenged this by stating that women are therefore seen as "nature always having a social meaning" and nature and culture mean different things in different times. Women are the ones that physically have the baby, but that does not mean they have to be subject to the male sexes. Men are also taught to grow up as a strong non-emotional person. This could also be why fatherhood is seen as social instead of natural. <br />
--Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Bock discusses how a woman's nature were child bearing, carring for the family, and taking care of things around the house originated from Europe; but what was once seen as nature is now seen as work. I I find this very true today, because a lot of stay home mothers consider their position as a mother and care taker of the home a job, however without pay as Bock mentions an "unpaid work." (pg 9) Also on the other hand there are many women that work and women for years have competed with the men in their wages but because of their sex and not who does the job best. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Leslie M. Alexander's essay mostly discusses black women and how their history is different from that of white womens history, which it is, but in today's society of white and black women are they still that different? Is this generation of black women still largley influenced by past generations in how they view themselves as black women? She also goes on to say that in order to understand black women you have to understand the black community. (pg 21) I think understanding any comminity that in its self is a different culture you have to understand their culture and way of life before understanding that community of people. The United States is full of all kinds of culturally different people. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" I found the second point, Work v. Family interesting because it looks at "women's work" and how it relates men as the "workers" and women as "non-workers". Women who are are non working mothers are still seen as "non-workers" today. I think that the stay at home mother profession should be given more respect in the professional world. Many stay at home mothers work just as hard if not harder than those in careers outside the home. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" Castaneda discusses the problems faced by scholers of color in their work to properly show the history of thier ancestors. It was interseting that these scholars struggle to accurately portray these women and not let assumptions get in the way thier research. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What I found interesting after reading all of the essays is that I still had no idea how historians should study women's history. From what I read I got the feeling that the study of women's history had the same problem as other thematic studies of history: how do you study the history of a single facet of society without studying the history of all of the other facets? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Justin. The editor raises a very valid point in the beginning before we even approach the essays, and that is "how do you study women's history?" After reading all of the essays, it's clear that it is very difficult to lump all of women's history together to study. There are so many different aspects of women's history to take into account that it almost seems impossible to study it all at once without leaving something out. Then again, isn't that what happens with history in general? When we're taught history, ignoring that men are typically the central characters, think of how much is left out so that we can stay on task for a single semester on a topic that could seem quite specific in the first place. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
An unfortunate conclusion from "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" was the need for the undermining of an important aspect of the Women's Movement in order for Women's History in order to be properly studied. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock, I realized how much of a connection our society's conception of women has with the writing of its history: how can women's history be properly studied without first changing our perceptions of women? If the study of women's history is part of the changing of our perception of women then should we expect its study to be apolitical? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
In Kate Haukman’s essay, she talks about the difficulty of studying women without examining gender history as well. If this is the case, which Bock also believed it is, then how can it be that the study of men’s history seems often less related to gender roles? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In Bock’s essay, I found particularly interesting her comment that in today’s world we still reserve the terms “working women” and “working mother” for employed women only, overlooking, even with our language, the fact that being a mother is work. I guess this just goes to show you how truly slanted society still in is valuing men’s work over women’s. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Castaneda discusses the challenges of studying women of color. When to place a person within historical perspective, is it more important to explore their race or gender first? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In her essay, "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History," Leslie Alexander makes a statement near the end saying, "The challenge remains for us to analyze Black women through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and opression." (p.22). My question, is does anyone think that is truly possible? Most of what scholars have on Black women's history has been recorded by whites, and for a great deal of time, by white men. I believe that now we as historians should be able to look at this history through the eyes of those who experienced it, but a large chunk of this history has been warped and skewed in some way. Does anyone think it's possible to correct that? Or, regardless of the tools and resources we have today, are things always going to be interpreted in a more biased sense than they should be? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that motherhood was a natural phenomenon, however fatherhood was not seen as natural at all, it was seen as social. Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I have always assumed that fatherhood was a natural phenomenon like motherhood despite their involvement in the social sphere. The child is just as much apart of him as it is the mother. My question is if this is because men were so involved in society there wasn't time? Or was it the fact that he could not show his nurturing/loving side? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the Dichotomies essay I found it amazing that fatherhood was seen as “social.” I always felt that motherhood and fatherhood were both ‘natural,’ but now I’m not sure. I have a feeling this was not worldwide though, since each culture is different. I’m curious how other cultures viewed mother- and fatherhood. –Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I did not realize until reading these essays just how many problems are in the field of women’s history. From the sounds of the essays there have been problems getting the field established and then getting the field of women’s history to cover all women, regardless of race and class. It sounded like it was getting better, but still has lots of room for improvement. – Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I found Bock's view of the sex and gender dichotomy to be particularly interesting. I never considered that the distincion of sex from gender would restate the nature versus nurture issue. I considered this distinction to be helpful to show that many feminine characteristics should not be considered inherent nor subordinate. Bock argues that these simple definitions only hurt by reinforcing the differences between the sexes and therefore polarizing the study of women. Like other studies of history, the study of women should be a continuous effort without the pause to separate a women's world into what is physiological from what is cultural. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
What I am already finding interesting with the study of women’s history versus other studies of history that I have made is its social and active participation in the present. I feel like the goal in my other history classes has been to recreate a time or event in the past, examine cause and effect, draw similarities, etc. but of things that happened in the past and stay in the past. Whereas so far I feel like women’s study is looking into the past as well but in the attempt to create “a change towards more freedom and justice” (Bock) in the present. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
I found Bock’s discussion of equality vs. difference really interesting. She wonders why it is that “difference” is attributed to women and “equality” to men. Which makes me wonder if establishing equality in history is the main goal of women’s history, does making it a “different” field facilitate this or just reinforce dichotomies? When the women suffragists were fighting for the right to vote they weren’t voting for a “woman’s” vote they were just looking for the right to vote. I think there are the same inherent problems that we found with segregation and the “separate but equal” philosophy. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
One question posed by Bock's essay that really stood out for me was the use of the words "equality" and "justice" when applied to separate genders. It was interesting that for men, these two words complement each other but for women, they are in opposition. The focus seems to be on their context in comparing history and then gender-focused history. In the traditional sense of history with a "male" focus, equality and justice are words with a positive focus, as words that have translated into positive action. When history is focused on women, equality and justice become negative, words that have been almost unachievable goals in that context. To me, it seems like it comes back to whether we are unwilling to look at history that shows us in an unfavorable light, just like the question with looking at racial minorities' history in America. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I never stopped to consider how feminism and women's history seems so focused on white middle-class women until I read Castaneda and Alexander's essays. There seems to be little representation of minority women when talking about American women's history. It seems like a race issue but is it more the case of white American women keeping minorities and race issues away from feminism or is it, as Alexander claims, that women, especially black women, are less concerned with their gender and more with race issues in history? --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I agree with many others who have mentioned that parenthood always seemed as if it should be natural for both parties, however it is seen as natural only for women. How much does this have to do with the unique experience of women in pregnancy? Pregnancy is a natural experience reserved only for women, which might be why women see parenthood as natural. However, for men, they do not get to experience pregnancy, and only bond with the child once it is born. This may help to create the sensation that parenthood is natural for women but not for me. --Angela Scott <br />
<br />
I found the essay "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" by Leslie M. Alexander to be both interesting and thought provoking. At one point Alexander points out that it is important to understand the Black community in order to understand the Black woman. I think that this denotes an importance of understanding culture that can be applied to studying all women. Isn't it important to understand the culture that a person comes from in order to understand the individual itself? All individuals exist within a given culture and are influenced by cultural norms and roles. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In Bock's essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found the discussion of equality v. difference very interesting. How do you decide which is more important equality or difference between the sexes? It seems as though we need to find a happy medium where we can recognize that men and women are different but equal. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Karly's comment about how our study of women's history might affect the present. In studying women's history, I wonder how prior assumptions and ideas might change in knowing the true facts behind various women's movements. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
After reading all the essays, I have found that the field of women's history is not nearly as simplistic as I had thought. I never realized all the issues that could arise in the field of women's history, it is so much more than simply the study of women. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I thought Alexander's essay concerning race offered an interesting viewpoint. I agree that it is essential to consider race and culture first in order to understand how the concept of gender applies to the lives of African American women. I think this is an important point to keep in mind when evaluating women and the men they interact with throughout this course. Shouldn't the study of women take a multidimensional approach because of the labels other than "woman" that shape what direction their lives will take? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Kate Haulman in the point that studying women gave a new perspective on history. it's history through the eyes of a new group, a group that makes up half (arguably even more) of society. Women have always been there, at home, supproting their husbands and silently witnessing their activities. There is a lot that they have to say that gives us an even greater insight in events that we alread knew about. -Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
I agree with Emely. Women's history is important, because life is not just about the big events, but about about the small, everyday moments that shape a person's life - and so is the way of history. If the study of history was only limited to major military or political victories or losses - and the men that had a part in them - a whole, deeper understanding of a culture would just be lost. Sometimes a look into the basic, ordinary events of life can be the most telling of a civilization, and women have always played a major part in that. ~Juliann<br />
<br />
I found several very interesting points in Haulman's essay. The most interesting and thought provoking for me was when she was discussing the definition of the word woman and female. What I gleaned from her discussion on this topic is that the word woman is constantly changing in meaning, as women socially evolve. For instance she gave the example of a man knitting. She said if a man knits is he really a man, for he has taken on "woman's work". I have always thought of man and woman in a strictly biological sense, so this really made me think.- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
In Bock's essay I thought her section about intergration vs. autonomy was a little off base. If she is using the word autonomous to signify independence, I think that she would seriously be short changing the study of women's history. How could one completely divest women's history from that of mens'? Or mens' history from that of womens? It seems to me that you would need to be familiar with one to fully understand the other. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Kate Haulman's essay argues that the term "woman" is a fluid concept, based on gender, who has defined it as a category, and who has claimed it as an identiy. If that is so, then should transsexuals who believe they are and/or identify themselves as "women" be included in studies of "women's history", even if biologically they have a Y chromosome and not two X chromosomes? Gisela Bock addressed this subject at a glance during her discussion of sex versus gender, but did not really illuminate it. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
In reference to Antonia I Castaneda writing, Women of Color and the rewriting of Western History, she states two facts that I found interesting. First of all, she states that most feminist scholars write on the history of white women in the west and secondly, that women scholars of color focus on women of third world countries.(p.15) The history of white and colored women has been told by primarily white men, I thought, because there may have not been enough primary sources from women of any color. There was a time when women were not educated and many could not read nor write, therefore not keeping memoirs or journals to tell their stories. For example, the history of women during the Colonial or Antebellum period was most likely taken from the journals of men about what they wrote in regards to women at that time. What, if any, impact did the lack of women’s skills have on the writing of women’s history? Secondly, wouldn’t it be more difficult to find primary sources on women of a third world country rather that women in America. –Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
In Bock's essay, I found it interesting where the issue of equality vs difference was discussed. The argument that equality and justice go hand in hand for men but not women is really strange to me. I have always thought that women were equal but different so why is it so hard for equality to mean justice for women as well as for men. [[User:MaryBeth|MaryBeth]]<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that in the essay by Alexander that she describes how the study of Black women has to include the study of the whole Black community in order to fully understand the role of Black women. Wouldn't that be true for all groups of women though? I think every woman is shaped by the community that they are a part of and in order to fully understand anyone you would need to be able to put them into context, and that includes understanding their roles in their community.<br />
[[User:MaryBeth|MaryBeth]]<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Beth. Women of all races in the study of history have been underrepresented. But a woman is not just defined exclusively by her gender, but also her race and region. Just because a person is a female, does not mean that she has had the same experiences as all the other women of her time period. Race plays a major role in defining a woman's role in her community. ~Juliann<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what both MaryBeth and Juliann say about women of all races having been underrepresented in history, particularly American history. But can't this observation also apply to men of every race? Most U.S. history books are overwhelmingly concerned with telling the stories of white men. So, which is the bigger problem - the fact that women as a group are being underrepresented or that men and women of so many different races are underrepresented? -Marilyn<br />
<br />
When Bock discusses the topic of work vs. family, this statement struck me: "Obviously, men's work is valued more highly than women's work." I think this is sad. In today's world, women who have both a job and children are expected to be everything to everyone 24 hours a day. In addition to her responsibilities in the workplace, at home, a woman is the cook, maid, nurse, chauffeur, accountant, etc., and she is always on duty. Yes, the man may have a demanding job outside of the home for which he is paid, but the job of wife and mother is just as difficult (if not more) and should be respected no less. Many women do not have to choose between work and family because they are successful at both. -Marilyn<br />
<br />
It seems clear from these essays that the individual experiences of women are not only shaped by their historical context, but also the intersections between race, class, and cultural identities. These socially constructed categories necessarily complicate the field of women’s history by denying a shared experience of womanhood. When Kate Haulman describes the traditional emphasis on the “normative” experiences of white, middle and upper class women she recognizes that this approach is exclusionary, problematic, and limiting. In order to avoid typifying woman as a singular, unified concept, women’s historians must examine the interplay of race, class, and cultural identities within the category of gender. -- Paul<br />
<br />
The need to address women's history is obviously complicated. You cannot address it merely by placing all women in one category; each race, class and culture dictates a different history. If we address only those women, who are "notable women" or "women worthies" as Haulman mentions, we alienate a large majority of women in the world's population.--LisaM<br />
<br />
The actual language used to depict women vary. The debate between historians on choice of approach and language is interesting. In Bock's essay historian Joan Scott is quoted as asking the question, "Why is it, for instance, that 'equality' and 'justice' seem to complement each other in the case of men, but be opposed to each other in the case of women?" Is this being hypersensitive? Have we, namely women, grown so complacent with our language that we have a tendancy to ignore or dismiss such interpretations of language?--LisaM<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," the discussion of equality v.difference I found to be very interesting. How do you figure you what is more important difference or equality between the sexes? This has been a question between historians and everyone else how do you decide what is more important without forgetting the other half? Is it possible to have both or can we only have one? --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see that Elizabeth's entry had exactly what i was thinking about "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History". I found it incredibly ironic that motherhood is considered something innate for women and expected, "natural" as she said, however men do not have the same connection with fatherhood. This is something that i still think is evident today which leads me to my next point.... -Julie R<br />
<br />
Marylin makes an incredibly good point about Bock's Statement, "men's work is valued more highly than woman's". This again shows how women, even today are expected to still take care of the home, tend to the children and also work full time while all of this STILL being valued less than a man simply going to work. Women have a huge amount of responsibility at home that is usually overlooked simply becuase she is a woman. -Julie R<br />
<br />
In adition to women of color in general just simply being overlooked as stated by Castaneda, I feel like it can also be said that the history of all women around the world is different. For lots of women around the world the "natural" part of the nature vs. social argument still applies very much. As touched upon by Haulman under her defenition of "women", you can't just take all women and have just ONE big women's history because their histories and levels of experiences are all different.- Emely Amaya</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_1_Questions/Comments328--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-17T03:07:26Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is not a real post.<br />
<br />
I agree.<br />
<br />
You're both wrong. -- Sarah H.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that fatherhood was not seen as a natural thing but instead was viewed as being "social". Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I would have thought that it would have also been seen as natural for the man to also assume a fatherly role despite his involvement in the public sphere. Is this because the men were already doing so much that being a fatherly figure just couldn't always be an important role? Or is it because if they were expected to show a more emotional side of them they would be considered less of a man because they wouldn't be acting tough? - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read in "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" that some Black Women scholars feel that even today the importance of black women and their roles in society are being overlooked in the fields of women's studies! I understood that it took a little while for scholars to realize that they had to look at the difference ethnicities differently as far as their experiences in society but I had no idea that there were aspects that were still being overlooked. I also liked the statement Leslie Alexander made in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the essay that in order to truly understand the experiences of women that scholars must become willing to explore the differences of the cultures instead of simply ignoring the fact that they are different. I thought that was a very good point. - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
The theme of the four essays is to tackle the question, what is the meaning and importance in studying women’s history? In the first essay, Haulman points out that the study of women’s history has changed over time. It first focused on the measurable contributions of women to American society and then shifted to focus more on the private lives of women in their home life. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note in the second essay that Bock brings up many different theories with which to compare the role of men and women in society. When examining the dichotomies suggested it is interesting to consider not only how women have affected society but also how the norms of society influenced the role of women. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
More than one of the essays point out that many subjects in American women’s history has been concentrated on white middle class women. It is important to look at the role of culture and ethnicity in women’s studies because all of these factors affect the experiences and challenges of women in society. The study of women is not static; it is changing, and shaped by many different factors, and it is important to consider more than one. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
In the essay "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History," I found it interesting that the women's liberation movement in the United States was mainly about gender oppression. The movements were middle class white women who wrote about the history of white women in the West. Though, women of color looked towards third-world liberation movements for support instead of women's liberation movements. Only if women of all different ethnicities joined together earlier would women's rights have developed earlier? Also women of color's gender oppression was different than white women's gender oppression in that colored women had to struggle with race and class unlike white women who mostly struggled with class. --Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found it interesting in the first point Nature vs. Culture that fatherhood was not seen as natural but social. Women scholars challenged this by stating that women are therefore seen as "nature always having a social meaning" and nature and culture mean different things in different times. Women are the ones that physically have the baby, but that does not mean they have to be subject to the male sexes. Men are also taught to grow up as a strong non-emotional person. This could also be why fatherhood is seen as social instead of natural. <br />
--Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Bock discusses how a woman's nature were child bearing, carring for the family, and taking care of things around the house originated from Europe; but what was once seen as nature is now seen as work. I I find this very true today, because a lot of stay home mothers consider their position as a mother and care taker of the home a job, however without pay as Bock mentions an "unpaid work." (pg 9) Also on the other hand there are many women that work and women for years have competed with the men in their wages but because of their sex and not who does the job best. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Leslie M. Alexander's essay mostly discusses black women and how their history is different from that of white womens history, which it is, but in today's society of white and black women are they still that different? Is this generation of black women still largley influenced by past generations in how they view themselves as black women? She also goes on to say that in order to understand black women you have to understand the black community. (pg 21) I think understanding any comminity that in its self is a different culture you have to understand their culture and way of life before understanding that community of people. The United States is full of all kinds of culturally different people. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" I found the second point, Work v. Family interesting because it looks at "women's work" and how it relates men as the "workers" and women as "non-workers". Women who are are non working mothers are still seen as "non-workers" today. I think that the stay at home mother profession should be given more respect in the professional world. Many stay at home mothers work just as hard if not harder than those in careers outside the home. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" Castaneda discusses the problems faced by scholers of color in their work to properly show the history of thier ancestors. It was interseting that these scholars struggle to accurately portray these women and not let assumptions get in the way thier research. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What I found interesting after reading all of the essays is that I still had no idea how historians should study women's history. From what I read I got the feeling that the study of women's history had the same problem as other thematic studies of history: how do you study the history of a single facet of society without studying the history of all of the other facets? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Justin. The editor raises a very valid point in the beginning before we even approach the essays, and that is "how do you study women's history?" After reading all of the essays, it's clear that it is very difficult to lump all of women's history together to study. There are so many different aspects of women's history to take into account that it almost seems impossible to study it all at once without leaving something out. Then again, isn't that what happens with history in general? When we're taught history, ignoring that men are typically the central characters, think of how much is left out so that we can stay on task for a single semester on a topic that could seem quite specific in the first place. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
An unfortunate conclusion from "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" was the need for the undermining of an important aspect of the Women's Movement in order for Women's History in order to be properly studied. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock, I realized how much of a connection our society's conception of women has with the writing of its history: how can women's history be properly studied without first changing our perceptions of women? If the study of women's history is part of the changing of our perception of women then should we expect its study to be apolitical? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
In Kate Haukman’s essay, she talks about the difficulty of studying women without examining gender history as well. If this is the case, which Bock also believed it is, then how can it be that the study of men’s history seems often less related to gender roles? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In Bock’s essay, I found particularly interesting her comment that in today’s world we still reserve the terms “working women” and “working mother” for employed women only, overlooking, even with our language, the fact that being a mother is work. I guess this just goes to show you how truly slanted society still in is valuing men’s work over women’s. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Castaneda discusses the challenges of studying women of color. When to place a person within historical perspective, is it more important to explore their race or gender first? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In her essay, "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History," Leslie Alexander makes a statement near the end saying, "The challenge remains for us to analyze Black women through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and opression." (p.22). My question, is does anyone think that is truly possible? Most of what scholars have on Black women's history has been recorded by whites, and for a great deal of time, by white men. I believe that now we as historians should be able to look at this history through the eyes of those who experienced it, but a large chunk of this history has been warped and skewed in some way. Does anyone think it's possible to correct that? Or, regardless of the tools and resources we have today, are things always going to be interpreted in a more biased sense than they should be? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that motherhood was a natural phenomenon, however fatherhood was not seen as a natural at all. That was seen as social. Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I have always assumed that fatherhood was a natural phenomenon like motherhood despite their involvement in the social sphere. The child is just as much apart of him as it is the mother. My question is if this is because men were so involved in society there wasn't time? Or was it the fact that he could not show his nurturing/loving side? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the Dichotomies essay I found it amazing that fatherhood was seen as “social.” I always felt that motherhood and fatherhood were both ‘natural,’ but now I’m not sure. I have a feeling this was not worldwide though, since each culture is different. I’m curious how other cultures viewed mother- and fatherhood. –Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I did not realize until reading these essays just how many problems are in the field of women’s history. From the sounds of the essays there have been problems getting the field established and then getting the field of women’s history to cover all women, regardless of race and class. It sounded like it was getting better, but still has lots of room for improvement. – Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I found Bock's view of the sex and gender dichotomy to be particularly interesting. I never considered that the distincion of sex from gender would restate the nature versus nurture issue. I considered this distinction to be helpful to show that many feminine characteristics should not be considered inherent nor subordinate. Bock argues that these simple definitions only hurt by reinforcing the differences between the sexes and therefore polarizing the study of women. Like other studies of history, the study of women should be a continuous effort without the pause to separate a women's world into what is physiological from what is cultural. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
What I am already finding interesting with the study of women’s history versus other studies of history that I have made is its social and active participation in the present. I feel like the goal in my other history classes has been to recreate a time or event in the past, examine cause and effect, draw similarities, etc. but of things that happened in the past and stay in the past. Whereas so far I feel like women’s study is looking into the past as well but in the attempt to create “a change towards more freedom and justice” (Bock) in the present. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
I found Bock’s discussion of equality vs. difference really interesting. She wonders why it is that “difference” is attributed to women and “equality” to men. Which makes me wonder if establishing equality in history is the main goal of women’s history, does making it a “different” field facilitate this or just reinforce dichotomies? When the women suffragists were fighting for the right to vote they weren’t voting for a “woman’s” vote they were just looking for the right to vote. I think there are the same inherent problems that we found with segregation and the “separate but equal” philosophy. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
One question posed by Bock's essay that really stood out for me was the use of the words "equality" and "justice" when applied to separate genders. It was interesting that for men, these two words complement each other but for women, they are in opposition. The focus seems to be on their context in comparing history and then gender-focused history. In the traditional sense of history with a "male" focus, equality and justice are words with a positive focus, as words that have translated into positive action. When history is focused on women, equality and justice become negative, words that have been almost unachievable goals in that context. To me, it seems like it comes back to whether we are unwilling to look at history that shows us in an unfavorable light, just like the question with looking at racial minorities' history in America. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I never stopped to consider how feminism and women's history seems so focused on white middle-class women until I read Castaneda and Alexander's essays. There seems to be little representation of minority women when talking about American women's history. It seems like a race issue but is it more the case of white American women keeping minorities and race issues away from feminism or is it, as Alexander claims, that women, especially black women, are less concerned with their gender and more with race issues in history? --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I agree with many others who have mentioned that parenthood always seemed as if it should be natural for both parties, however it is seen as natural only for women. How much does this have to do with the unique experience of women in pregnancy? Pregnancy is a natural experience reserved only for women, which might be why women see parenthood as natural. However, for men, they do not get to experience pregnancy, and only bond with the child once it is born. This may help to create the sensation that parenthood is natural for women but not for me. --Angela Scott <br />
<br />
I found the essay "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" by Leslie M. Alexander to be both interesting and thought provoking. At one point Alexander points out that it is important to understand the Black community in order to understand the Black woman. I think that this denotes an importance of understanding culture that can be applied to studying all women. Isn't it important to understand the culture that a person comes from in order to understand the individual itself? All individuals exist within a given culture and are influenced by cultural norms and roles. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In Bock's essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found the discussion of equality v. difference very interesting. How do you decide which is more important equality or difference between the sexes? It seems as though we need to find a happy medium where we can recognize that men and women are different but equal. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Karly's comment about how our study of women's history might affect the present. In studying women's history, I wonder how prior assumptions and ideas might change in knowing the true facts behind various women's movements. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
After reading all the essays, I have found that the field of women's history is not nearly as simplistic as I had thought. I never realized all the issues that could arise in the field of women's history, it is so much more than simply the study of women. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I thought Alexander's essay concerning race offered an interesting viewpoint. I agree that it is essential to consider race and culture first in order to understand how the concept of gender applies to the lives of African American women. I think this is an important point to keep in mind when evaluating women and the men they interact with throughout this course. Shouldn't the study of women take a multidimensional approach because of the labels other than "woman" that shape what direction their lives will take? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Kate Haulman in the point that studying women gave a new perspective on history. it's history through the eyes of a new group, a group that makes up half (arguably even more) of society. Women have always been there, at home, supproting their husbands and silently witnessing their activities. There is a lot that they have to say that gives us an even greater insight in events that we alread knew about. -Emely Amaya</div>199.111.64.195https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_1_Questions/Comments328--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-17T03:06:37Z<p>199.111.64.195: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is not a real post.<br />
<br />
I agree.<br />
<br />
You're both wrong. -- Sarah H.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that fatherhood was not seen as a natural thing but instead was viewed as being "social". Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I would have thought that it would have also been seen as natural for the man to also assume a fatherly role despite his involvement in the public sphere. Is this because the men were already doing so much that being a fatherly figure just couldn't always be an important role? Or is it because if they were expected to show a more emotional side of them they would be considered less of a man because they wouldn't be acting tough? - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read in "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" that some Black Women scholars feel that even today the importance of black women and their roles in society are being overlooked in the fields of women's studies! I understood that it took a little while for scholars to realize that they had to look at the difference ethnicities differently as far as their experiences in society but I had no idea that there were aspects that were still being overlooked. I also liked the statement Leslie Alexander made in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the essay that in order to truly understand the experiences of women that scholars must become willing to explore the differences of the cultures instead of simply ignoring the fact that they are different. I thought that was a very good point. - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
The theme of the four essays is to tackle the question, what is the meaning and importance in studying women’s history? In the first essay, Haulman points out that the study of women’s history has changed over time. It first focused on the measurable contributions of women to American society and then shifted to focus more on the private lives of women in their home life. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note in the second essay that Bock brings up many different theories with which to compare the role of men and women in society. When examining the dichotomies suggested it is interesting to consider not only how women have affected society but also how the norms of society influenced the role of women. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
More than one of the essays point out that many subjects in American women’s history has been concentrated on white middle class women. It is important to look at the role of culture and ethnicity in women’s studies because all of these factors affect the experiences and challenges of women in society. The study of women is not static; it is changing, and shaped by many different factors, and it is important to consider more than one. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
In the essay "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History," I found it interesting that the women's liberation movement in the United States was mainly about gender oppression. The movements were middle class white women who wrote about the history of white women in the West. Though, women of color looked towards third-world liberation movements for support instead of women's liberation movements. Only if women of all different ethnicities joined together earlier would women's rights have developed earlier? Also women of color's gender oppression was different than white women's gender oppression in that colored women had to struggle with race and class unlike white women who mostly struggled with class. --Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found it interesting in the first point Nature vs. Culture that fatherhood was not seen as natural but social. Women scholars challenged this by stating that women are therefore seen as "nature always having a social meaning" and nature and culture mean different things in different times. Women are the ones that physically have the baby, but that does not mean they have to be subject to the male sexes. Men are also taught to grow up as a strong non-emotional person. This could also be why fatherhood is seen as social instead of natural. <br />
--Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Bock discusses how a woman's nature were child bearing, carring for the family, and taking care of things around the house originated from Europe; but what was once seen as nature is now seen as work. I I find this very true today, because a lot of stay home mothers consider their position as a mother and care taker of the home a job, however without pay as Bock mentions an "unpaid work." (pg 9) Also on the other hand there are many women that work and women for years have competed with the men in their wages but because of their sex and not who does the job best. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Leslie M. Alexander's essay mostly discusses black women and how their history is different from that of white womens history, which it is, but in today's society of white and black women are they still that different? Is this generation of black women still largley influenced by past generations in how they view themselves as black women? She also goes on to say that in order to understand black women you have to understand the black community. (pg 21) I think understanding any comminity that in its self is a different culture you have to understand their culture and way of life before understanding that community of people. The United States is full of all kinds of culturally different people. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" I found the second point, Work v. Family interesting because it looks at "women's work" and how it relates men as the "workers" and women as "non-workers". Women who are are non working mothers are still seen as "non-workers" today. I think that the stay at home mother profession should be given more respect in the professional world. Many stay at home mothers work just as hard if not harder than those in careers outside the home. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" Castaneda discusses the problems faced by scholers of color in their work to properly show the history of thier ancestors. It was interseting that these scholars struggle to accurately portray these women and not let assumptions get in the way thier research. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What I found interesting after reading all of the essays is that I still had no idea how historians should study women's history. From what I read I got the feeling that the study of women's history had the same problem as other thematic studies of history: how do you study the history of a single facet of society without studying the history of all of the other facets? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Justin. The editor raises a very valid point in the beginning before we even approach the essays, and that is "how do you study women's history?" After reading all of the essays, it's clear that it is very difficult to lump all of women's history together to study. There are so many different aspects of women's history to take into account that it almost seems impossible to study it all at once without leaving something out. Then again, isn't that what happens with history in general? When we're taught history, ignoring that men are typically the central characters, think of how much is left out so that we can stay on task for a single semester on a topic that could seem quite specific in the first place. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
An unfortunate conclusion from "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" was the need for the undermining of an important aspect of the Women's Movement in order for Women's History in order to be properly studied. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock, I realized how much of a connection our society's conception of women has with the writing of its history: how can women's history be properly studied without first changing our perceptions of women? If the study of women's history is part of the changing of our perception of women then should we expect its study to be apolitical? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
In Kate Haukman’s essay, she talks about the difficulty of studying women without examining gender history as well. If this is the case, which Bock also believed it is, then how can it be that the study of men’s history seems often less related to gender roles? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In Bock’s essay, I found particularly interesting her comment that in today’s world we still reserve the terms “working women” and “working mother” for employed women only, overlooking, even with our language, the fact that being a mother is work. I guess this just goes to show you how truly slanted society still in is valuing men’s work over women’s. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Castaneda discusses the challenges of studying women of color. When to place a person within historical perspective, is it more important to explore their race or gender first? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In her essay, "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History," Leslie Alexander makes a statement near the end saying, "The challenge remains for us to analyze Black women through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and opression." (p.22). My question, is does anyone think that is truly possible? Most of what scholars have on Black women's history has been recorded by whites, and for a great deal of time, by white men. I believe that now we as historians should be able to look at this history through the eyes of those who experienced it, but a large chunk of this history has been warped and skewed in some way. Does anyone think it's possible to correct that? Or, regardless of the tools and resources we have today, are things always going to be interpreted in a more biased sense than they should be? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that motherhood was a natural phenomenon, however fatherhood was not seen as a natural at all. That was seen as social. Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I have always assumed that fatherhood was a natural phenomenon like motherhood despite their involvement in the social sphere. The child is just as much apart of him as it is the mother. My question is if this is because men were so involved in society there wasn't time? Or was it the fact that he could not show his nurturing/loving side? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the Dichotomies essay I found it amazing that fatherhood was seen as “social.” I always felt that motherhood and fatherhood were both ‘natural,’ but now I’m not sure. I have a feeling this was not worldwide though, since each culture is different. I’m curious how other cultures viewed mother- and fatherhood. –Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I did not realize until reading these essays just how many problems are in the field of women’s history. From the sounds of the essays there have been problems getting the field established and then getting the field of women’s history to cover all women, regardless of race and class. It sounded like it was getting better, but still has lots of room for improvement. – Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I found Bock's view of the sex and gender dichotomy to be particularly interesting. I never considered that the distincion of sex from gender would restate the nature versus nurture issue. I considered this distinction to be helpful to show that many feminine characteristics should not be considered inherent nor subordinate. Bock argues that these simple definitions only hurt by reinforcing the differences between the sexes and therefore polarizing the study of women. Like other studies of history, the study of women should be a continuous effort without the pause to separate a women's world into what is physiological from what is cultural. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
What I am already finding interesting with the study of women’s history versus other studies of history that I have made is its social and active participation in the present. I feel like the goal in my other history classes has been to recreate a time or event in the past, examine cause and effect, draw similarities, etc. but of things that happened in the past and stay in the past. Whereas so far I feel like women’s study is looking into the past as well but in the attempt to create “a change towards more freedom and justice” (Bock) in the present. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
I found Bock’s discussion of equality vs. difference really interesting. She wonders why it is that “difference” is attributed to women and “equality” to men. Which makes me wonder if establishing equality in history is the main goal of women’s history, does making it a “different” field facilitate this or just reinforce dichotomies? When the women suffragists were fighting for the right to vote they weren’t voting for a “woman’s” vote they were just looking for the right to vote. I think there are the same inherent problems that we found with segregation and the “separate but equal” philosophy. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
One question posed by Bock's essay that really stood out for me was the use of the words "equality" and "justice" when applied to separate genders. It was interesting that for men, these two words complement each other but for women, they are in opposition. The focus seems to be on their context in comparing history and then gender-focused history. In the traditional sense of history with a "male" focus, equality and justice are words with a positive focus, as words that have translated into positive action. When history is focused on women, equality and justice become negative, words that have been almost unachievable goals in that context. To me, it seems like it comes back to whether we are unwilling to look at history that shows us in an unfavorable light, just like the question with looking at racial minorities' history in America. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I never stopped to consider how feminism and women's history seems so focused on white middle-class women until I read Castaneda and Alexander's essays. There seems to be little representation of minority women when talking about American women's history. It seems like a race issue but is it more the case of white American women keeping minorities and race issues away from feminism or is it, as Alexander claims, that women, especially black women, are less concerned with their gender and more with race issues in history? --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I agree with many others who have mentioned that parenthood always seemed as if it should be natural for both parties, however it is seen as natural only for women. How much does this have to do with the unique experience of women in pregnancy? Pregnancy is a natural experience reserved only for women, which might be why women see parenthood as natural. However, for men, they do not get to experience pregnancy, and only bond with the child once it is born. This may help to create the sensation that parenthood is natural for women but not for me. --Angela Scott <br />
<br />
I found the essay "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" by Leslie M. Alexander to be both interesting and thought provoking. At one point Alexander points out that it is important to understand the Black community in order to understand the Black woman. I think that this denotes an importance of understanding culture that can be applied to studying all women. Isn't it important to understand the culture that a person comes from in order to understand the individual itself? All individuals exist within a given culture and are influenced by cultural norms and roles. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In Bock's essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found the discussion of equality v. difference very interesting. How do you decide which is more important equality or difference between the sexes? It seems as though we need to find a happy medium where we can recognize that men and women are different but equal. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Karly's comment about how our study of women's history might affect the present. In studying women's history, I wonder how prior assumptions and ideas might change in knowing the true facts behind various women's movements. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
After reading all the essays, I have found that the field of women's history is not nearly as simplistic as I had thought. I never realized all the issues that could arise in the field of women's history, it is so much more than simply the study of women. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I thought Alexander's essay concerning race offered an interesting viewpoint. I agree that it is essential to consider race and culture first in order to understand how the concept of gender applies to the lives of African American women. I think this is an important point to keep in mind when evaluating women and the men they interact with throughout this course. Shouldn't the study of women take a multidimensional approach because of the labels other than "woman" that shape what direction their lives will take? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Kate Haulman in both the points that studying women gave a new perspective on history. it's history through the eyes of a new group, a group that makes up half (arguably even more) of society. Women have always been there, at home, supproting their husbands and silently witnessing their activities. There is a lot that they have to say that gives us an even greater insight in events that we alread knew about. -Emely Amaya</div>199.111.64.195 Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38