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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=199.111.65.86McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:08:51ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/CommentsWeek 15 Questions/Comments2007-12-06T00:31:07Z<p>199.111.65.86: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the things that stood out to me during these readings was in "The Office Clerk" when the office manager was listing all of the reasons women were superior towards men for these positions. Among these reasons were that they almost always present for the work day and not making up silly excuses for an absence and the precision that they conducted their work in. I found it surprising that this man had such high praise for women. Could he have been saying this to the interviewer (Clara Lanza) to appease the female crowd who would be reading her article? Or did he really feel this way towards his female workers? Did the fact that companies could get away with paying women less than men factor into this appreciation for women clerks? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found the article "Objections to Domestic Service" in that Lucy Salmon polled servants and their employers and from that managed to come up with a list of disadvantages. These disadvantages were an effort to dissuade young, American born women from entering this type of service. Such "industrial disadvantages" include "lack of all opportunity for promotion," "lack of organization in the service," "irregularity in working hours," "competition with the foreign born and the negro element," and "the interference with work often by those less skilled than the workers themselves." I can understand Salmon's reasoning for wanting to keep women from working as domestic servants. However, I'm slightly confused when she comments on how with the professions of seamstresses, clerks, trained nurses, and teachers can lead to promotions in the working environment. So in that sense, Salmon is urging women to pursue jobs other than domestic servitude. But is she at all encouraging them to return to the home? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I think, in response to Vanessa's question, that Lucy Salmon felt that she was encouraging women to return to the home. Where else would they be if not in the work place? They would be at home with their housework and their families. By expressing the disadvantages of the working world she was able to show women what they would be missing from their home if they joined the workforce, without listing all the things to be done at home and the need to be at home. For some that would probably encourage them to work. Also I think that Lucy Salmon was well aware that the majority of women in the workforce were working because they had to to support their families and they would return to the home if it was possible. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In Julia Ward Howe's writing under "The Joys of Activism," whether this is intended as propaganda or not, it certainly could be and nicely done. I love how she describes the moment she realized that women could and should do better than where they were. "During the first two thirds of my life I looked to the masculine ideal of character as the only true one... In an unexpected hour a new light came to me... The new domain now made clear to me was that of true womanhood - woman no longer in her ancillary relation to her opposite, man, but in her direct relation to the divine plan and purpose, as a free agent, fully sharing with man every human right and every human responsibility." She's certainly encouraging any that read this that she 'saw the light' you could say and the reader can have these realizations too. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found "Working Women Debate Woman Suffrage" very interesting, especially the entries from "Americus". The person writing these seemed to be extremely bitter towards men. She states that "we won't stay at home any more and cook and wash dishes either; we've done it long enough; let 'him' do it a little while."(Woloch 366) It just seems like she's extremely bitter that women do so much work with raising children and keeping the house clean, but men appear to go out have a good time with their friends and thats it. -Elizabeth frank<br />
<br />
When reading "We Are All Bound up Together," I found it telling when Frances Ellen Harper related her story of life after losing her husband. She was left with four children and no money. Someone even took her to court over a bed. She then discusses how if she had been a man, she would have been remarried by now and would not be facing economic hardship. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Isabel Eaton really exemplifies the challenge black men and women faced in finding jobs. There was no guarentee that they would get a job and often times they settled for domestic service. Even if they were educated, "white help" was always preferred. Many people gave up trying to find work outside of the domestic service branch because of this ideology. Black men and women were also refused domestic jobs because of the color of their skin in many cases. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I found Leonora Barry's piece on the Knights of Labor to be very interesting. I thought that it showed many of the characteristics mentioned by some of the other readings, the fact that she was a widow with three children for example. She seemed however, to be a very strong woman, one who embrassed her work and her position as master workman. What I found really interesting was that she and others went around educating the children in the factories and such and pushing for the children who are working to be educated in an effort to erase the social and economic situation that causes the circumstances that drive mothers into the workplace. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I also thought the "Office Clerk" by Clara Lanza was an interesting document. I thought it was particularly intersting how it said that women never complained about things like "...the temperature of the building [being] too hot or too cold or that the light is not properly adjusted." Women might not have complained about things like the temperature or light, because they were happy to be able to have a job period that was outside of the home. Men however, could complain about those things and easily get a new job if their current job didn't suit them. ~K. Stinson~<br />
<br />
What really struck me about "A Sweatshop Girl's Story" was how Sadie Frowne felt about injuries sustained on the job in factories. From the way she was talking, she made it seem like these injuries were no big deal. If you hurt your finger, you just wrap it with a bit of cotton, if the injury is worse than that, you may have to have that finger amputated, but, you just accept it and go on with your life. Maybe injuries like that were so common in those factories, that it truely was no big deal. ~K. Stinson~</div>199.111.65.86https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/CommentsWeek 12 Questions/Comments2007-11-15T04:15:30Z<p>199.111.65.86: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Woloch's reading, (O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!), Maria Stewart, a black Bostonian, played a special role in public life and women's history. When the abolitionist movement began, William Lloyd Garrison published some of her essays in his antislavery journal. In her essays, I really liked how Stewart urged women to pursue self-improvement and assert their rights. A lot of her message was aimed at African American women. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie but I'd also like to point something else out about the piece "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" All throughout Maria Stewart's account, she used revolutionary rhetoric, more often than not using the word "liberty." She also consistently brought up freedoms such as the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, and it just emphasizes what we learned in class that this revolutionary rhetoric was coming back to haunt the upper and middle class white men that the rhetoric was supposed to apply to. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
When reading Lucy Stone's Marriage Protest, in Woloch's book, I found it interesting that when the couple took their vows, each partner signed a unique marriage "protest". This protest was also read as part of their ceremony! -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I really feel that Lucy Stone epitomizes the definition of a feminist, the one that will lead to our modern day definition/perception. She kept her own name, she "refused to 'obey', and challenged the system..." The protest itself is riddled with a woman's absolute independence. It takes away any traditional patriarchal "laws" and demands equality from both man and woman. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I was also interested by Lucy Stone's marriage protest, probably because it was so not what one would expect from a woman from the mid 1800s, at least I assume this was irregular. The things that she was protesting we take for advantage that we dont have to worry about them. For instance women today dont have to worry about their legal existence disappearing with marriage. But for her the things that many women seemed to just accept as their fate she rebelled against. I was also intreged that she kept her own name. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I was equally intrigued by the marriage of Lucy Stone and was curious if we know anything about how Henry Blackwell was treated after agreeing to this marriage protest. Was he ridiculed by men for not being able to "control" his wife? Was he embraced by woman for being the ideal husband for letting his wife have rights? Or was he simply ignored, as if this case was not out of the ordinary in any way?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The fact that Henry Blackwell actually agreed to sign the Marriage Protest was what surprised me. We don't see a lot of men willing to give up that kind of power over their wives before and during this time period. Was he a women's rights activist? -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
When I read the piece, "Seduced and Abandoned," in the Woloch book, I could not help but start laughing. I understand that it is not a laughing matter that girl was abandoned by her "fiance" and had to become a prostitute, but the way in which it was written screamed propaganda. The way the innocent girl from the country was persuaded to elope by a villain from the city and then was decoyed into becoming a prostitute only until meeting up with a wholesome man from her hometown is just too unreal. It is amazing how this scenario is consistently used and tweaked to support different causes. But it really shows how the moral reform movement was determined to deliver people to the side of God and how women were at the forefront since the piece was obviously written by a woman. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly about "Seduced and Abandoned" being so blantantly propagandistic. I have read many similar stories in literature of the day. I wonder, however, how common a story this really was. I realize that it's not exactly something we can get statistics on. I'm sure that it happened quite a bit. However, it seems likely that at least some of these tales are either altered for effect or completely made up. I'm curious as to how the public perception of danger to their daughters compared with reality. --Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I was very intrigued by the Declaration of Sentiments drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The way she manipulated the Declaration of Independence is the perfect example of women using revolutionary rhetoric to get what they want. If you placed the two next to one another and asked someone to tell the difference, I think it would take quite a bit of reading (probably up until she starts blaming men for everything) before they could figure it out. Stanton proved to be very clever and I just hope there were many more women like her fighting for what they believed. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In Woloch, the "Letter to the Liberator" piece really seemed to strike at the heart of women and their role in reform. and specifically this letter addresses slavery. "Woman has a place, for she forms a part in God's created intelligent instrumentality to reform the world. God never made her to be inactive - nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man... We believe God gave woman a heart to feel - an eye to weep - a hand to work - a tongue to speak. Now let her use that tongue to speak on slavery." Those words state that is every woman's right and responsibility and duty to play an active role in reform. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the rhetoric of liberty and patriotism used in the "Letter to the Liberator." Emery writes, "Is not woman abused--woman trampled upon---woman spoiled of her virtue . . . and this, not in India---not in China---not in Turkey---not in Africa---but in America . . . in the birthplace of Washington, the father of freedom, the protector of women, the friend of equality and human rights!" Emery reminds Americans of their own fight for freedom, and she calls for America to become a morally superior nation. Even the use of the phrase, "On such a creed, we base the constitution, which binds us together," feels reminiscent of the writings of the founding fathers. ---Ashley H. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read about Sojourner Truth and how she felt about the situtation and the rehtoric that she used. Up until this point the majority of women we have heard from have been white, middle-upper class women with very good educations. But here is a woman who was a slave, who cannot read or write. She was also deeply religious and I thought it was very interesting to read her speach and reading the various Biblical references that she makes to prove her point, as well as using her life story to express her belief in women's rights. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read that when Elizabeth Cady Stanton urged women to secure the vote in the “Declaration of Sentiments” other women’s rights supporters felt it would make the “whole movement ridiculous.” I am sure that none of them could imagine that <br />
the right of suffrage would end up becoming the cornerstone of the women’s rights movement. <br />
It was really interesting that Lucy Stone decided to get married and at the same time challenged the institution of marriage which had forced women to give up their rights. I found it remarkable that she even had her husband sign a “marriage protest” and the document was published in a newspaper. We’ve read about other women who have refused to get married because they did not want to lose their rights but Mrs. Stone was the first one who challenged the marriage system of her day.-Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that securing the vote for women almost didn't appear in the Seneca Falls Convention's Declaration of Sentiments because of support issues. Now it's really the first thing anyone thinks about when they hear the word Seneca Falls Convention. Maybe people though that women would be asking for too much in too short of a time period if they included voting. Or maybe they though that it would overshadow some of the other things they were trying to accomplish. -- Jennifer Feldhaus <br />
<br />
It amazes me that almost every arguement used for or against Women's rights involved biblical references. Women arguesd God made them just as intelligent and capable as men and men, like the editor of Harper's Magazine, argued that the Women's rights movements were "opposed as it was to divine revelation, time-honored proprieties, and biblical authority." (158) I wonder what the arguements would be if God, The Creator, or religion weren't allowed to be invovled. Even though during this period the Great Awakening was peaking, I wonder what women who did not follow that movement and were less-religious thought. What were their arguements? "The American Femal More Refore Society Warns Mothers About "Solitary Vice" was to me a hysterical piece. I found it particularly funny that they called it a "body and ''soul-destroying'' sin." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I thought the article on Sojourner Truth was very interesting. It was great to get her perspective on women't rights. I agree with Mary P that her use of Biblical references were a great way to make her point and the fact that as a slave she probably worked harder everyday than a lot of white men did at the time just proved that women could do anything the men could do. <br />
I also found the Marriage Protest by Lucy Stone interesting to say the least. That is definately extreme feminism for that time. I can see why she was "ridiculed and persecuted" but if you are that against the ideas of marriage at that time why go through a marriage at all? Why not stay single and just live together? Although I don't know how radical that idea would have been at the time but at least you kept your identity. ~~ Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I found the first 2 documents in MP pages 141- 143 a bit too flowery. The woman who is addressing the other ladies paints a lovely picture of all the good that they have accomplished for the poor. It makes me wonder if they spent most of their time patting their selves on the back rather than doing foot work on the street helping out the poor. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
The two documents by Isabella Graham were a bit flowery, but it is interesting to note that she says "the men could not allow our sex the steadiness and perserverance necessary to establish such an undertaking." It is so interesting how women are really beginning to use the 'us vs. them' approach when talking about women and men. Girl Power! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I, too, enjoyed the speech by Sojourner Truth, but what I found most interesting was the inclusion of southern dialect by Frances Gage. Obviously, being that Sojourner was from a Dutch-speaking New York family, her accent would have been anything but Southern. Perhaps by making Sojourner sound like a Southern slave, Gage was trying to appeal to Southern slaveowners. When Gage wrote this version of Sojourner's speech, it was during the Civil War and at the height of the Abolitionist movement. This context obviously influenced how/what she chose to emphasize from Sojourner's speech.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the essay on Sojourner Truth. She spoke well on equal rights. Her comparisons of physical strengths and intelligence as qualifiers for equal rights should have been an eye opener for all there. She showed that women could be physically strong, intelligent and take a great amount of pain. I like when she spoke how someone had said women can’t have equal rights because Jesus wasn’t a women. I have heard similar musing before in women’s groups how all men come from women. She is a very inspiring speaker.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me about Sojourner Truth Speaks was that not only did she use biblical references in a way she seemed to be challenging the traditional held views of the church, especially when she talks about how since Eve did sin first men should stop holding women back but instead allow them a chance to make up for what "they" did. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the essay "Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement" I found all the different factors that made it more acceptable for black women to speak publicly very interesting. While female speakers are still not fully accepted by all, the need that black men saw for the abolition cause seems to temporarily out weigh gender stereotypes. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
<br />
The "Seduced and Abandoned" article portrayed the young girl in the story as kinda mindless. She is just an innocent young girl swept up by the objective evil that causes her to fall into bad things. Her rescue, is kinda odd, since the business man from her village just happened to go to the circus that one time, as a grand exception. Of course, he saves her. Such a story is in direct contrast with the other articles, such as "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" and "Reply to the Massachusetts Clergy." I certainly don't think that some girls did end up in terrible situations that they could not forsee, but I do get the sense that these grand moral reform ideas implicitly included female mindlessness. I suppose it all relates to women being the passionless, moral barometer of society who only have experience in the pure household. Of course, Sarah Grimke made the exact opposite statement when she wrote that womens displacement from equality has "introduced confusion into the world." pg 239 For her, inequality is the problem, for the minister she is responding to, it is equality. Its such a polarized mindset. I wonder if Lucy and Henry's marriage was deemed null if they signed agreements that were in direct contrast with the law regarding marriage at the time... -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
<br />
The piece “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement” touched briefly on the gender and race expectations of the time and how women reformers rebelled against these stereotypes. I know some of the pieces touched upon the idea of solidarity under the title “women,” yet pieces in both Woloch and Norton touched upon the idea of white reformers vs. black reformers. I was wondering how clear a divide there was between white and black reformers? White and black abolitionists? White and black suffragists? I know in the 1960s women’s movement, there was a great division among various ethnic lines; I’m wondering whether anyone knows if a similar race divide existed? Were black abolitionists/suffragists seeking rights different or separate from white women? Were there issues they both agreed on and fought for? --Mary Beth Dilla<br />
<br />
My question is in regards to Sojourner Truth. What I want to know is if she faced double the amount of prejudice that other women's rights activists faced since she was African American as well as a woman. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>199.111.65.86https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/CommentsWeek 10 Questions/Comments2007-10-30T20:23:10Z<p>199.111.65.86: </p>
<hr />
<div>Woloch’s book--I found the reading The Cruel Mistress, to be a form of abolitionist propaganda to raise the argument about how inhumane slavery is. Angelina Grimke Weld would give great credibility to the abolitionist movement because of her observations of the southern community as she was once a southern herself. These observations are highly detailed as if it was fresh from her memories yet these accounts in her memories are at least fourteen years old. Thus it begs the question, did these mistresses really conduct themselves this way according to what Weld had witnessed? Are her memories that reliable? Or are these observations, in how mistresses treated their slaves, facts or exaggerations of the facts? –John Furner <br />
<br />
I think it is likely that these mistresses did conduct themselves in a way very similar to Weld's accounts even though a decent amount of time had passed between when she had witnessed the actions and when she recorded them for publishing. The treatment that she described I believe was very common of the slave owners to not see their slaves as fully human and therefore not treat them as such. However, the treatment that stood out most to me during this entry was how the mistress would not beat the slaves herself but have that slave's brother or sister beat them. I would think this would make them want to act out more.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Woloch’ Book—Reading Louisa S. Cheeves McCord attack on Stowe was a bit difficult to swallow. It seems to me that she plays right into the Patriarchal system of having to assume the role to take care of those less fortunate. Otherwise, she attempts to give credence to southern white man’s burden for the purpose to have slaves. I find it amusing when she writes, “We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless.” (219) Why I find this amusing is that she believes the white race must assume a god like status in the care of the less fortunate, thereby the less fortunate group could only prosper in a civilized world, if they were enslaved by the white race; white man’s burden. However, if the white race were so godlike or given providence as she claims, then why are southern slave owners dependant on slaves for their very existence?—John Furner<br />
<br />
In this week’s readings we see the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse and sexual exploitation of black women. Even whites were morally opposed to the institution of slavery as seen by Mary Chestnut’s diary. I was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women. I knew it was a practice, however I was under the impression that slave breeding was not very popular, and mostly masters relied on natural reproduction. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of slave breeding? In the essay by Jennings, she explicitly discusses the role of white, slave owners in the sexual abuse of women. Did masters rape and abuse women simply because they could or did the sexual stereotypes of African American women of the time (“animal – like”, foreign, African queens, exotic, sexually aggressive, etc.) play into it? How did mistresses react to the relationships between masters and female slaves and illegitimate children? Are there examples of mistresses mistreating a woman she suspected was sleeping with her husband (I know Weld discusses the “cruel mistress” but I did not get the impression that her violence was deemed inappropriate or based on accusations of infidelity). Was there any advantage(s) to sleeping with the master? -Mary Beth D.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the readings one of the things that stood out the most to me was in Modern Problems the article by Mrs. Virgina Hayes Shepard when she mentions Diana. I was surprised to see that when the master went to Diana to have sexual relations with her Diana actually went to her mistress for help. I thought that white mistresses would react badly to the idea that their husbands would be sleeping with the slaves but in DIana's case the mistress sympathized instead of becoming angry. It is stated that in part this is because she was also afraid of her husband. Is it possible that this is more common than we know because both the slave women and the mistresses were scared to bring it up?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I thought the document titled "Lucinda, a Free Woman, Asks to Be Reenslaved" was really interesting. She probably thought about what her life would be like for her as a free Black woman, and she probably realized that there weren't that she wouldn't have a very good life. Her life as a slave might be slightly better than her life as a free Black woman because as a slave she was with her husband, had a small place to live and got some food. Her situation is similar to the situation of some criminals today. Sometimes criminals who have just been released from jail want to go right back to jail, because they might have a better life in jail than out of it. In jail, they at least have a roof over their head and food to eat. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>199.111.65.86https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T13:15:10Z<p>199.111.65.86: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in ''Women Alone: Property and Personalism'' how women expressed their displeasure with family members openly in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance. Meanwhile men, when writing their wills, adhered to a basic format. I liked how the author made clear that even though women were limited in their influence and power in legal and political rights, they asserted their power through their wills. - Elizabeth Frank <br />
<br />
I too though it was very interesting how women openly expressed their displeasure in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance, and as for the men, they just followed a simple format. These women finally got the change to assert their power through their wills, something that they never got the chance to do before...as far as political and legal rights are concerned. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
The women of Petersburg seemed to be self-sufficient. I was surprised to hear women wrote a great many of the wills. When it was mentioned how they highly personalized their wills, it reminded me of how a grandmother of mine use to threaten her relations about leaving them out of her will. This same grandmother also had good control of the family finances. I think she was pretty unique. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
It is sort of understandable that a woman would choose favorites, since the patriarch of a family would probably be treated with respect by all members of the family, but a matriarch? I am sure that many family members treated her like she was incompetent and unsuited to lead the family. Would the son-in-law have left that same clause reprimanding Bolling's husband, had he been alive? I doubt it. I wouldn't leave them anything either! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, Malefactors and Complainants, Women were very active participants in the New England county courts, where they appeared in several capacities. It was interesting to me that occasionally wives served as attorneys for their husbands;colonies that accepted this practice did so on the grounds that the wife was legally an extension of her husband. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
It doesn't really make sense to me why the wives were able to serve as attorneys for their husbands though if in other capacities women were not thought to be rational or logical or capable of higher thought. Why then would the men put their "fate" in their wives hands? Or did an attorney have a more limited role then, or have a different meaning? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
When I was reading the first part of the Women Alone essay I was wondering if these women (specifically Mary Bolling)told their potential heirs about the possibility of getting left out of a will. It also looked like she openly favored her daughters and granddaughters was this because she knew that her sons and grandsons would be well provided for by their fathers? Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
<br />
I gathered from the reading in Woloch that the fame sol traders were not major players but rather women for one reason or another needed to earn a living. The laws passed were to both protect the feme sol traders from being taken advantage of and keep them from taking advantage of others. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly interesting that in some cases women need to the approval of their husbands to take advantage of the Feme Sole Trader Acts. What would the reasons for needing her husbands advice? Was it simply because it was still a patriarchal society and women supposibly needed permision from their husbands to do anything that wasn't domestic. or was it largely to do with the fact that the image of a married woman working would imply that the husband was not able to take care of his wife and therefore reflect poorly on him? ~Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
In Woloch we are shown that in New England it was easier for women to receive a divorce from the courts than it was in the Chesapeake region. I actually found this surprising. Because New England was formed around strict religious ideals I expected that divorce would be harder to get approved of. I understand that divorce was given based on if a woman was abused, if adultery was committed or if a wife or husband was left for an extended period without contact from the other. HOWEVER, why was it less difficult to get a divorce in a region with such strong foundations in religion? I feel like I'm missing a connection someplace in there.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Maybe this is due to the layout of towns in New England verses the Chesapeake. Towns are more prevelant in the north and, perhaps because of this, courts and town councils seem to be more prevelant as well. When you live in an isolated area, probably far removed from the courts and your neighbors, it would be harder to go to the court for anything at all so something like a domestic dispute would be hard to take to court. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
Also, keep in mind that in New England it was seen that the household reflected the status of the larger community and was referred to as "the little commonwealth". This implies that to have a well governed commonwealth of Mass. the households and family life need to be running smoothly. Therefore, it makes sense that divorce would be granted more often because neighbors would be concerned about others domestic concerns becuase if a family is having issues, not only would it reflect poorly on the family, but it would also affect the larger affairs of the village and/or common wealth. Peace and a smooth running government was the goal in new England and it seems that the goverment was willing to grant women divorce if it was going to benifit the greater commmunitiy. -Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment, I was wondering how varying views of marriage may have affected divorce rates in New England and the Chesapeake region. I think we've read that the Puritans viewed marriage more as a civil union than a sacred bond, so it may not actually be contradictory for them to allow divorce. What type of religion, if any, flourished in the Chesapeake? -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
Elizabeth I think it would be interesting to study how many cases were brought to court and how many divorces were actually approved. While we see New England as strange for allowing divorce in such a strict, Puritan society we are not fully aware of how common the practice was or how easy of a time an abused or neglected woman had winning her case. Another section in Woloch I found fascinating was this idea of Feme Sole Traders which allowed married women to engage in businesses. I thought it was interesting how South Carolina had more "liberal laws." What could be a motive for that? Did a particular trade lend itself to this idea of Feme Sole Traders? How common was the practice? Was it socially unacceptable to take economic matters into one's own hands and not leave it up to the man? --Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I also was amazed with the section on the Feme Sole Traders. I thought it was unacceptable for women to be able to take on such economic matters, especially after what happened in the Dutch Colonies when the English arrived. Was this practice of the woman being a major player economically really that common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's comment-- It seems that few things in early American history are ever quite as strict as we assume they are. When I started the reading I had similar thoughts but I have been corrected a few times this semester as to my assumptions about the strict rules of history. I wonder how common these Femme Sole statuses were and how did women decide to get into trading if they had little to no experience in the profession. Did they learn from their husbands or fathers or maybe mothers? I also wonder if there was a social stigma for these women. Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
While I was familiar with the rules of coverture and femme sole, along with the history of women taking nontraditional gender roles and serving as traders, I did not realize colonies like South Carolina actually had laws regarding coverture and giving women recognized legal status for trading purposes. I was fascinated by this law.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In another class I have taken it was mentioned that while married women in New England had few legal rights they were more able to divorce because of the Puritan idea of what a home and familiy and patriarchal household. If a marriage was not the ideal marriage or if a man was not upholding his patriarchal responsibilities a woman was within her rights to divorce him. However, who knows what other motives New England law makers might have had. Also on the Feme Sole Traders, the question on a particular trade is a good one. If I had to take a guess I would say whatever trade she might want to get involved in, but also maybe not a trade that was of a masculine sort, like selling men's clothes or something like that. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I'm curious about how sentencing for crimes may have been affected by gender.For example, the reading mentions that Mary Chelson was whipped and had to pay a fee for "committing of fornication.... and having a bastard childe." In the trial Chelson named the father of her child, what would his punishment have been?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I was also interested in the sentencing for crimes and its relationship to gender. I found it interesting that on one occassion, the "Backway Sentenced", the man got whipped five more times for the woman for committing fornication before marriage. Why did the amount of whipping for fornication change? It seems like for the most part the charge was 15 slashes (even if a bastard child is involved). However, it fluctuates based on the case, sometimes 10 and a small monetary payment, sometimes 20. Why is this? Were some charged less because they were deemed "better" citizens? Fornication is fornication. How can you say one case is worse than another?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I found the excert about the sentencing of crimes very interesting. I was amazed at some of the things that people were charged for. For example the people who were fined for fornication before thier marriage. SInce there were a lot of fornication cases in this piece I probably shouldnt have been surprised, but they were MARRIED. Who should care that they had "fornicated" before marriage. And why did they tell people anyway, that seemed silly. Also what was up with that one lady, Margaret Brewster, who disguised herself and came to meeting? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Maybe it wasn't that they told people about the fornication but that they were caught fornicating when, or where, they shouldn't have been. This is the best explaination I can come up with because you're right that it would be silly for them to admit to committing fornication before marriage. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with the comments about the fornication before marriage and the punishments of such, but when taking a look at their society that they lived in, it certainly correlates. I studied in another class that these activities and others that demonstrated individualistic tendencies or independence or even anything that was outside the community norm were severely "frowned upon" and punishment was necessary. Anything to keep the community cohesive and respected. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I believe that, in this deeply religious society, confessing to fornication was essentially confessing to a sin, with the thought process being to repent and accept the punishment. Perhaps reasoning for this was to ensure a Christian afterlife or to prevent a "bastard child" from being ostracized by the surrounding community.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I thought that there wasn't a problem with premarital sex. There would only be a problem if it resulted in a child and the two - didn't marry. Maybe I am wrong? - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading the different court cases but they brought up a lot of questions. For instance, were men punished for being drunk also? Also, what does "imprisoned for unclean carriages with.." If women knew what would happen if they confessed to fornication why did they do, was it because they thought the confession would save them? If being an elect was predetermined then what would confessing do for you? Brewster Whip'ts case was very different and I'm not quite sure I actually understand what she did (seem to offend religion) but whatever she did her punishment seemed the harshest. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I was just amazed, in general, that women were allowed to leave wills and have some say in what happened with property after someone's death. I didn't realize that women were allowed to have this much power in the relationship, was this a new ideology? Or had this always been common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was also intrigued by the section on wills. In particular, the law that required a man to leave his wife at least a life interest in one third of his real estate. Were these women then given control over the money? To me this contradicts the view of women as completely financially dependent upon men. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
I too was surprised that women were able to have a say in what happened to their property after their death. I also found it interesting that through antenuptial contracts, women could retain come control over their property. I thought that when a woman married, she became the property of her husband.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Right, when a woman married she did become the property of her husband, but if the husband died first, I believe she was entitled to 1/3 of the assests. I also noticed that much of the stuff women left to people in their wills was movable property so it wasn't like the women were dealing with the larger issues, like property. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
I looked at the wills in a different way. Everyone is talking about how surprised they were with how much a woman was left after her husband died. Well to be frank, I am not surprised; I would be surprised if it was not the case. Even though women were considered "property" of the husband's "government," we cannot forget that they were spouses, there was a connection, and I am sure more often than not there was dedication and devotion. I don't mean to sound juvinile, it is just that isn't it the norm for a wife to be in the will somewhere? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
When reading an Antenuptial Contract, I couldn't help but notice the similarity to today's pre-nuptial contract. I thought this was a modern invention....I had no idea that they dated back to the 17th century. I always thought that these types of contracts depreciated the overall meaning of marriage, operating on a cynical notion, which is why it is odd to see women, in the 17th cnntury, already contemplating their situation after the end of their marriage.~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I was surprised at the Tennison Decision portion of "A Separation Decision" in Wolock. Many of the other divorces or separations seemed to be granted for desertion, and in these cases it makes economic sense to allow a woman to remarry so she does not become a drain on the community. However, in this case John Tennisson was willing to support his wife under his own roof, but she was granted a legal separation because "he could never entertain that love and respect for his said wife . . . as is properly due" (75). Loveless marriages couldn't have been that uncommon; I have to wonder what was going on behind the scenes that made this relationship worse than others. ---Ashley H.<br />
<br />
When reading Suzanne Lebsock's article, I was interested in the fact that white women sometimes left money and other provisions to their slaves when writing their wills. More women than men gave slaves their freedom through their wills. One woman's provisions for her slaves were written with more love and detail than were her provisions for her son and grandchildren according to Lebsock. I think this empahsizes the importance and effect of individual relationships that some white women had with their slaves.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was fascinated reading the Lebsock's article. I did a research paper several years ago about the subject of women and the wills they left behind and it was really common to see where one child would get either everything or most everything. Then when the census records were looked at as well you could see where the woman had several children but some got nothing. That to me was really interesting to see how women divided up their property.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Question in response to Mary Beth's comment: Why is that so? Were women leaving their property to the one child that was the favorite? Or just the oldest child? And why exclude some of them from getting anything at all? Men seemed to have certain guidelines that dictated who got what (i.e. oldest son got most or all of the inheritance) but women did not necessarily have those guidelines. So is this an example of a freedom they had, giving their property to whomever they choose? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
It says on page 79 in Woloch that Goodwife Amee was "presented by the grandjury for absenting her selfe from the publique worship of God." Does this mean that she was brought to court because she left a public display of worship on the Sabbath (Sunday?)? I'm confused about the antenuptial contracts, didn't the wife loose her legal standing when she became married, or was this more of a colonial-time period thing? If it was, how did it change and why? It seems like such a beneficial thing to men, and giving women's limited legal standing anyways, I'm at a loss to explain the change. The end of the blackboard article notes that women were more sensitive to people in precarious economic positions, or their tendency to reward their 'favorite' people, which I found interesting in how that is such a contrast to the tendencies of men. An obvious explanation might be that women could easily sympathize with a slave since, perhaps, they saw their own position in a similar light? -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In the Wolock reading, under the Divorce in New England section, the most common reason for granting a divorce was abandonment by the husband. I'm sure there are varied reasons why these men left their wives but none of the court records state why any of them left. It's probably hard to tell, but did the courts know why these men were leaving? Did the wives? What was the most common reason for abandonment?-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also wondered why abandonment was the most common reason for divorce in New England because I assumed it would be abuse. Were all these men running off and starting other families or did they leave their wives because they felt they could set up a better life for themselves somewhere else?<br />
In the Woloch piece on “Divorce in New England” it was interesting to read that of the thirteen colonies only Massachusetts and Connecticut offered absolute divorce. Even though absolute divorce existed in the 17th century a women could only petition the court for divorce in cases of adultery, desertion, or an absence of seven years. I wonder what the court’s reasoning was behind making a women wait seven years before petitioning the court for a divorce. Seven years seems like a very long time for a woman to have to live by herself and care for her family without her husband’s support. <br />
When Elizabeth Griswould petitioned the court to have sole custody of her children it was interesting to see the court ordering the children’s father to pay child support payments. I was not aware that courts ordered parents to pay child support as early as the seventeenth century.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Like Caitlin, I was also struck by the court decision concerning Elizabeth Griswould in "Divorce in New England." What struck me was how uncommon this situation must have been, dealing with child custody. Since most divorces were granted as a result of abandonment, I couldn't imagine the male being a consideration in the custody of his children, as he is presumed dead. In the case of Elizabeth Griswould, the divorce must have been granted for another reason, perhaps adultery. This small piece referenced religion in the court's decision of child custody, which leads me to wonder what might have happened if the father were an upstanding Christian. Was it common, as it is today to favor the mother in custody battles? Or are these situations too rare to try to attempt to identify the normality? Like Caitlin, I was also a little surprised to see some of our legal customs, such as child support, performed in 17th century Puritan society.~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I found the whole abandonment issue really interesting too. And like you Caitlin, I had no idea that courts could order a man to pay child support in the 17th century. In that part of the passage, I also thought it was really interesting that Elizabeth was also using her maiden name as opposed to Rogers.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
As I was reading the document “Divorce in New England” in Woloch, I was wondering if you were looked down upon by the other members of the community if you got a divorce. Did you become the subject of town gossip and become sort of ostracized from everyone else? I also want to know how common it was for someone to get divorced, I expect that it would not be as common as it is today, but I think it was fairly common because there are a lot of court documents pertaining to the subject. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I am sure that those who went through a divorce were gossiped about often. But that is all that women had- the control to talk about eachother. I would not know how often, however I am sure it was a complete and utter last resort. For most of the divorces, it is sad to see it is due to disertion. The women need to be able to be divorced in an attempt to find a new husband to gain economic stature. -- Talya Halpern.<br />
<br />
I agree with Talya. I definitely don't think that divorce was seen as the norm, but it was necessary. I mean, if a husband has vanished for six or seven years, doesn't that leave a wife in pretty dire straits financially? At that point, it seems to me that it’s time to move on.--Kaitlyn G. <br />
<br />
South Carolina's acts on Feme Sole Traders were quite interesting. It is astonishing women were allowed such rights during this period, but also surprising that it took 32 years between the passing of the two acts. The first act allowed the debts to be brought upon the trader herself, but until the second act she was not able to pursue justice in her own name. I wonder if this meant that before the second act it was her husband who must bring suit for her, or if she was simply unable to seek retribution. Regardless of the limitations, being able to engage in open trade offered a vastly increased source of income to the women of the colonies. I also wonder who's hands the money they earned often ended up in, their's or their husband's. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
I thought it was interseting in the document "Malefactors and Complainants" in Woloch, that Mercy Carveath got in trouble for selling liquor without a liscence. I thought that having a liscence to sell liquor was a more recent phenonmenon, since back then practically everyone drank some form of beer because the water was not always safe to drink. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>199.111.65.86https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T03:52:39Z<p>199.111.65.86: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in ''Women Alone: Property and Personalism'' how women expressed their displeasure with family members openly in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance. Meanwhile men, when writing their wills, adhered to a basic format. I liked how the author made clear that even though women were limited in their influence and power in legal and political rights, they asserted their power through their wills. - Elizabeth Frank <br />
<br />
I too though it was very interesting how women openly expressed their displeasure in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance, and as for the men, they just followed a simple format. These women finally got the change to assert their power through their wills, something that they never got the chance to do before...as far as political and legal rights are concerned. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
The women of Petersburg seemed to be self-sufficient. I was surprised to hear women wrote a great many of the wills. When it was mentioned how they highly personalized their wills, it reminded me of how a grandmother of mine use to threaten her relations about leaving them out of her will. This same grandmother also had good control of the family finances. I think she was pretty unique. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
It is sort of understandable that a woman would choose favorites, since the patriarch of a family would probably be treated with respect by all members of the family, but a matriarch? I am sure that many family members treated her like she was incompetent and unsuited to lead the family. Would the son-in-law have left that same clause reprimanding Bolling's husband, had he been alive? I doubt it. I wouldn't leave them anything either! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, Malefactors and Complainants, Women were very active participants in the New England county courts, where they appeared in several capacities. It was interesting to me that occasionally wives served as attorneys for their husbands;colonies that accepted this practice did so on the grounds that the wife was legally an extension of her husband. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
It doesn't really make sense to me why the wives were able to serve as attorneys for their husbands though if in other capacities women were not thought to be rational or logical or capable of higher thought. Why then would the men put their "fate" in their wives hands? Or did an attorney have a more limited role then, or have a different meaning? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I gathered from the reading in Woloch that the fame sol traders were not major players but rather women for one reason or another needed to earn a living. The laws passed were to both protect the feme sol traders from being taken advantage of and keep them from taking advantage of others. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
In Woloch we are shown that in New England it was easier for women to receive a divorce from the courts than it was in the Chesapeake region. I actually found this surprising. Because New England was formed around strict religious ideals I expected that divorce would be harder to get approved of. I understand that divorce was given based on if a woman was abused, if adultery was committed or if a wife or husband was left for an extended period without contact from the other. HOWEVER, why was it less difficult to get a divorce in a region with such strong foundations in religion? I feel like I'm missing a connection someplace in there.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Maybe this is due to the layout of towns in New England verses the Chesapeake. Towns are more prevelant in the north and, perhaps because of this, courts and town councils seem to be more prevelant as well. When you live in an isolated area, probably far removed from the courts and your neighbors, it would be harder to go to the court for anything at all so something like a domestic dispute would be hard to take to court. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment, I was wondering how varying views of marriage may have affected divorce rates in New England and the Chesapeake region. I think we've read that the Puritans viewed marriage more as a civil union than a sacred bond, so it may not actually be contradictory for them to allow divorce. What type of religion, if any, flourished in the Chesapeake? -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
Elizabeth I think it would be interesting to study how many cases were brought to court and how many divorces were actually approved. While we see New England as strange for allowing divorce in such a strict, Puritan society we are not fully aware of how common the practice was or how easy of a time an abused or neglected woman had winning her case. Another section in Woloch I found fascinating was this idea of Feme Sole Traders which allowed married women to engage in businesses. I thought it was interesting how South Carolina had more "liberal laws." What could be a motive for that? Did a particular trade lend itself to this idea of Feme Sole Traders? How common was the practice? Was it socially unacceptable to take economic matters into one's own hands and not leave it up to the man? --Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I also was amazed with the section on the Feme Sole Traders. I thought it was unacceptable for women to be able to take on such economic matters, especially after what happened in the Dutch Colonies when the English arrived. Was this practice of the woman being a major player economically really that common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In another class I have taken it was mentioned that while married women in New England had few legal rights they were more able to divorce because of the Puritan idea of what a home and familiy and patriarchal household. If a marriage was not the ideal marriage or if a man was not upholding his patriarchal responsibilities a woman was within her rights to divorce him. However, who knows what other motives New England law makers might have had. Also on the Feme Sole Traders, the question on a particular trade is a good one. If I had to take a guess I would say whatever trade she might want to get involved in, but also maybe not a trade that was of a masculine sort, like selling men's clothes or something like that. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I'm curious about how sentencing for crimes may have been affected by gender.For example, the reading mentions that Mary Chelson was whipped and had to pay a fee for "committing of fornication.... and having a bastard childe." In the trial Chelson named the father of her child, what would his punishment have been?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I was also interested in the sentencing for crimes and its relationship to gender. I found it interesting that on one occassion, the "Backway Sentenced", the man got whipped five more times for the woman for committing fornication before marriage. Why did the amount of whipping for fornication change? It seems like for the most part the charge was 15 slashes (even if a bastard child is involved). However, it fluctuates based on the case, sometimes 10 and a small monetary payment, sometimes 20. Why is this? Were some charged less because they were deemed "better" citizens? Fornication is fornication. How can you say one case is worse than another?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I found the excert about the sentencing of crimes very interesting. I was amazed at some of the things that people were charged for. For example the people who were fined for fornication before thier marriage. SInce there were a lot of fornication cases in this piece I probably shouldnt have been surprised, but they were MARRIED. Who should care that they had "fornicated" before marriage. And why did they tell people anyway, that seemed silly. Also what was up with that one lady, Margaret Brewster, who disguised herself and came to meeting? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Maybe it wasn't that they told people about the fornication but that they were caught fornicating when, or where, they shouldn't have been. This is the best explaination I can come up with because you're right that it would be silly for them to admit to committing fornication before marriage. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with the comments about the fornication before marriage and the punishments of such, but when taking a look at their society that they lived in, it certainly correlates. I studied in another class that these activities and others that demonstrated individualistic tendencies or independence or even anything that was outside the community norm were severely "frowned upon" and punishment was necessary. Anything to keep the community cohesive and respected. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I believe that, in this deeply religious society, confessing to fornication was essentially confessing to a sin, with the thought process being to repent and accept the punishment. Perhaps reasoning for this was to ensure a Christian afterlife or to prevent a "bastard child" from being ostracized by the surrounding community.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I thought that there wasn't a problem with premarital sex. There would only be a problem if it resulted in a child and the two - didn't marry. Maybe I am wrong? - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
I was just amazed, in general, that women were allowed to leave wills and have some say in what happened with property after someone's death. I didn't realize that women were allowed to have this much power in the relationship, was this a new ideology? Or had this always been common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was also intrigued by the section on wills. In particular, the law that required a man to leave his wife at least a life interest in one third of his real estate. Were these women then given control over the money? To me this contradicts the view of women as completely financially dependent upon men. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
I too was surprised that women were able to have a say in what happened to their property after their death. I also found it interesting that through antenuptial contracts, women could retain come control over their property. I thought that when a woman married, she became the property of her husband.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Right, when a woman married she did become the property of her husband, but if the husband died first, I believe she was entitled to 1/3 of the assests. I also noticed that much of the stuff women left to people in their wills was movable property so it wasn't like the women were dealing with the larger issues, like property. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
I was surprised at the Tennison Decision portion of "A Separation Decision" in Wolock. Many of the other divorces or separations seemed to be granted for desertion, and in these cases it makes economic sense to allow a woman to remarry so she does not become a drain on the community. However, in this case John Tennisson was willing to support his wife under his own roof, but she was granted a legal separation because "he could never entertain that love and respect for his said wife . . . as is properly due" (75). Loveless marriages couldn't have been that uncommon; I have to wonder what was going on behind the scenes that made this relationship worse than others. ---Ashley H.<br />
<br />
When reading Suzanne Lebsock's article, I was interested in the fact that white women sometimes left money and other provisions to their slaves when writing their wills. More women than men gave slaves their freedom through their wills. One woman's provisions for her slaves were written with more love and detail than were her provisions for her son and grandchildren according to Lebsock. I think this empahsizes the importance and effect of individual relationships that some white women had with their slaves.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was fascinated reading the Lebsock's article. I did a research paper several years ago about the subject of women and the wills they left behind and it was really common to see where one child would get either everything or most everything. Then when the census records were looked at as well you could see where the woman had several children but some got nothing. That to me was really interesting to see how women divided up their property.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Question in response to Mary Beth's comment: Why is that so? Were women leaving their property to the one child that was the favorite? Or just the oldest child? And why exclude some of them from getting anything at all? Men seemed to have certain guidelines that dictated who got what (i.e. oldest son got most or all of the inheritance) but women did not necessarily have those guidelines. So is this an example of a freedom they had, giving their property to whomever they choose? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
It says on page 79 in Woloch that Goodwife Amee was "presented by the grandjury for absenting her selfe from the publique worship of God." Does this mean that she was brought to court because she left a public display of worship on the Sabbath (Sunday?)? I'm confused about the antenuptial contracts, didn't the wife loose her legal standing when she became married, or was this more of a colonial-time period thing? If it was, how did it change and why? It seems like such a beneficial thing to men, and giving women's limited legal standing anyways, I'm at a loss to explain the change. The end of the blackboard article notes that women were more sensitive to people in precarious economic positions, or their tendency to reward their 'favorite' people, which I found interesting in how that is such a contrast to the tendencies of men. An obvious explanation might be that women could easily sympathize with a slave since, perhaps, they saw their own position in a similar light? -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In the Wolock reading, under the Divorce in New England section, the most common reason for granting a divorce was abandonment by the husband. I'm sure there are varied reasons why these men left their wives but none of the court records state why any of them left. It's probably hard to tell, but did the courts know why these men were leaving? Did the wives? What was the most common reason for abandonment?-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also wondered why abandonment was the most common reason for divorce in New England because I assumed it would be abuse. Were all these men running off and starting other families or did they leave their wives because they felt they could set up a better life for themselves somewhere else?<br />
In the Woloch piece on “Divorce in New England” it was interesting to read that of the thirteen colonies only Massachusetts and Connecticut offered absolute divorce. Even though absolute divorce existed in the 17th century a women could only petition the court for divorce in cases of adultery, desertion, or an absence of seven years. I wonder what the court’s reasoning was behind making a women wait seven years before petitioning the court for a divorce. Seven years seems like a very long time for a woman to have to live by herself and care for her family without her husband’s support. <br />
When Elizabeth Griswould petitioned the court to have sole custody of her children it was interesting to see the court ordering the children’s father to pay child support payments. I was not aware that courts ordered parents to pay child support as early as the seventeenth century.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
As I was reading the document “Divorce in New England” in Woloch, I was wondering if you were looked down upon by the other members of the community if you got a divorce. Did you become the subject of town gossip and become sort of ostracized from everyone else? I also want to know how common it was for someone to get divorced, I expect that it would not be as common as it is today, but I think it was fairly common because there are a lot of court documents pertaining to the subject. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>199.111.65.86https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_7_Questions/CommentsWeek 7 Questions/Comments2007-10-10T22:51:47Z<p>199.111.65.86: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I thought it was great how Martha didn't even begin her career until age 42,had six kids,and had several careers such as a housewife, slaughtered livestock, spun flax, produced candles and soap, knitted cloathing, pieced quilts, raised chickens, milked cows, fed pigs, and grew vegetables. Martha also ran a buisy local practice as a healer and midwife, and did much more! This was a remarkable women in my eyes.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I liked how her diary was at once a professional log, a family record, and a community record, because of her continual involvement with clients, neighbors, and local happenings.- Katie D.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting too how her diary did cover all points of her life, not just about her being a good wife or a good mother or a good midwife or what have you. That was one aspect of her diary that stood out from the diaries we have looked at previously. The diaries from the other periods seemed more concerned with making the writer look like a good Christian or the proper woman of the time, like she wrote it because she knew that it would be read some day and that she wanted to make sure her decendants knew what a wonderful person she was. While Martha Ballard may have had the same intention it also seems as though she wanted to keep the record more for herself and her children then to show how good she was. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In her diary, Martha Ballard mentions a man by the name of Mr. Ballard a couple of times, which I’m assuming is her husband. I was curious as to how much control he actually had over her life. I got the impression that midwives were usually widows or were unattached to a man. Does that make her case unusual? She is very independent and very busy, and she seems to do a lot of her healing and midwife duties on her own. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer about Mr. Ballard, who I too assume is her husband, I suppose that he had as much control over some aspects of her life as most men did over their wives. But I also got the impression that he is not always/not often at home. Frequently she wrote about him being off surveying somewhere. But also Martha was an older woman, who had already given birth to children, who did have a vocation and so she did have probably slightly more control then most. At the same time however, she is still known as Mrs. Martha Ballard and her role as a housewife and mother and grandmother takes presidence over her role as a midwife. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I think Martha uses the name Mr. Ballard, who I am sure is her husband, out of respect and love for her husband as the provider and business man that he is. I know when I was young it was not uncommon for couple who were elderly at that time to refer to themselves as Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith. Also couples who were business people tended to call each other by their formal names. I am a big fan of the old T.V. series The Walton’s. The Godseys were characters in the show that called each other Mr. Godsey and Mrs. Godsey. They didn’t often use their first name when they where addressing each other. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
While reading over Martha's diary online, I was surprised to read the section about Martha's son and eventual daughter-in-law. The couple had a child out of wedlock but the courts were less concerned with their immoral behavior but rather identifying the father so that the community would not be responsible for supporting the mother and child. Is this evidence of the ongoing shift from a religious to a secular society ? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
When reading Martha's diary dated the 9th of July 1806, I was appalled when reading of the Purrinton murders. I was shocked in the sense that one does not usually attribute such horrific behavior to that time. Many people today blame suicide-homicides on the society in which we live. I found it intersting and horrifying that such atrocities did happen even two hundred years ago.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I have been reading a lot of medical history lately and I found Martha’s diary passages in the winter very interesting in the fact that she gives good details on her ailments. The details are so good it makes me wonder if the fact there are many times during the winter when they are feeling fatigued and colicky that maybe it might be due to lack of a completely balanced diet. Often in the 1700s and 1800s fruits and vegetables are not very abundant. This food items are very high in various vitamins and minerals our body needs. Some of the symptoms Martha wrote about fit some of the vitamin deficiency diseases I am studying. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
What I would like to know is how Martha Ballard had the time to run her own household and take care of her own family as well as be a busy midwife. She seemed to be on call all the time and at the end of the diary entry in the Woloch book, she said she lost 42 nights of sleep that year! ~Katherine Stinson~</div>199.111.65.86 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