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: 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=199.111.68.63McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:06:38ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/CommentsWeek 10 Questions/Comments2007-11-01T03:11:12Z<p>199.111.68.63: </p>
<hr />
<div>Woloch’s book--I found the reading The Cruel Mistress, to be a form of abolitionist propaganda to raise the argument about how inhumane slavery is. Angelina Grimke Weld would give great credibility to the abolitionist movement because of her observations of the southern community as she was once a southern herself. These observations are highly detailed as if it was fresh from her memories yet these accounts in her memories are at least fourteen years old. Thus it begs the question, did these mistresses really conduct themselves this way according to what Weld had witnessed? Are her memories that reliable? Or are these observations, in how mistresses treated their slaves, facts or exaggerations of the facts? –John Furner <br />
<br />
I think it is likely that these mistresses did conduct themselves in a way very similar to Weld's accounts even though a decent amount of time had passed between when she had witnessed the actions and when she recorded them for publishing. The treatment that she described I believe was very common of the slave owners to not see their slaves as fully human and therefore not treat them as such. However, the treatment that stood out most to me during this entry was how the mistress would not beat the slaves herself but have that slave's brother or sister beat them. I would think this would make them want to act out more.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
As much as I doubt Grimke was lying, as something of an expatriate from Southern society, she had reason to make the South and slavery seem worse than it was, and her own interactions were certainly not the most positive with the institution.--A. Meyer. <br />
<br />
I think another interesting aspect of Weld reading was that the "Cruel Mistress" was a very devoutly religious person and was actively Christian. Though this seems to be contradictory, it just shows (as previously mentioned) that slave owners did not view their slaves as people. The Cruel Mistress did not feel that her Christian charity included African Americans, only white people. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book I was intreged by Sarah Haynesworth Gayle's diary entries. She sounded hurt by the actions of her slaves, as if she considered them to be her wayward children in a way. It goes back to what we discussed in class about the idea that slaveowners believed they were "helping" their slaves and that the slaves owed their masters for that. She sounded very disappointed for instance when some of her slaves started slacking off in their tasks as it were, and then she had to sell one of her favorite slaves because of it. I guess it is one thing to hear it in class and another in writing from the time the idea that they couldnt understand why the slaves would be unhappy. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mary, I was pretty bewildered by Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves. She says "it will not pain me now to part with the negroes... excessive indulgence has ruined them - they are idle yet full of complaints... I doubt if any of them would not believe a change of ownership could benefit them." She seems pretty annoyed at their behavior with this statement. She's almost getting sick of their attitude - and that leads me to what we discussed in class about white thoughts of slaves being like children. Gayle is getting sick of their attitude and is two seconds away from putting them in a time-out; it's just in this case the time-out is being sold to a different owner. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Continuing with what Vanessa and Mary have said, I thought that Gayle's entries excellently demonstrated the seemingly-contradictory attitudes towards slaves as both children and property. Vanessa compares Gayle to a mother frustrated with her wayward children, yet most mothers would still be pained by permanently parting with even the most disagreeable child. It's interesting to see how Gayle goes back and forth between affection and dismissal of her slaves depending on the circumstances. I also noticed that Gayle found some of her own self-worth in the respect of her slaves. She wrote, "I no longer feel confident that my orders will be obeyed, and often when they are the obedience is accompanied by murmuring, sour looks, and often surly language, that almost put me beside myself." She seems to be questioning her own abilities as a result of the slaves' disobedience. What did other people think about this? --Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I agree with Mary, I think that it was interesting that Sarah Haynesworth Gayle was shocked that her slaves would rebell against her because it reflects the ideas we talked about in class where the masters would believe they were helping the slaves and they should be greatful. What also surprised me about this excerpt was that it shows that personal attachments between masters slaves did happen. Maybe these are just superficial attachments that don't really count as friendships, but it's closer than I would have initally thought possible. She made it seem like she cared about her slave Mike and thought about him long after he had gone. This is probably rare, but this shows that it did happen. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I feel as though Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves were originally somewhat atypical. She seemed to really care about her slaves and not really want seem like the overbearing plantation mistress. However, when the slaves began to rebel in minor ways, like we learned in class, I believe her feelings became just. I know this sounds kind of awful, but really, what's the point of having domestic help if they're not going to do anything? Gayle even mentions that her servants were driving her crazy because for about four months they have done absolutely nothing. It kind of shows that shift towards the rebellious nature of slaves and the way they affected their masters in minor ways instead of an all out revolt. - Kelly W <br />
<br />
As Kelly pointed out, you can definitely see a form of slave resistance in the diary of Sarah Haynesworth Gayle. She notes that she doesn't know if her orders will be obeyed, and if they are, they are typically accompanied with murmuring and sour looks. Also, they were sluggish and inattentive. As we've learned through Prof McClurken's lectures, this was a way for a slave to maintain some form of dignity and self-respect.- Lisa W <br />
<br />
In "The Cruel Mistress" by Angelina Weld, I found it shocking how slave adults and children were treated the same when it came to punishment. From a slaveowner's point of view, it would make sense to me that if someone was your "property" that you would want to keep that "property" in the best shape possible, because then from a business perspective, you could get the most use out of "it". This makes me wonder why such drastic beating occurred for minor offenses? Flogging a slave until he/she can't work doesn't help anything. The master would lose money for the time the slave could not work and had to recover from the harsh beating. It is implied that children were severly whipped and harshly scolded, as well. Again, this does not make sense. You would want your "property" to grow big and strong, not take a chance at beating him/her to a bloody pulp and risk killing off such a valuable investment.- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
Woloch’ Book—Reading Louisa S. Cheeves McCord attack on Stowe was a bit difficult to swallow. It seems to me that she plays right into the Patriarchal system of having to assume the role to take care of those less fortunate. Otherwise, she attempts to give credence to southern white man’s burden for the purpose to have slaves. I find it amusing when she writes, “We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless.” (219) Why I find this amusing is that she believes the white race must assume a god like status in the care of the less fortunate, thereby the less fortunate group could only prosper in a civilized world, if they were enslaved by the white race; white man’s burden. However, if the white race were so godlike or given providence as she claims, then why are southern slave owners dependant on slaves for their very existence?—John Furner<br />
<br />
When I read that quote by McCord I immediately thought of paternalism in that they truly believed they were helping the less fortunate who could not care for themselves. She goes on to say that "slavery, even in his own land, is his destiny and his refuge from extinction." --Alex K. <br />
<br />
I had a hard time understanding McCord's arguments. She put forth a conservative viewpoint that did not necessarily match her own power. McCord was educated, managed her own plantation with 200 slaves (until her marriage) and had a public forum for her opinions. She received most of her education in the North. Knowing how deep racism was ingrained in the southern lifestyle, I still expected a more enlightened view from a woman of such independence. -- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
In this week’s readings we see the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse and sexual exploitation of black women. Even whites were morally opposed to the institution of slavery as seen by Mary Chestnut’s diary. I was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women. I knew it was a practice, however I was under the impression that slave breeding was not very popular, and mostly masters relied on natural reproduction. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of slave breeding? In the essay by Jennings, she explicitly discusses the role of white, slave owners in the sexual abuse of women. Did masters rape and abuse women simply because they could or did the sexual stereotypes of African American women of the time (“animal – like”, foreign, African queens, exotic, sexually aggressive, etc.) play into it? How did mistresses react to the relationships between masters and female slaves and illegitimate children? Are there examples of mistresses mistreating a woman she suspected was sleeping with her husband (I know Weld discusses the “cruel mistress” but I did not get the impression that her violence was deemed inappropriate or based on accusations of infidelity). Was there any advantage(s) to sleeping with the master? -Mary Beth D.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mary Beth, having to do with the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse of black men...I too was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women, and thought it was less popular than portrayed in the reading. It was a bit of a surprise to me...-Katie D.<br />
<br />
In regards to slave breeding, I think the white masters forced it upon their slaves for purely economic reasons. Slaves were expensive to buy and they wouldn't have to buy them if they were born into slavery. They wanted the "strong, stoutly" slaves to reproduce with one another so they would have strong children to work for them. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
In Rose William's Story, that deals with an important issue of the extent to which slave owners interfered in slave familty life and encouraged slaves to reproduce...I enjoyed reading how it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children, and child bearing increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the liklihood of her sale and separation from family members. It was in the owners interest to encourage reproduction and thereby increase the extent of his slave property.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
I know that this is going to sound horrible and in many ways wrong, but the slave holders viewed their slaves as property, almost on the same grounds as cattle, right? That being said, maybe in thier minds they saw the breeding of slaves as nothing more then a farmer would see breeding cattle. Making sure the bloodlines were such that the product of the union will be of value and also insuring a certain number of offspring being born. As I said it sounds horrible but who knows what they might have been thinking, wrong thinking seems to be common place for slaveholders. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary. Slave owners did consider their slaves as livestock. If he manages to get a good breeding pair, it would save him a lot of money. If I were Rose, I would have felt sorely tempted to run that hot poker through the master and than Rufus. I admire the fact that Rose can be quite an understanding person. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Rose's story was indeed a very good example of how slave owners envisioned slaves as a very good investment and that the female slaves would indeed reproduce and, in turn, increase the number of slaves on one owner's property without the owner having to pay anything more. I felt bad that the master manipulated Rose, however, but I can completely understand how she felt she owed her master in return for keeping her with her family. It seemed like a very bizarre situation and it makes me wonder, was this typical? Were slaves normally made to feel guilty in order to obey their master, aside from the usual whipping or beating? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I was saddened by Rose's story for a variety of reasons, but I particularly noticed her choice never to marry because "one 'sperience am 'nough for dis nigger. After what I does for de massa, I's never wants no truck with any man." I wonder if it was common for women used in such a way at a young age to avoid sexual relations permanently. --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the readings one of the things that stood out the most to me was in Modern Problems the article by Mrs. Virgina Hayes Shepard when she mentions Diana. I was surprised to see that when the master went to Diana to have sexual relations with her Diana actually went to her mistress for help. I thought that white mistresses would react badly to the idea that their husbands would be sleeping with the slaves but in DIana's case the mistress sympathized instead of becoming angry. It is stated that in part this is because she was also afraid of her husband. Is it possible that this is more common than we know because both the slave women and the mistresses were scared to bring it up?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I think that Diana would be the exception to the rule. In class we talked about how severe racial hierarchy was and while both women and African Americans were oppressed they did not form a bond. I think that white women more frequently used slaves to exercise the limited power to which they had access (like in Cruel Mistress). -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I thought the document titled "Lucinda, a Free Woman, Asks to Be Reenslaved" was really interesting. She probably thought about what her life would be like for her as a free Black woman, and she probably realized that there weren't that she wouldn't have a very good life. Her life as a slave might be slightly better than her life as a free Black woman because as a slave she was with her husband, had a small place to live and got some food. Her situation is similar to the situation of some criminals today. Sometimes criminals who have just been released from jail want to go right back to jail, because they might have a better life in jail than out of it. In jail, they at least have a roof over their head and food to eat. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I too was intrigued with Lucinda's plea to be reenslaved. I'm not sure I would say that she thought life would be "better" for her in slavery but rather perhaps she understood that in slvary she would find some sense of security. She would be reunited with her husband but at the same time there was no telling that he wouldn't be sold to another owner at some later point in time. I think it's difficult to understand or identitfy what Lucinda's rationing was in asking to be reenslaved other than the fact that she would be reunited with her husband.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I agree with Katherine. Lucinda probably felt like life would be too difficult for her in a state she wasn't familiar with and with people she didn't know. It would be difficult and scary to leave behind everything you know. It is also interesting to see a relationship of obvious affection if not love between slaves on different farms. However, why doesn't the book tell us what happens? I think the decision made by the commonwealth would be really interesting to read. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
I have a question - Lucinda petitioned to be reenslaved so that she could be with her husband; she didn't want to be sent off somewhere so she could be free and leave him where he was. How typical was this? Is this an abnormal situation or were emancipated slaves really asking for this sort of treatment regularly? I feel as though this would be somewhat bizarre but I could be wrong. Thoughts? Answers? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I realize this may be a dumb question but here it goes anyway, why are there such discrepancies among masters and their treatment of slaves? Are there any similiarities or connections among slave owners who were "kinder" to their slaves or among those masters who were unbearable? Were some more religious than others, did the age of the master play a role, the location, etc.? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was rather intrigued by the contrasting essays on freed black women, in Major Problems in American Women’s History. The first essay that should the devotion and love a freed slave had for her husband was very heart warming. She was willing to give up freedom in order to be with her love. Then there are the next two essays that inspire free slave women to rally together and free all the slaves. These last two essays cause me to believe that these women were highly educated because of the language they use to inspire others.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Wow. The essay that "Implores Other Free Black Women" to sign a petition to end slavery in D.C. is not so much imploring as yelling. I felt ashamed and lazy just reading it! This is really powerful writing and it is really very different from what I would have expected. The writer is obviously well educated, especially since they claim to be not only a woman but black as well. --Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison. The woman who wrote this obviously well educated, and she practically accuses all readers that they are slaves themselves - "a slave to hardness of heart." She's got some powerful words coming into play in this essay but she almost gets to the point of offensive. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Thelma Jennings essay, "The Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women," really hits home all the major points of this topic we discussed in class. Like the idea of female slaves having a tougher life than male slaves because not only did they have to do the work equal of men, but they also had to bear and raise children and also "cope with sexual abuse" by their masters. And the idea of "slave breeding" affected the family life too - it "made it very difficult for couples to establish family relationships." The whole female gender role system we often place on women of modern times and white women of the period is completely disrupted and destroyed for black slave women. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I was a bit confused by something in the reading that seemed contradictory. In the author's description of the "Rose William's Story" piece, he explains that it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children because it increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the likelihood of her sale and separation from family members. Then in the essay by Thelma Jennings she talks about women who practiced crude methods of birth control and abortion and inducing miscarriages as a form of passive resistance. She explains that this was common in a time when childbirth was dangerous and children could be sold at the master's whim. So which is it? Can it be both? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
Its interesting to see the distinction between religious life of slaves and free-blacks. Rose Williams stated, "Church? Shucks, we-uns don't know what that means." Whereas for Mary Still, organized religion is a big deal. It was also interesting to see how "A Colored Woman" calls people slaves -slaves to their hard hearts. Although I think her condemnation of many who seem apathetic is maybe a bit out of place. Those free-blacks probably had a pretty good sense that their freedom was not necessarily set in stone, and if by some unfortunate circumstance they were to be enslaved, I don't think there would have been much of an investigation. At the same time, her sense of urgency and power, though, are probably necessary to get people to act. -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
In Sarah Haynesworth Gayle’s diary I wonder what “excessive indulgences” she was referring to that had made her slaves lazy, full of complaints, and defensive. Sarah later blames her parents for her slaves disobeying her twenty-five years later because as a child her parents prevented her from abusing them. When Sarah describes how she was unfairly treated by her parents compared to the slaves she sounds like a child who is jealous of an older sibling. Sarah Gayle also seems to have less control over her life than other women we’ve read about. For instance in another diary entry she writes about being too afraid to ask her husband where they are going to move and seems to accept the fact that he will make the decision without her input. -Caitlin Quinn</div>199.111.68.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T02:59:48Z<p>199.111.68.63: </p>
<hr />
<div> -- Major Problems, 1-23<br />
<br />
The first essay mentions how women were once only seen as important to history because of their relation to important men. A prime example of this is our University. Mary Washington is recognized solely as the mother of George Washington. She is seen as important because of her son not because of any of her own actions. -- Allison<br />
<br />
I think Allison makes an excellent point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie History Boys. The quote is from the woman history teacher who says, "History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket." She may have some feminist tendencies when saying this, but I think it can be a relevant quote for what Kate Haulman is saying in her essay and the point Allison made. -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
One of my other professors mentioned that history is constantly being reinterpreted and rewritten, so can any of the questions represented by this book ever actually be answered to everyone's satisfaction? -- Allison<br />
<br />
In response to Allison's question: I think that you have a good point. I seriously doubt that any of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Like in all things there will always be someone who is not satisfied, someone who continues to look for another way to answer the question. Its human nature. You can see that just looking at the essays, even though the historians writing this are all involved in women's history they all have different ideas of how you should go about it and what you should focus on. --Mary<br />
<br />
There was one section while reading that stood out for me and that was the part on page twelve about equality and difference. I found it interesting that she should mention the idea that so often in the search for women's "equality" women want to be treated as if they were men and often over look the differences between men and women because they have often been used as a basis for discimination. While this section was very confusing, in my opinion at least, just because of the strong and opposing opinions about the subject, personally I think that just because a woman wants to be seen as an equal to a man in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law that is no reason to set aside her femininity. --Mary<br />
<br />
In regards to Mary's comment, I agree that equality should never be awarded based on one's femininity. The dichotomy was a contrast between feminists who deny difference between males and females and those who use their differences as a strength or access to power. I think it is vital to realize that "femininity" is a construct that has been forced upon women. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" have regulated gender politics and certainly there is nothing wrong with expressing either- but they are just labels that have been oppressive to those who wish to transcend their designated gender roles. I think that there would be value in discussing from where "femininity" stems and how free thought is and has been affected by this construct. --Kelly<br />
<br />
I'd like to pose a question of opinion, if permitted, in response to Mary's and Kelly's comments. It's a situation that I know many instances of and wonder about what everyone else thinks of it. Woman A wants to go to college, get a degree, and continue her education (perhaps to get a masters or doctorate). She hopes to achieve a full and lengthy career while maintaining a family life. Woman B wants to finish college but her main goal is to start a family and stay at home to take care of her children and the household. She has no desire for a career and is more than satisfied with her life as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker. I don't really have a follow-up question other than to open the floor to opinion, but is there anything wrong with either woman's goals and should either be seen as less-equal or more equal than the other? -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
In response to Vanessa's comment, I don't believe the issue should be whether or not one woman's goals are more or less equal to those of the other woman. The important issue is that women have the choice to pursue an education and career and/or they have the choice to become mothers and care for their households. We have come a long way in history considering the choice was not always there. -- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth. In the 1950s the typical family dynamic was a stay at home mom (homemaker) and a father who worked (the breadwinner). "The Problem That Has No Name" written by Betty Friedan speaks to women who had no other options than to raise the children and be the homemaker. That is what society told them they had to/should do at that time. "The Problem" was that many women became depressed and wanted more from their life. I don't mean to down homemakers at all. Rather, I say this because women did not have a real choice then. Like Elizabeth said though, now women have more choices. Both homemakers and career women should be valued for their work. --Alex<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth but also think that looking at what influences a woman's life goal could potentially be telling. I would be curious about how the goals of Woman A and B have been supported by their peers, the media, and other outside forces. --Kelly <br />
<br />
I have been a stay at home mom but I also held a part-time job if hours that were different from my husbands. This was a way I could balanace a career and be a mother at the same time. It was difficult but I had plenty of support from my family, peers and others. The only thing I put on hold was my education. Hopefully this coming spring I will graduate.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Women's history has come a long way. I agree with Gerda Lerner when she says "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians." (p.8). There is something about the neglect of women's studies that makes us want to focus even more on their history. --Katie<br />
<br />
Speaking of Gerda Lerner, she was a speaker during last years women's history month here on campus. I went to hear her speak and she was a really strong, intelligent and persistent women. She spoke of the Seneca Falls Convention and the Declaration of Sentiments written there advocating for the women's rights. In addition, she also addressed the women's movement stereotype that it only involved white middle class women. She mentioned that the working class, blacks and some men were also involved. Lerner also noted that although the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to be passed, she does not feel that it would be the magic ticket to solve all women’s issues. She stressed that legal reforms/changes are not enough. Social support and cultural transformation is needed. The attitudes of men and women alike need to change in support of these issues. Knowing women’s history is a major step in the right direction. Lerner basically founded women’s history programs, stressing that we have a right to know our own history. --Alex<br />
<br />
Knowing that it is gender that defines "man" and "woman", or "male" and "female", what exactly truely defines the category "women"? --Katie<br />
<br />
I believe that when studying women's history it is easy to get caught up in the oppression of women. It's important to remember that not all cultures were as oppressive over women as were European societies. We know that many Native American women had a stronger role in soceity than most European women. This is not to say that women were never oppressed, rather that depending on the soceity of study, women's roles were different.-- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment: I definitely agree. In fact, while I was reading the essays, I kept reminding myself about the different situations of women throughout history, like Native Americans as you mentioned. However, not focusing on oppression is sometimes hard to do as Leslie Alexander points out, some scholars seek to incoroporate race into their studies and end up "focusing exclusively on oppression" (20).--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
In her essay Alexander argued that historians are "reluctant to explore how the reality of race influences Black women's lives." What is the cause of this reluctance? Can this statement also be applied to all minority women? - Fiona<br />
<br />
The authors argue that women's history needs to be examined from multiple angles: class, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, work, etc. Is this possible? Would it still be women's history or would it become something like African American women's history or Latino women's history? - Fiona<br />
<br />
Elaborating on Fiona's questions, how do we define any group for the purpose of studying its history? How does one draw important distinctions (class, race, age, etc.) while not creating a focus so narrow or specific as to be impractical for study as a group? Also, Gisela Bock refers to the emergence of "men's history" and "men's studies." Has anyone actually witnesses any examples of this? -Ashley<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
As Cheryl states below, the preface states the basic reasons that this topic came into play. 1) the feminist movement in the 1960s and 2) women began to enter into the field of history and historical study as a result of employment opportunities that they had not previously been given. And one reason seems to be the result of the other. - Kelly W.<br />
<br />
In the preface of the book, more details are given about the study of women's histroy.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I was actually curious about the same thing. I believe one of the authors mentioned that the field of study stretched all the way back to the 1950s (I could be wrong). That being said, with the ever-changing role of women in society, how do you think the study of women's history has changed since its beginning and how do you think it will change in the future?--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
To comment on Allison’s Mary Washington statement that opened this discussion, Bock’s essay makes a great point in her public v. private dichotomy. She says, “male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared, and cared for by the women’s labor”(10). Thus, George is a public reflection of Mary’s private raising. We are able to see the woman Mary was through the man George became.--Lisa<br />
<br />
How does one determine what is gender neutral? Especially when it comes to applying gender neutrallity to laws that invovled violence like rape and battery?--Cheryl<br />
<br />
There is a comment somewhere amongst these essays that states that women’s history is a compilation of only the exceptional women from history, thus creating a history that is unrepresentative of every woman. Isn’t most history (not just women’s history) we read that of the extraordinary and not the commonplace?--Lisa<br />
<br />
In response to your question, Lisa, I'd have to agree with you on that one. Most history we study from grade school through our current education focuses primarily on major events, not only of women, but of men as well. Discussions are always based on the extraordinary and the only way we tap into the lives of the commonplace is by digging for primary sources and analyzing what we can. I feel however, that the field is slowly beginning to expand and bring the commonplace closer to the center. (I think that made sense). - Kelly W <br />
<br />
In her essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," Gisela Bock states that women appeared front and center in the historian's eye because of their subjectivity and that "women are not only victims but also actively shape their own lives, society and history." How does everyone feel about this statement? Do you agree that it was also partly at the fault of women that the gender was not previously studied? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
It was actually a surprise to me how indepth the discussion of "women's history" really is. I had always been under the simple assumption that women's history was just precisely that: history of women. The reality that such a two word phrase would contain so many issues regarding gender, race, class... appears very important, despite my previous assumptions. The idea that women's history was actually 'white women's history' was an observation that jumped out at me. It seems so easy to fight for a perspective/focus in history with the goal of some type of equality while at the same time ignoring a whole type of inequality in your focus. The sections dealing with the multiple dichotomies was very interesting, considering how even today such phrases are used. In the case of "work and family," its interesting to see how a practical consideration of "paid and unpaid work" was given a more ethical/moral (perhaps even a religious/theological one?) with the phrase "work and family" -it makes me wonder what other dichotomies in society that seem to be ethical or social values are at base purely practical ones. --Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
I would first like to start by commenting to Allison’s opening statement about women’s history in relation to men and would like to throw out another question. Considering the time period we are focusing on in this class and the mostly male-dominated/patriarchal society of the time is it contextually appropriate to only focus on women without considering important men both publicly and privately in women’s lives? I think Haulman brings up an extremely important part of understanding women’s historiography and that was the need and desire to have a history of all types, classes, races, etc. of women but can we do that without some comparison to men? (particularly in this half of the course). I also think Haulman, Castaneda, and Alexander brought up an important point about titles and incorporating women of color. In my research for my 299 paper I came across research and studies about minority groups in the 1960s women’s movement, how they viewed the women’s movement, how they participated, and how they viewed the predominantly white, middle class woman’s struggle compared to theirs. It made me think of other titles such as the “History of African Americans” and what that title would mean broken down. ----Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting in Antonia Castaneda's essay how she mentions that the women, who wrote the history of women in the West, only wrote about white women. I think that it is difficult to write a through history of women in the West without highlighting the accomplishments of Native American, Hispanic and Asian women. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Going along with Katherine's comment, think of how little we know about the American (and when I say American I mean US) southeast and the Native American tribes. Most of what we are taught is that they were fighting a battle they were ultimately going to lose -- isn't most history biased in that sort of way and not just women's history? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting how Leslie Alexander mentions that the feminist movement was not very successful with African American women. It was not successful because African American families were very close knit and the movement required women to distance themselves a little bit from their families. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me the most in the reading was the section about equality versus difference. As I was reading it I kept thinking Why is it so difficult for women to be equal. I believe that we (as women) should not be treated exactly like men because we are different and have different issues that cannot be addressed that way, such as what was mentioned in the text of rape, abortion, and spousal abuse (pg12). I think Bock's question of "why is it, for instance, that "equality" and "justice" seem to complement each other in the case of men, but be opposed to each other in the case of women." (pg12) is a very important question and sums up the women's struggle to be visible. ~Mary Beth C~<br />
<br />
I found the various references to the complications of writing to represent a whole sex interesting. The progression from the inclusion of "important and influential" figures in women's history, to a history that strives to incorporate the vast meanings of what it means to be a woman in all respects in all periods is daunting, if not hopeless. But, striving for such complete understanding seems to be a crucial goal of the modern historian. Diversity of study is finding an important prominence, but in such the danger of dilution of the subject field becomes apparent. -- Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
Vanessa's question hit on an issue that we're starting to see the pendulum sort of swing in the opposite direction on, but for so long we have only wanted to talk about and recognize the active and "exciting" action taking parts of history. No one wants to talk about keeping a family on the homefront or making the parts for the planes that dropped the bombs, they want to talk about flying in to drop the bombs. At the same time, as we try to recognize the importance of raising families, and women like Abigail Adams who were intellectually advanced and deserve credit for being recognized as leaders within their own time, we neglect to give attention to women who assumed active roles equal or comparable to male roles--why do we know Jack Jouett and Paul Revere, but we don't know Sybil Luddington and Dicey Langston? Women's history seems to have gone to extremes, resulting in attention being devoted most unequally. --Andrea<br />
<br />
Bock and Haulman seemed to do an excellent job of articulating key themes in gender and women's studies, themes I have not seen articulated as succintly and clearly elsewhere. Bock's numbered themes simply identify issues my women's studies class spent weeks discussing, issues that I believe we will find continually reappear and connect in subtle ways we would never anticipate...These are issues that apply to other minorities on some level in many situations--like the integration discussion. Are any neglected/minority accounts of history better taught on their own independently or better off integrated into mainstream history? African American, Latino or even Irish History/Studies could easily be substituted for Women's Studies/History in many of these essays. Haulman's explanation of the sexuality nature vs. nurture debate is significantly clearer than the essays used in the same series' book on Sexual History by Weeks and Rictor Norton, which fail to address many examples like mannerisms, which Haulman uses well. Leslie Alexander's discussion of historians' use of the contributionist model with African American history also seemed to apply to women's history in general, or really any history that's been neglected from the "Dead White Men" version of history. It made me realize that women's history really is discussed in terms of contributions or assistance or help, never in terms of achievements or actions, contrary to the "he did" history of DWM. That thought left me frustrated and asking "What would Gerda say?" (besides to keep insisting on the recognition of obscure minority examples of women which derail Dr. McClurken's classes). --Andrea</div>199.111.68.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T02:40:13Z<p>199.111.68.63: </p>
<hr />
<div> -- Major Problems, 1-23<br />
<br />
The first essay mentions how women were once only seen as important to history because of their relation to important men. A prime example of this is our University. Mary Washington is recognized solely as the mother of George Washington. She is seen as important because of her son not because of any of her own actions. -- Allison<br />
<br />
I think Allison makes an excellent point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie History Boys. The quote is from the woman history teacher who says, "History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket." She may have some feminist tendencies when saying this, but I think it can be a relevant quote for what Kate Haulman is saying in her essay and the point Allison made. -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
One of my other professors mentioned that history is constantly being reinterpreted and rewritten, so can any of the questions represented by this book ever actually be answered to everyone's satisfaction? -- Allison<br />
<br />
In response to Allison's question: I think that you have a good point. I seriously doubt that any of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Like in all things there will always be someone who is not satisfied, someone who continues to look for another way to answer the question. Its human nature. You can see that just looking at the essays, even though the historians writing this are all involved in women's history they all have different ideas of how you should go about it and what you should focus on. --Mary<br />
<br />
There was one section while reading that stood out for me and that was the part on page twelve about equality and difference. I found it interesting that she should mention the idea that so often in the search for women's "equality" women want to be treated as if they were men and often over look the differences between men and women because they have often been used as a basis for discimination. While this section was very confusing, in my opinion at least, just because of the strong and opposing opinions about the subject, personally I think that just because a woman wants to be seen as an equal to a man in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law that is no reason to set aside her femininity. --Mary<br />
<br />
In regards to Mary's comment, I agree that equality should never be awarded based on one's femininity. The dichotomy was a contrast between feminists who deny difference between males and females and those who use their differences as a strength or access to power. I think it is vital to realize that "femininity" is a construct that has been forced upon women. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" have regulated gender politics and certainly there is nothing wrong with expressing either- but they are just labels that have been oppressive to those who wish to transcend their designated gender roles. I think that there would be value in discussing from where "femininity" stems and how free thought is and has been affected by this construct. --Kelly<br />
<br />
I'd like to pose a question of opinion, if permitted, in response to Mary's and Kelly's comments. It's a situation that I know many instances of and wonder about what everyone else thinks of it. Woman A wants to go to college, get a degree, and continue her education (perhaps to get a masters or doctorate). She hopes to achieve a full and lengthy career while maintaining a family life. Woman B wants to finish college but her main goal is to start a family and stay at home to take care of her children and the household. She has no desire for a career and is more than satisfied with her life as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker. I don't really have a follow-up question other than to open the floor to opinion, but is there anything wrong with either woman's goals and should either be seen as less-equal or more equal than the other? -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
In response to Vanessa's comment, I don't believe the issue should be whether or not one woman's goals are more or less equal to those of the other woman. The important issue is that women have the choice to pursue an education and career and/or they have the choice to become mothers and care for their households. We have come a long way in history considering the choice was not always there. -- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth. In the 1950s the typical family dynamic was a stay at home mom (homemaker) and a father who worked (the breadwinner). "The Problem That Has No Name" written by Betty Friedan speaks to women who had no other options than to raise the children and be the homemaker. That is what society told them they had to/should do at that time. "The Problem" was that many women became depressed and wanted more from their life. I don't mean to down homemakers at all. Rather, I say this because women did not have a real choice then. Like Elizabeth said though, now women have more choices. Both homemakers and career women should be valued for their work. --Alex<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth but also think that looking at what influences a woman's life goal could potentially be telling. I would be curious about how the goals of Woman A and B have been supported by their peers, the media, and other outside forces. --Kelly <br />
<br />
I have been a stay at home mom but I also held a part-time job if hours that were different from my husbands. This was a way I could balanace a career and be a mother at the same time. It was difficult but I had plenty of support from my family, peers and others. The only thing I put on hold was my education. Hopefully this coming spring I will graduate.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Women's history has come a long way. I agree with Gerda Lerner when she says "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians." (p.8). There is something about the neglect of women's studies that makes us want to focus even more on their history. --Katie<br />
<br />
Speaking of Gerda Lerner, she was a speaker during last years women's history month here on campus. I went to hear her speak and she was a really strong, intelligent and persistent women. She spoke of the Seneca Falls Convention and the Declaration of Sentiments written there advocating for the women's rights. In addition, she also addressed the women's movement stereotype that it only involved white middle class women. She mentioned that the working class, blacks and some men were also involved. Lerner also noted that although the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to be passed, she does not feel that it would be the magic ticket to solve all women’s issues. She stressed that legal reforms/changes are not enough. Social support and cultural transformation is needed. The attitudes of men and women alike need to change in support of these issues. Knowing women’s history is a major step in the right direction. Lerner basically founded women’s history programs, stressing that we have a right to know our own history. --Alex<br />
<br />
Knowing that it is gender that defines "man" and "woman", or "male" and "female", what exactly truely defines the category "women"? --Katie<br />
<br />
I believe that when studying women's history it is easy to get caught up in the oppression of women. It's important to remember that not all cultures were as oppressive over women as were European societies. We know that many Native American women had a stronger role in soceity than most European women. This is not to say that women were never oppressed, rather that depending on the soceity of study, women's roles were different.-- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment: I definitely agree. In fact, while I was reading the essays, I kept reminding myself about the different situations of women throughout history, like Native Americans as you mentioned. However, not focusing on oppression is sometimes hard to do as Leslie Alexander points out, some scholars seek to incoroporate race into their studies and end up "focusing exclusively on oppression" (20).--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
In her essay Alexander argued that historians are "reluctant to explore how the reality of race influences Black women's lives." What is the cause of this reluctance? Can this statement also be applied to all minority women? - Fiona<br />
<br />
The authors argue that women's history needs to be examined from multiple angles: class, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, work, etc. Is this possible? Would it still be women's history or would it become something like African American women's history or Latino women's history? - Fiona<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
As Cheryl states below, the preface states the basic reasons that this topic came into play. 1) the feminist movement in the 1960s and 2) women began to enter into the field of history and historical study as a result of employment opportunities that they had not previously been given. And one reason seems to be the result of the other. - Kelly W.<br />
<br />
In the preface of the book, more details are given about the study of women's histroy.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I was actually curious about the same thing. I believe one of the authors mentioned that the field of study stretched all the way back to the 1950s (I could be wrong). That being said, with the ever-changing role of women in society, how do you think the study of women's history has changed since its beginning and how do you think it will change in the future?--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
To comment on Allison’s Mary Washington statement that opened this discussion, Bock’s essay makes a great point in her public v. private dichotomy. She says, “male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared, and cared for by the women’s labor”(10). Thus, George is a public reflection of Mary’s private raising. We are able to see the woman Mary was through the man George became.--Lisa<br />
<br />
How does one determine what is gender neutral? Especially when it comes to applying gender neutrallity to laws that invovled violence like rape and battery?--Cheryl<br />
<br />
There is a comment somewhere amongst these essays that states that women’s history is a compilation of only the exceptional women from history, thus creating a history that is unrepresentative of every woman. Isn’t most history (not just women’s history) we read that of the extraordinary and not the commonplace?--Lisa<br />
<br />
In response to your question, Lisa, I'd have to agree with you on that one. Most history we study from grade school through our current education focuses primarily on major events, not only of women, but of men as well. Discussions are always based on the extraordinary and the only way we tap into the lives of the commonplace is by digging for primary sources and analyzing what we can. I feel however, that the field is slowly beginning to expand and bring the commonplace closer to the center. (I think that made sense). - Kelly W <br />
<br />
In her essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," Gisela Bock states that women appeared front and center in the historian's eye because of their subjectivity and that "women are not only victims but also actively shape their own lives, society and history." How does everyone feel about this statement? Do you agree that it was also partly at the fault of women that the gender was not previously studied? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
It was actually a surprise to me how indepth the discussion of "women's history" really is. I had always been under the simple assumption that women's history was just precisely that: history of women. The reality that such a two word phrase would contain so many issues regarding gender, race, class... appears very important, despite my previous assumptions. The idea that women's history was actually 'white women's history' was an observation that jumped out at me. It seems so easy to fight for a perspective/focus in history with the goal of some type of equality while at the same time ignoring a whole type of inequality in your focus. The sections dealing with the multiple dichotomies was very interesting, considering how even today such phrases are used. In the case of "work and family," its interesting to see how a practical consideration of "paid and unpaid work" was given a more ethical/moral (perhaps even a religious/theological one?) with the phrase "work and family" -it makes me wonder what other dichotomies in society that seem to be ethical or social values are at base purely practical ones. --Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
I would first like to start by commenting to Allison’s opening statement about women’s history in relation to men and would like to throw out another question. Considering the time period we are focusing on in this class and the mostly male-dominated/patriarchal society of the time is it contextually appropriate to only focus on women without considering important men both publicly and privately in women’s lives? I think Haulman brings up an extremely important part of understanding women’s historiography and that was the need and desire to have a history of all types, classes, races, etc. of women but can we do that without some comparison to men? (particularly in this half of the course). I also think Haulman, Castaneda, and Alexander brought up an important point about titles and incorporating women of color. In my research for my 299 paper I came across research and studies about minority groups in the 1960s women’s movement, how they viewed the women’s movement, how they participated, and how they viewed the predominantly white, middle class woman’s struggle compared to theirs. It made me think of other titles such as the “History of African Americans” and what that title would mean broken down. ----Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting in Antonia Castaneda's essay how she mentions that the women, who wrote the history of women in the West, only wrote about white women. I think that it is difficult to write a through history of women in the West without highlighting the accomplishments of Native American, Hispanic and Asian women. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Going along with Katherine's comment, think of how little we know about the American (and when I say American I mean US) southeast and the Native American tribes. Most of what we are taught is that they were fighting a battle they were ultimately going to lose -- isn't most history biased in that sort of way and not just women's history? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting how Leslie Alexander mentions that the feminist movement was not very successful with African American women. It was not successful because African American families were very close knit and the movement required women to distance themselves a little bit from their families. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me the most in the reading was the section about equality versus difference. As I was reading it I kept thinking Why is it so difficult for women to be equal. I believe that we (as women) should not be treated exactly like men because we are different and have different issues that cannot be addressed that way, such as what was mentioned in the text of rape, abortion, and spousal abuse (pg12). I think Bock's question of "why is it, for instance, that "equality" and "justice" seem to complement each other in the case of men, but be opposed to each other in the case of women." (pg12) is a very important question and sums up the women's struggle to be visible. ~Mary Beth C~<br />
<br />
I found the various references to the complications of writing to represent a whole sex interesting. The progression from the inclusion of "important and influential" figures in women's history, to a history that strives to incorporate the vast meanings of what it means to be a woman in all respects in all periods is daunting, if not hopeless. But, striving for such complete understanding seems to be a crucial goal of the modern historian. Diversity of study is finding an important prominence, but in such the danger of dilution of the subject field becomes apparent. -- Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
Vanessa's question hit on an issue that we're starting to see the pendulum sort of swing in the opposite direction on, but for so long we have only wanted to talk about and recognize the active and "exciting" action taking parts of history. No one wants to talk about keeping a family on the homefront or making the parts for the planes that dropped the bombs, they want to talk about flying in to drop the bombs. At the same time, as we try to recognize the importance of raising families, and women like Abigail Adams who were intellectually advanced and deserve credit for being recognized as leaders within their own time, we neglect to give attention to women who assumed active roles equal or comparable to male roles--why do we know Jack Jouett and Paul Revere, but we don't know Sybil Luddington and Dicey Langston? Women's history seems to have gone to extremes, resulting in attention being devoted most unequally. --Andrea</div>199.111.68.63 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