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: 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=199.111.68.153McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:33:24ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_8_Questions/Comments328--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-13T04:39:33Z<p>199.111.68.153: /* Letters to Margaret Sanger, 1920s */</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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<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>199.111.68.153https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_8_Questions/Comments328--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-13T04:38:57Z<p>199.111.68.153: /* Letters to Margaret Sanger, 1920s */</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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<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>199.111.68.153https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_8_Questions/Comments328--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-13T04:21:49Z<p>199.111.68.153: /* Mosher Survey, 1892-1913 */</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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<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>199.111.68.153https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_8_Questions/Comments328--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-13T04:02:06Z<p>199.111.68.153: /* Kennedy's "'But We Would Never Talk about it': The Structures of Lesbian Discretion in South Dakota, 1928-1933" */</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 />
== 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<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>199.111.68.153https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_8_Questions/Comments328--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-13T03:40:42Z<p>199.111.68.153: /* Kennedy's "'But We Would Never Talk about it': The Structures of Lesbian Discretion in South Dakota, 1928-1933" */</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. (Note that this friend is friends with many homosexuals and has rather strong opinions on the subject of homosexuality and 'queer culture'). 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. I immediately received a lecture about "imposed silence" and the societal values that imposed it. That lecture 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. - Sarah H<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 />
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 />
== 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<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 />
<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>199.111.68.153 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