Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=199.111.71.104McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:33:23ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments328--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-02-07T03:58:52Z<p>199.111.71.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>While reading the primary source documents of the ''Modern American Women'' I found it a bit disconcerting that the women were so similar to the women of today. It is kind of a shame that history repeats itself so fully. I suppose it is evidence that change is gradual and more of an evolution. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Although it was an interesting study, Linda Gordon's study "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890-1945" came very close to simply listing the differences between the two races of activists. Her conclusions did not seem to have a lot of depth. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Justin Mattos on his comment about Linda Gordon's essay. I too felt that that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion. However, I do believe to have a better sense of what was happening, it is good to know that just because welfare groups existed, they didn't all go after the same things. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It does seem like she just listed the differences between the two groups of reformers, however once I saw the tables in the back I was impressed. Until I saw those tables it hadnt sunk in that Gordon actually went back and found real women activist and studied them. Maybe I am just not used to studying history but I thought that was pretty cool. After i saw those tables with the lists of actual women activists I looked at the reading in a whole different light. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I also observed in the primary source documents of ''Modern American Women'' that the stereotypes of women have only changed slightly today. Women are still thought to be more fragile than men, and there is still a need to protect them from harm. It has only been within the last decade that the idea of a working women has gained mainstream acceptance. I wonder if this observation stems from the fact that the primary source documents that I read were from the perspective of educated women. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Chapter 14 of Unequal Sisters deals with the differences in welfare activism between African American and white women. Gordon points out that white women had more of an ability to work politically and seek donations from those who would be more able to help (i.e. congressional representatives or other political figures) while the African American women focused their activities around the community and church. She continues, to point out that white women activists focused more on charity and relief while black women sought to provide for more universal needs such as education and health. If there were poor or unfortunate people in both groups (black and white), why is it that white women activists focused on particular people while black women activists focused on reform that is more general? Did societal norms during this time make it more inappropriate to provide individual charity to black women? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read “Speaking out Against Lynching” by Ida B. Wells. She discusses the harsh punishments that African Americans were subjected to due to the stereotypes that white men and women held. On p age 15 she states, “With the Southern white man, any misalliance existing between a white woman and a colored man is a sufficient foundation for the charge of rape. The southern white man says that it is impossible for a voluntary alliance to exist between a white woman and a colored man, and therefore, the fact of an alliance is a proof of force.” Given this, would it also be considered rape if it were a black woman and a white man? Moreover, who would be at fault, would it be the man forcing himself onto the woman, or the woman because she is black? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading by Wells was interesting. She only discusses the accusations that black men were raping white women. She never mentions black women being raped. Was it just something that they didn't talk about or something that they just took as a fact of life during those times? I thought it interesting that discussing how black men were falsely accused of rape and lynched even when it was well known at the time that it was a concentual relationship, but then went on to say that even when the white man left for war he left the white women to be protected by the black men. So why all of a sudden is the lynching of black men on the rise? Was it because now they were free and more like competition to the whites than they had been before?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth, I do think that to some extent the lynching of black was due to competition, but also due to fear. Before the African Americans were free, white men had never considered them to be a threat. When they left home they trusted that they would return with their home and family in the same state. It never crossed their minds that it would be possible for their family to be in danger because there had never been any reason to mistrust. Wells states on page 15 that "the world has accepted the story that the Negro is a monster which the Southern white man has painted him." With this image that is created, when the African Americans are free, the white men thus see it as the release of "a monster" and they no longer feel safe and trustworthy as they did before, when "the monster" was contained. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also found the reading on Wells interesting. In response to Mary Beth's point about the black women not officially being raped I believe it has some background in the idea that black women were naturally more passionate (less pure) than white women and therefore couldn't be raped because they would still be willing to have that relationship. I also agree with Jessica in that i think the lynching increased because there was a greater amount of fear now about the black community being free and the white community felt the need to use fear to control them. Likewise, in the South (where lynching was common) it might have been a way for the white community to maintain control and limit the amount of change that took place despite slavery being over. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to Jessica's question, I think that white women were able to focus more on specific groups, because unlike black women, white women just had to focus on issues of sexual inequality whereas black women had the issues of sexual AND racial inequality going against them, as well as establishing themselves in a newly free world. Chapter 14 of Unequal Sister does highlight that the two major focus point for black women groups was education and health care. These were issues that obviously had to be taken care of after slavery because the whites weren't going to provide it fully for them (yes, a lot of groups DID help) but they knew they had to rely on themselves(as the article shows) to fully develop and not remain stagnant and looked down upon by the white community.- Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
I also found in interesting in Gordon's piece on Welfare that she notes one specific difference. She states that the white groups that were looking for reform were looking at people "other" than themselves. They saw themselves as helping people less fortunate than themselves but still with a "moral" aspect between who was the "worthy and the unworthy poor" (pg 225). In contrast the black groups focused on middle class and poor blacks. The black groups also focused more on education and health instead of charitys like the whites. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
After reading ''Modern American Women'' I do agree with my classmates on how the perception of women has not changed drastically. It is now socially acceptable for a women to go off into the business world and make a name for herself. Even jobs such a teacher and a nurse that were considered women's work are still dominated today by women. Since I am an education major I go into a lot of elementary schools and the staff is female dominated. I think it is wrong that today where anyone can be anything, people still stereotype jobs and classify things as mens work or females work. This eve goes beyond the adults of the nation. We start these stereotypes early in children's lives. I have always remembered when I was younger and would go to Mc Donalds they would ask "would you like a girl toy or a boy toy?" Sometimes yeah I wanted the princess toy but other times I also wanted the hot wheels car. It is so disturbing to know that we are still dealing with this issue. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading the article on Women's welfare activism,I too felt that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion.However on the second page of the article, it talks about the differences of how white and black women were raising money. It says oh of course women raise money but they were also so busy attending White House conferences and correspondence with Supreme Court Justices and the black women it just states they organized bake sales, rummage sales and church dinners. I guess after reading this my biggest pet peeve is that yes white women did have more power in society. However, its not like there were no black women doing the same things. I just don't like how these women are talked down, for what they had their time was just as well spent as a white women. This really just made me feel that white women were more interested in their social lives or making them selves look better and black women worked as a team, they worked for the well being of everyone. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
While reading Chapter 14, I began to think about the possibly that the difference between the perspective of white women and black women on the poor that they helped was a matter of progression or evolution. As the black women received more power, it seemed that they became more like the white women and began to explicitly look down on the poorer black social classes. I saw this occurrence when the author talked about the views of the black poor by educated black women being the same as white women.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
While reading MAW, I came across an exert from Ida B. Wells, which in truth makes sense, but I didn't expect to see exert from something I have read in the past. There piece of the article here touched me almost as much as it touched me then. The black women were not treated equally in any light, and were not considered to be able to be 'raped' because they were not pure and pious like the white women. Part of that comes through in the last paragraph of the exert. It makes me mad to think that people once thought like this, but what is even more scary is some people still do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
After reading a bit more in the Modern American Women book, I find myself getting emotionally involved with the information presented. I felt anger towards the father who was treating his daughter like a sack of trash in "An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World." I felt heartbroke when he slapped her because she was leaving. At the same time I know this happened a lot towards women... and it breaks my heart to know what some women had to go through. I've been lucky to have a father who was supportive in everything I chose and only opposed my decisions when they were bad decisions. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Ashley since I was also touched by some of the readings in Modern American Women. I also was upset at the way the young girl was treated by her father in "An Immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World". I always knew parents treated their daughters in such a harsh way at times, but it was very hard to see how harshly she was treated. I have to say if I was in her position I also would have left home. Though I did enjoy how she points out that she got in so much trouble for taking the girls word that they would get the 2 cents she owed when she says her dad had given away a lot more merchandise without any payment at all. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Bertha Palmer's speech at the opening of the Women's Building was so progressive except for the part where she says: "It willing acknowledges that the industries, arts, and commerce of the world have been for centuries in the hands of men who have carefully trained themselves for the responsibilities devolving upon them, and who have, consequently, without question, contributed vastly more than women to the valuable thought, research, invention, science, art and literature, which have become the rich heritage of the human race." Does she actually believe this? Or is she catering to what the public will most except in order to support her movement? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter) story very interesting as far as the existance of two worlds (old/new) for young immigrant women. I feel like today American woman still struggle with existing in between the Old and the New world. It is amazing how sometimes problems never get solved they just evolve. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Mary Harris seemed incredible against the predominant constructs of gender and the entire system of change in America. Clearly she has struggled greatly in her lifetime and criticized women's methods of change... yet she seems to offer now feasibly alternative route. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
The difference between the white activism and the black activism discussed in Unequal Sisters was not very surprising to me. I figured that since black women were also fighting for civil rights their fight would be stronger. They seemed to have the largest networks of people working toward the cause. They held fundraising fuctions to help raise the money needed to fund their programs. It is easy to understand how these women bonded in the way that they did. The bond that these women grew amongst themselves was largely due to the having to rely on eachother so much. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye about how it wasn't surprising about the differences between black and white activism. The black women had so much more to fight for, and not only that but how education was their most important area of activism instead of voting like for the white women.-- Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
I was impressed with the vast number of organizations that were formed as a result of the fundraising efforts of activist women. I was even more shocked to find the cost of maintaining these organizations and that these women were able to raise the money needed. ---Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to learn how educated these women were. I knew some women were getting degrees but not this many and not African Americans. I also thought it was interesting to see how important, influential, or rich the parents of these women were even the African American women had wealthy parents. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
Another thing I found intersting was the view these women had about the role of women. I would have thought that since these women were out in the work force trying to bring about change they would have supported other women in the work place but they don't. It also was a surprise to learn about how many of the women were single, divorced, widowed, married, or living with a "partner." The interacting and sense of community created amoung these women is amazing. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
It surprises me that black women started to develop social classes just as the white women. Black women who started to gain power, like the power whites had, these black women started to treat the poor and less fortunate black women like a low class. This really bothers me because after everything these women have been through you would except them to try to help each other out, but instead they forget about them and treat them as peasants. What my question is, are these higher powered black women doing this because they are trying to be whiter? Do they care more about upper class societies views on them? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I was also surprised on how the black women started a social class just like the white women, but to try and answer your question(s) Amanda, I don't think they were trying to be whiter but maybe instead were so tired of the white social class they were instead competing now against them on what race was better as well as trying to gain the much wanted respect from white society they have wanted for so long. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of what both Amanda and Michelle said, I think we have to keep in mind that there was a social ideal that all women had to try to live up to. The domestic of separate spheres was still alive and well and I feel like some black women felt that they had to adhere to that doctrine in order to make some headway in the world. Now, I'm not saying that's how all black women felt or acted, but I'm sure it played some sort of part. But what upsets me the most, and it's talked about in Anna Cooper's piece, "Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race," is that black women were subjected to the bottom of the social hierarchy on two accounts: race AND gender. No matter which way they tried to advance, they always had someone trying to hold them back. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Cat and the Anzia Yeziercka's (Immigrant Daughter)piece. Women are stuck dealing with the old and the new world. The problem with todays society is that only some people truly believe in the modern day women however, a good amount of people are so stuck in the past. Its not fair how women have to fight for so much when people need to stop living in the past. --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Along with many other posts about the emotional involvement MAW commands of its readers, I found that "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control" opened my eyes to the desperate and difficult position of being a women with no control over her own body. Still today there are few practical birth control methods for the women that need it most. The pill and other hormonal methods are not cheap and condoms primarily place responsiblity on the male partner. It was heart-breaking to hear "a baby born dead, great relief - the death of an older child, sorrow but again relief" (86) as it must have been for Sanger. Sanger was not on a crusade to put a stop to child birth or to change the understanding that sex was for procreation, but rather to bring peace of mind to the women that so desperatly needed it. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
<br />
I also was very touched by "Margaret Sanger's Epiphany over Birth Control". I knew that women had been attempting ways to control the number of children they had for a very long time but I had no idea that someone could self induce an abortion (especially since i really don't know how that works). I also found it so shocking that even married women didn't want to put faith in their husbands desire not to have any more children even though it would reduce the stress on his life and make paying bills easier. I would have thought they would also be glad to have less children to take care of. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In response to your comment Elizabeth, I'm not so sure it was the fact that they would have less children to take care of so much as the women would be in control of their own bodies and be making family altering decisions. Women were supposed to obey their husbands and if they took a stand and decided that they were going to prevent their family from increasing, then the husband would, in essence, lose a bit of power over his wife. I think that was what terrified them more than anything else. Some men actually were thrilled that their wives were looking into birth control. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
After taking History of Sexuality last semester and discussing Margaret Sanger I was not at all surprised with the "Margaret Sanger's Epihany over Birth Control." It was and still is hard to be a women when it comes to birth control. Women today are far better off than the women of Margaret Sanger's time. It is so much easier for women to obtain birth control today then ever before. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was very suprised to learn when reading Edith Eudora Ammons' piece about life as a female homesteader that women were more successful in staying with their claims by 6%. As she recalled being driven further and further into the unsettled land I can only imagine how disconnecting and daunting that ride must have been. The Ammons sister's hard work is clear proof of a way in which American women were able to take a different route and break the social expectations. After reading about the women who went west with their husbands or in order to find a husband in the past weeks, it was very uplifting to read about the other opportunities the west had for women. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I thought "Wages for Housework" was the best essay, it made me laugh. I thought it was very interesting on how she capitalized certain sentences in order to show her frustration and to get her point across. I also thought this essay sounded very much like a modern day women and her frustration with being a house wife and how it is not looked at as being a job, because a lot more than just cleaning and cooking goes into taking care of a house and family. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In Nellie Bly's essay she says, "I had such a strong belief in the world's greeting me as I greeted it, that I refused to arm myself. I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me,..." (pg6-7) She is amazing in the fact that she was going to attempt to fly around the world and the fact that she was a women was going to make this awesome, but in this quote she seems completely oblivious to the real world, and that not everyone you meet is going to like you, aswell as thinking any man would be willing to protect her. Its like she ready to be considered equal to man by doing this great thing but yet still depend on them for protection. --Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Gordon's essay in US as Kellye mentions as well as I have responded to her comment above about not being suprised about the differences in white and black women activism, but my question is why could women in general, black and white just come together and be the first ones to over look race and fight the cause of womens rights together? I think if they could have done that would of had a more dominate impact in getting what and where they wanted to be.--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
was also very surprised by Edith Eudora Ammon's piece, but mainly that while they met some resistance in their journey west, they did not seem to get mistreated nearly has much as I would have expected. I would have thought that as two women going west to homestead they would have gotten scoffed at yet I don't recall this being mentioned in the recounting. Is this because it didn't happen or because they chose to ignore it?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the Unequal Sisters reading by Linda Gordon I found very interesting the concept of social motherhood among the black women's welfare reform groups. These women were mostly single and were not biological mothers yet the main issues they focused on were familial in nature. I do not necessarily think that this indicates the selfless mindset of these women, but rather points to how strongly the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle classs status quo, affected everyones' decisions during this time period. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Another point worth mentioning from Gordon's essay was how incredibly interdependent these women were on each other. Ths interdependnce born out of necessity to survive eventually evolved into a powerful social and even political network. Some of these women's groups had real political power; distributing tax money etc. However, for a woman to be truly powerful within these groups she had to have connections to a powerful man, her husband, or father usually as is the case with Brandeis and Beyer. --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech by Palmer in Modern American Women brought up an excellent point. This was the point that most of the people in power equate life for everyone to what their own life is like. So to the men in power at the time, opening the workforce up to women seemed unnatural, dangerous, and threatening. However, this was because they were thinking about their own wives and daughters entering the workforce, which neither the men or most likely the women would have wanted, seeing as they come from upper class families. However, to the less fortunate, opening the workforce ot women was essential. These women needed to work in order to survive, alot of them did not have husbands who could or would support them. I think that this is still a mistake we all make today, not just the politicians, we fail to put ourselves in other peoples' shoes. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
In reading "The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893" in Modern American Women, I found it interesting how Bertha Palmer is obviously struggling with the conflict between the idealized woman and the reality that many women face. At one point she says that it is the board's "belief that every woman, who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studios." And then a few sentences later she talks about how it is only the favored class that can live in these conditions and that the majority of women are living under much poorer conditions. In a way, it seems as though she is still holding those ideals of women, but recognizing that most women cannot live up to them. I guess I'm just wondering how that differs from the rest of the people who simply hold those ideals, and is it even any better to recognize that the majority of women can't live up to the ideals but still hold them anyways? --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In reading "Speaking Out Against Lynching" in Modern American Women, the thing that struck me most is the obvious double standard that exists between sexual relations that happen between a black man and a white woman in comparison to those that exist between a white man and a black woman. I know that I may be looking at this from a present perspective, but it just strikes me that it is considered rape for a black man to have sex with a white woman, but nothing is said when a white man has sex with a black woman (which happened very often). I think that this double standard brings up issues with both race and gender. It brings up issues with gender because it indicates that white women are incapable of consenting to sexual interactions with a black man (but men can consent to sexual relations with a black woman). And it brings up issues of race because of the differential treatment between the races, and thinking about the likeliness that black women have of being raped. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I also thought "Wages for Housework" was a clever and humorous article. Conger-Kaneko seemed to denounce traditional women use her writing style. I thought it was very interesting, though not valid in every case, that she compared women's roles to those of slaves. I would imagine this would be a very persuasive arguement to move women towards equal rights after being compared to the slaves who had been freed for decades. I cannot imagine how women seeking to stay in their tradtional roles would argue against Conger-Kaneko's points? Although I imagine they were probably not interested in reading Progressive Woman. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
After having read some of the above comments about Ida B. Wells' essay, I thought more about her argument and the social and political climate during the time of lynching. I do agree with Jessica that it was somewhat out of fear because the black men were no longer under the control of the white masters. Lynching was one of the ways they could exhibit their control over this sector of society. It obviously didn't have to do with whether black men were actually raping white women; for white men, it was about controlling that sector of society. In response to Mary Beth's comment about Wells' essay, the viewpoint of many white Southern men was not that they were raping black women. It was only their superiority over the inferior race, black women being the most inferior because they were black and women. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
The discussion about moving up by way of housework and domestic services was brought up in the readings, and I believe that it ties in very well with what we've learned about in class. You can see the same sort of thing happening with the end of the Civil War, and clerical work. Like we discussed, women took clerical positions while men were away fighting, but soon after the war ended, those who kept their jobs soon learned that their jobs had become "secretarial." Those who once had the opportunity to move up in the business world while they were clerks soon found themselves stuck in the same place since secretarial work didn't provide much opportunity to elevate. But I agree, the question is, who decides what makes a position honorable? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I've decided that Nellie Bly is my new hero. The way she stood up to her boss and threatened to go to another paper if she wasn't allowed to "travel the world in 80 days" was incredible, especially for a woman of her time. What's even more interesting is how some of the stereotypes she faced still plague women today. For one, she's "too delicate" since she's a woman and would need protection. Second, her boss was concerned she'd have too much luggage, and if you think about women today (I know I, myself, am guilty of this) they pack much more than necessary. She even said herself, "Packing that bag was the most difficult undertaking of my life." It's just interesting to see the correlation and then quite impressive to see how she overcame gender stereotypes to beat "the man" at his own game. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I loved that the excerpt about bicycle riding by Frances Willard was included in the chapter. It's simplicity had the strongest message of encouragement for women to leave behind their usual constraints and go out into the world, to take control of their lives. She points out that for too long women have been constrained by their clothing and appearance. Willard asks women to take uncomplicated modern inventions and free themselves. My favorite quote from the piece was, "They that know nothing fear nothing." (p.18) It was a phrase that offered such quiet strength for the women of that time and even to women now. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I know a few other of my classmates have commented on it, but I felt that I should also comment on the birth control article too. I was also amazed at some of the ways women tried to have abortions. I have to agree though with Kelly that birth control was a way men would lose power over women, but I don't understand why the men wanted to have so many children to try to provide for in his home. Why not use condoms or pull out? Were the men so uncaring they ignored the pain of the female they married and the hunger of their children? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
In response to Ashley W., I don't think the men of that time really thought about the pain of the female in child birth,etc. Just from researching my family, I found that my grandfathers father had 18 children from 2 different wives (the first wife died in childbirth) and birth control in that family was never an option. My grandfather is the youngest and was born in 1923. He told me that his father believed that the more children you had the better off you were because you had more people to work in the fields at harvest time and they felt you could have more livestock because there were more people to share the work. My grandfathers family was totally self sufficient and he says they barely noticed the depression because they were self sufficient. I think maybe a lot of men had the same mindset and didn't see their wives as "suffering" because it was the way they survived. That of course is a rural example I don't know if it would have been the same in the cities but I am sure it was somewhat different.~~MaryBeth C<br />
<br />
Based on chapter 14, about black and white women’s vision of welfare activism, the book states that white women mostly helped out with political work and donations. Black women were more interested in helping there community and their churches. Could this be because black women saw other people as one class level and will help anyone, while white women will help out the upper class with politics to gain more women’s rights? <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I agree with Landon about how women were successful in gaining political power, but how far did that power get you? Even today I feel like women are still seen as the only way of gaining power is by having a strong male influence in the business beside you. <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the “Modern American Women” book, the documents of Jane Addams were very interesting. Jane Addams was unsure of what she wanted to do after college. Most women just get married and have children. She wanted to figure out a way to help people especially women by restoring balance in activities that were along the traditional lines. In 1889 Addams created the Hull House; a place where she developed social services and recreational programs to help the less fortune. If Addams was another woman to break down doors for more opportunities for other women why didn’t women’s ways of work life change? Also this shows that women do not have to get married right after college. <br />
-Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
"The Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home" was an interesting perspective on the home. Instead of telling women they could do it all, she asks women to consider working together with the family and other women to help them combine work and home. It seems so different from the feminist perspective that prevails today where women can do it all: home, work, and family. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
In "Modern American Women" I found this quote "We feel therefore, obliged to state our believe that every woman who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studies." All I have to say to this is wow have times changed since this was written. Women are making it a priority to be an asset to the workforce. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read about Alice Hamilton and how she got a medical degree from the University of MIchigan. (I am biased after growing up in Ann Arbor!) I thought it was interesting to read about her train of thought as to why a medical degree. She pursued medicine not because of an interest but because she knew she could excel in it even as a woman. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found this quote powerful and couldn't not post it. "We may convince the world that ability is not a matter of sex." --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed from these reading is that these women are all they same. They all come from essentially the same place. They are women who are well educated, upper-middle class, and single or married later in life. Where are the accounts of the poorer working class women? -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
While reading "A Woman Homesteader" the only thing that kept popping into my mind was that frustrating game of Oregon Trail. After playing that for hours on end in elementary school, I understand that making the journey westward was nothing but difficult. So reading the entry by Edith was fascinating when she and her sister discussed how easy it would be to "stick it out" on a piece of land for eight months. What I'm curious about, is was it typical for these women to go out by themselves like this? I know in class we talked about men going off on their own to start a new life and help their family, but I don't recall discussing that many women going on their own, especially for financial reasons. And would fathers have been that willing to let their daughters make their own choices, especially ones of this magnitude? It seems kind of out of character in my opinion. Nonetheless, rock on to both of them for being as gutsy as they were. -Kelly Wuyscik</div>199.111.71.104https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T01:40:19Z<p>199.111.71.104: </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 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 />
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~</div>199.111.71.104https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T01:04:32Z<p>199.111.71.104: </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 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 />
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</div>199.111.71.104https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T01:01:50Z<p>199.111.71.104: </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 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 />
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 />
<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</div>199.111.71.104https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T00:57:44Z<p>199.111.71.104: </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 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 />
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</div>199.111.71.104https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T00:56:00Z<p>199.111.71.104: </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 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 />
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 that the study of women's history begins 1) because of 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. - 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</div>199.111.71.104 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