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::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Abore5mqMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T19:12:19ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-07T02:01:24Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Perdue Article */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Background (Please post!)==<br />
<b>This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American. Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles. What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)? What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)? Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?</b><br />
<br />
I haven't studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
While I learned about Native Americans in high school, most of my recent knowledge is from Professor Moon's American West class I am taking this semester. We have talked a little about the boarding school experience and Native American life in general. Other than that my Native American knowledge is very limited. I am also very sympathetic towards Native American history but I do also realize that I really don't know much about it. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
While I learned briefly about Native Americans in high school, most of my knowledge and understanding of Native Americans is the result of my college courses, mainly Dr. Devine's Seminar on Native American-White Relations and Dr. Moon's History of the American West class. Both courses touched upon these two Native American groups and the seminar expanded upon the experience of the Cherokee and their removal. I know that these courses have allowed me to have a more well-rounded understanding of Native American life and cultural practices. However, I realize that I have more to learn about Native peoples, particularly understanding American history from their perspective. Media and modern popular culture has undoubtedly also influenced our understanding of these and other Native Americans. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
To be honest I haven't had much background either. There have been snippets of Native American history here and there in a lot of my courses and classes over the years, but there hasn't been one basic group that I've really studied intently enough to remember who was who and where. What I do remember is that Europeans and Natives fought a lot and whites forced their ways on the Natives because they felt the Natives' ways were savage and wrong. It would definitely influence how I interpreted these articles because the boarding school one just pissed me off with the way whites treated the Natives. Honestly, if you don't have the food and clothing to provide the students then don't open the school! Or at least secure the funds to properly feed and clothe them. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I took two classes last semester (17th c. Colonial History and Colonial Biography) that looked briefly at Native Americans, particularly the Tribes in Virginia. I recognized alot of info in the first reading, such as the matrilinear and matrifocal households and the different gender roles (women farming and men hunting.) So while much of what we read for Tuesday seems like old info, I was struck by the fact that men and women weren't necessarily men and women because of biological differences, but by the gender roles they had. So if a man worked in the fields he was considered a woman. I am always interested in Native Americans, I always have been. Reading about the gender roles in the different Native American groups goes to show how different their cultures were and how much of their culture was torn from them.- Celia<br />
<br />
I don't have a whole lot of background with Native Americans, though like Celia I took Hudgin's class on 17th c. Colonial History. I did work at Plimoth Plantation this summer and worked occasionally with the Wampanoags there, their native family structure is not entirely dissimilar from that described of the Cherokees prior to assimilation. Other than that I have little knowledge of Native American culture saving what information is presented in grade school and what can be gleaned from popular media. I think this lack of knowledge contributes to a lack of understanding of their culture in the general public. It makes me feel remiss in some ways for not seeking out the knowledge and preserving it in at least and academical sense. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I also do not have much background with native Americans. Like kari, I owe all of my knowledge about native Americans to a class I took last semester. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==<br />
I find both of these articles, and some of those that we have read in the past, incredibly depressing. I think that, along with many other similar occurrences, that groups of people feel, or felt, the need to make everyone conform to a single ideal, or that individuals and groups had the desire to assimilate entirely into another culture. Each culture and unit of it is unique and can provide a perspective on an aspect of life that one might not consider with out the understanding of the other or juxtaposition with one's own cultural background. Diversity makes us who we are and allows us both to define ourselves and to provide security within a group. Having it quashed would, I think, destroy our very sense of being. Therefore, I find it very sad that nineteenth-century americans, and others many times over, have felt the need to do so. -Lacey<br />
<br />
==Perdue Article==<br />
<br />
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article. However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work. I don't really agree with this. I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they ''had'' to, not because they were saints. They didn't object because they didn't know any different. Also, other than mentioning that men felt that farming was women's work, she didn't go in depth on how emasculated men were. Did any one notice that she used the explorers' accounts for evidence? She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period. I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious. Who's standard is she using? Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century. But it's not what I expected from a modern historian. She didn't question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda about the evidence provided in the Perdue article. However, in the event that she was trying to prove her argument that Cherokee women's roles drastically changed between the 18th and 19th centuries was very convincing. The matrilineal oriented family did increase the roles of women, yet it also created more personal power. They were able to choose their husbands, trace their family through their mother's side, determine the fate of war captives, etc. It seemed to me that the role of Cherokee women was diversified, but it also gave them a lot of freedom. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting article. I have to agree with Amanda that men, while obviously not the focus of the article, were still not very deeply discussed, particularly in their relation to farming. I also thought it was interesting that prohibitions on the practice of infanticide were seen as isolating women (168). While most of us would agree that women should have some say in or the capacity to control the size of their families, I don't think anyone would be able to condone infanticide. While we can look back and say that Americans had a largely negative affect on Native Americans, the eradication of such practices as infanticide could perhaps be seen as them having a positive effect on Native Americans. However, most of the influences of Americans on Cherokee women, such as their removal from political and economic areas, were clearly negative and detrimental. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Sarah, I completely agree with you on the infanticide topic. Maybe I'm being ethnocentric or too ethical, but when I read Perdue's statement that women lost their "right" to control the size of their families by infanticide, I thought that that was a good thing. Perdue seemed to feel that it was the opposite; another loss in Native women's rights. I'm going to probably start a pretty controversial Wiki here, but I think Perdue is taking her extreme feminism a little too far. - Celia<br />
<br />
I don't think that you are either ethnocentric or too ethical, Celia. The infanticide bothered me too, but it has not been uncommon in human history, the Spartans were particularly well known for it. And in some respects I think that it is not entirely unrelated to modern birth control or abortions. If you really think about it, they just waited longer to do it. Again, that's not to say that I agreed with it, in fact it really squicked me out. You just have to look at the fact that we haven't really come that far in the last 100-200 years, we just made it seem more "civilized." -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree with sarah and celia as well regarding infanticide. It reminds me of the modern debate over a woman’s “right” to abortion. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
==Adams Article==<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families. I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system. But especially with the "forced procurement" of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly. Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don't mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article. I thought it was very well written and entertaining. I like the added personal stories of the children who attended these schools -- it made it more real. I never knew the details and the extent Anglo Americans went to "civilize" these Native Americans. It really is quite depressing. While I think that the Anglo Americans thought they were doing the "right thing" it really doesn't excuse them for it. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> What do you think about the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers who were behind the boarding schools? Do you think genuinely wanted to help Native Americans? Or they were trying to get rid of them? How much of their policy was about religion? How much was about racism? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Before advancing on Rebecca's questions, I wanted to comment on how thoroughly organized this article was. I was able to understand and list the actions boarding schools took to assimilating Native Americans. I think that the intentions of the missionaries and teachers was varied: either both inherently racist and helpful, or one and not the other. In the case of cutting the hair of Native American boys, I was almost positive that this was a racist action toward assimilating their culture. Reading further into the article about changing the names to surnames, and providing the clothes and food, I think that the intentions were more proportional to helping the Native Americans become successful. In the even they made up names, provided poor facilities and were unaccommodating to the Native American children, the teachers and missionaries would have been more racist. But now after looking over all of what I had just written, there had to have been some racist undertone to the assimilating process of "civilizing" Native Americans. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
To answer Rebecca's question, I think the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers were self-centered and ridicuolous. I do not think they wanted to genuinely help the Native Americans, their lives seemed alright without the Anglos interference. All their 'help' did was to break down a lot of tradition and history before it could mostly be recorded somehow. I feel like the policies were really intended to get rid of the Native Americans, I mean come on, they wanted the Native Americans to assimilate into white culture, which meant a radical change in a lot of Natives's way of life. I think some of it was religion because for some reasons the Christians couldn't comprehend the idea of freedom of religion in this country, everyone has to be Christian to them, regardless of the basic right. They felt for Natives to be citizens they also had to be Christian, they couldn't keep their previous religion. I'm not really sure how much was racism... -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The missionaries, teachers, and policy makers appear to have had mixed motives for their actions towards Native American children in the boarding schools. I believe that many of them genuinely thought their actions were for the benefit of the children. For instance, one official is quoted as saying, in reference to the naming process, that there was "no reason why we should ruthlessly thrust upon him our English names...We want to educate the Indian--lead him on, not stamp him out." (30) That said, a number of them were undoubtedly motivated by racism or an attitude of cultural superiority. Religion also played a large role in boarding school life and clearly motivated at least some of the policies. It seems clear based on the amount of time spent on religion and morality that one of the primary goals of the teachers and missionaries was to promote conversions to Christianity. --Sarah Gardner</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-07T01:41:39Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Background (Please post!) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Background (Please post!)==<br />
<b>This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American. Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles. What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)? What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)? Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?</b><br />
<br />
I haven't studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
While I learned about Native Americans in high school, most of my recent knowledge is from Professor Moon's American West class I am taking this semester. We have talked a little about the boarding school experience and Native American life in general. Other than that my Native American knowledge is very limited. I am also very sympathetic towards Native American history but I do also realize that I really don't know much about it. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
While I learned briefly about Native Americans in high school, most of my knowledge and understanding of Native Americans is the result of my college courses, mainly Dr. Devine's Seminar on Native American-White Relations and Dr. Moon's History of the American West class. Both courses touched upon these two Native American groups and the seminar expanded upon the experience of the Cherokee and their removal. I know that these courses have allowed me to have a more well-rounded understanding of Native American life and cultural practices. However, I realize that I have more to learn about Native peoples, particularly understanding American history from their perspective. Media and modern popular culture has undoubtedly also influenced our understanding of these and other Native Americans. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
To be honest I haven't had much background either. There have been snippets of Native American history here and there in a lot of my courses and classes over the years, but there hasn't been one basic group that I've really studied intently enough to remember who was who and where. What I do remember is that Europeans and Natives fought a lot and whites forced their ways on the Natives because they felt the Natives' ways were savage and wrong. It would definitely influence how I interpreted these articles because the boarding school one just pissed me off with the way whites treated the Natives. Honestly, if you don't have the food and clothing to provide the students then don't open the school! Or at least secure the funds to properly feed and clothe them. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I took two classes last semester (17th c. Colonial History and Colonial Biography) that looked briefly at Native Americans, particularly the Tribes in Virginia. I recognized alot of info in the first reading, such as the matrilinear and matrifocal households and the different gender roles (women farming and men hunting.) So while much of what we read for Tuesday seems like old info, I was struck by the fact that men and women weren't necessarily men and women because of biological differences, but by the gender roles they had. So if a man worked in the fields he was considered a woman. I am always interested in Native Americans, I always have been. Reading about the gender roles in the different Native American groups goes to show how different their cultures were and how much of their culture was torn from them.- Celia<br />
<br />
I don't have a whole lot of background with Native Americans, though like Celia I took Hudgin's class on 17th c. Colonial History. I did work at Plimoth Plantation this summer and worked occasionally with the Wampanoags there, their native family structure is not entirely dissimilar from that described of the Cherokees prior to assimilation. Other than that I have little knowledge of Native American culture saving what information is presented in grade school and what can be gleaned from popular media. I think this lack of knowledge contributes to a lack of understanding of their culture in the general public. It makes me feel remiss in some ways for not seeking out the knowledge and preserving it in at least and academical sense. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I also do not have much background with native Americans. Like kari, I owe all of my knowledge about native Americans to a class I took last semester. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==<br />
I find both of these articles, and some of those that we have read in the past, incredibly depressing. I think that, along with many other similar occurrences, that groups of people feel, or felt, the need to make everyone conform to a single ideal, or that individuals and groups had the desire to assimilate entirely into another culture. Each culture and unit of it is unique and can provide a perspective on an aspect of life that one might not consider with out the understanding of the other or juxtaposition with one's own cultural background. Diversity makes us who we are and allows us both to define ourselves and to provide security within a group. Having it quashed would, I think, destroy our very sense of being. Therefore, I find it very sad that nineteenth-century americans, and others many times over, have felt the need to do so. -Lacey<br />
<br />
==Perdue Article==<br />
<br />
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article. However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work. I don't really agree with this. I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they ''had'' to, not because they were saints. They didn't object because they didn't know any different. Also, other than mentioning that men felt that farming was women's work, she didn't go in depth on how emasculated men were. Did any one notice that she used the explorers' accounts for evidence? She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period. I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious. Who's standard is she using? Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century. But it's not what I expected from a modern historian. She didn't question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda about the evidence provided in the Perdue article. However, in the event that she was trying to prove her argument that Cherokee women's roles drastically changed between the 18th and 19th centuries was very convincing. The matrilineal oriented family did increase the roles of women, yet it also created more personal power. They were able to choose their husbands, trace their family through their mother's side, determine the fate of war captives, etc. It seemed to me that the role of Cherokee women was diversified, but it also gave them a lot of freedom. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting article. I have to agree with Amanda that men, while obviously not the focus of the article, were still not very deeply discussed, particularly in their relation to farming. I also thought it was interesting that prohibitions on the practice of infanticide were seen as isolating women (168). While most of us would agree that women should have some say in or the capacity to control the size of their families, I don't think anyone would be able to condone infanticide. While we can look back and say that Americans had a largely negative affect on Native Americans, the eradication of such practices as infanticide could perhaps be seen as them having a positive effect on Native Americans. However, most of the influences of Americans on Cherokee women, such as their removal from political and economic areas, were clearly negative and detrimental. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Sarah, I completely agree with you on the infanticide topic. Maybe I'm being ethnocentric or too ethical, but when I read Perdue's statement that women lost their "right" to control the size of their families by infanticide, I thought that that was a good thing. Perdue seemed to feel that it was the opposite; another loss in Native women's rights. I'm going to probably start a pretty controversial Wiki here, but I think Perdue is taking her extreme feminism a little too far. - Celia<br />
<br />
==Adams Article==<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families. I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system. But especially with the "forced procurement" of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly. Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don't mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article. I thought it was very well written and entertaining. I like the added personal stories of the children who attended these schools -- it made it more real. I never knew the details and the extent Anglo Americans went to "civilize" these Native Americans. It really is quite depressing. While I think that the Anglo Americans thought they were doing the "right thing" it really doesn't excuse them for it. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> What do you think about the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers who were behind the boarding schools? Do you think genuinely wanted to help Native Americans? Or they were trying to get rid of them? How much of their policy was about religion? How much was about racism? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Before advancing on Rebecca's questions, I wanted to comment on how thoroughly organized this article was. I was able to understand and list the actions boarding schools took to assimilating Native Americans. I think that the intentions of the missionaries and teachers was varied: either both inherently racist and helpful, or one and not the other. In the case of cutting the hair of Native American boys, I was almost positive that this was a racist action toward assimilating their culture. Reading further into the article about changing the names to surnames, and providing the clothes and food, I think that the intentions were more proportional to helping the Native Americans become successful. In the even they made up names, provided poor facilities and were unaccommodating to the Native American children, the teachers and missionaries would have been more racist. But now after looking over all of what I had just written, there had to have been some racist undertone to the assimilating process of "civilizing" Native Americans. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
To answer Rebecca's question, I think the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers were self-centered and ridicuolous. I do not think they wanted to genuinely help the Native Americans, their lives seemed alright without the Anglos interference. All their 'help' did was to break down a lot of tradition and history before it could mostly be recorded somehow. I feel like the policies were really intended to get rid of the Native Americans, I mean come on, they wanted the Native Americans to assimilate into white culture, which meant a radical change in a lot of Natives's way of life. I think some of it was religion because for some reasons the Christians couldn't comprehend the idea of freedom of religion in this country, everyone has to be Christian to them, regardless of the basic right. They felt for Natives to be citizens they also had to be Christian, they couldn't keep their previous religion. I'm not really sure how much was racism... -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The missionaries, teachers, and policy makers appear to have had mixed motives for their actions towards Native American children in the boarding schools. I believe that many of them genuinely thought their actions were for the benefit of the children. For instance, one official is quoted as saying, in reference to the naming process, that there was "no reason why we should ruthlessly thrust upon him our English names...We want to educate the Indian--lead him on, not stamp him out." (30) That said, a number of them were undoubtedly motivated by racism or an attitude of cultural superiority. Religion also played a large role in boarding school life and clearly motivated at least some of the policies. It seems clear based on the amount of time spent on religion and morality that one of the primary goals of the teachers and missionaries was to promote conversions to Christianity. --Sarah Gardner</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-02T09:42:03Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Pictures on Pages 102-111 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments about Tuesday's Article ==<br />
<br />
I really found it funny that the guys did not want to plant a little house garden, or even really thought about it because it was 'women's work.' It was also kind of sad that they did not think of it and were malnourished because they weren't eating a good and healthy variety of food. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I also thought that part was funny. The men were getting scurvy because they felt like planting gardens was a woman's job. I loved the part about the "domestic triumphs," like when the one guy finally learned how to make good pancakes. This reading gave me the impression that men did not want to do women's work because they didn't know how to do it and they felt like they would suck at it, not because it was demeaning or embarrassing. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
What pressures did Intermarried couples face?--Joyce<br />
<br />
Riley listed several pressures facing intermarried couples in the West, most of which were related to the family, the community, or legislation. Some of the more specific pressures were related to religion and differences in cultural values. When each individual ascribed too very different ideas about faith, children, and even methods of communication, problems easily resulted. Yet, I believe that on some level, every couple, intermarried or otherwise, had to make concessions or discuss some issues on which they differed. I don't think one can assume that simply because two people come from the same culture or race they shared the exact same values or customs. To be sure, intermarried couples had more differences and hurdles to overcome but I think that every couple would have faced at least a few of the same pressures and challenges. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah. Religion was a major stress factor in interracial families, perhaps the biggest. In a time when religion was all some people had to hold onto, sharing a relationship with someone who did not necessarily hold your religious beliefs must have been hard and started many arguments (what church is the kid going to be baptized in? what church are we going to be married in?) particularly when there are already cultural differences between interracial couples–Andrew B<br />
<br />
<br />
What advantages did intermarried couples have?---Joyce<br />
<br />
Many Native American and Spanish women married Anglo men for economic and social reasons. Anglo men were more economically stable than Native American and Spanish men and the women would therefore have a higher status in society than if they were to marry someone of their own ethnic group. It was also advantageous for Anglo men to marry Native Americans and Spanish because the women knew their native language and culture and therefore was beneficial for trade. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
== Pictures on Pages 102-111==<br />
<br />
I was amused with picture number 18 because I thought the idea that someone would post an item like this, along with a reward for the wife's return. It makes you wonder why she left, if he was able to offer an award their finances might not have been all that bad. Maybe he was abusive, cruel, or something else? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Like Ashley, the Reward poster is what caught my eye. It took me a glance or two to realize it was a man in search of his wife who had run away. As we talked about on Tuesday, life on the frontier was difficult, but I didn't realize that women would just run away. To me, it would be the man who would give up and run away rather than face the emasculating fact that he couldn't support his family or was a wife-beater. It makes you think about where the women would run be it home (too obvious?) or somewhere much father away and risk not surviving. Crazy situations. -Kelly W. <br />
<br />
I think these photographs really show the diversity that the previous chapters talked about, even more than the last set of pictures. You can also see how Anglo culture was imposed on many of the other residents of the west. Particularly in the clothing that they are wearing in the images which for the most part is not their native costume. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I posted about this on Tuesday thinking that everyone had just looked at every picture in the book. But I really thought picture 18 was odd. It was like a wanted poster. Like the woman was a criminal. “Any information leading to her recovery.” what was he going to do with her after he recovered her? the whole situation seems odd to me. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that is was an interesting chapter but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of the book. While the other sections seemed to rely more on the notion of cultural layering, this section didn't seem to mention differences in cultural practices except for a few mentions of differing cultural practices at the very beginning. Rather, it seem to focus more on economic influences and differences in gender in relation to rates of divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was really struck by the first part of this chapter. Riley talks about how the idea of divorce fit really well with ideas of change, western democracy, individualism, and the pursuit of personal happiness, ideas which were all really popular in the West. This is not the first time we have seen really big social ideas shape family structure. It reminds me of how ideas from the Revolution shaped families, and how ideas of Republican motherhood shaped expectations for moms. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of Sarah's point, I didn't really think this chapter belonged here, or at least should have tied itself in more with the rest of the book. Riley spent a lot of time in the Introduction discussing cultural layering and then developed that point as she progressed through the other chapters discussing different practices and traditions, but this chapter seemed to focus most on one culture. I think if Riley wanted to make cultural layering such a big focus in the book she should have elaborated on the various cultures in terms of divorce and separation as opposed to the economics of divorce and the logistics behind how it was possible for some and not others. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised that the book ended with a petition to fix the problem of divorce in the West today. Are the concentrations of divorce as high there today as they were in the 19th Century? I also understand her call to teachers. But as a future teacher (who understands the need to influence students positively) I don't know how realistic is to have this expectation. She writes that we need to include courtship practices and marriage customs in multicultural education. Well, we don't teach about that for the "American"/Anglo culture. Parents wouldn't like it. It's too personal (with the variety of diverse family backgrounds today) and frankly beyond the scope of curriculum for our schools. How can we teach children, during school, that divorce is wrong, when some of them might come from broken homes? I felt the jump from the last chapter to the epilogue was a little jolting. I don't know how we can stop the western divorce rate, but I think it's a widespread problem. One thing for sure is that it's not a question we can solve easily. After all though, this is America, and you can marry (almost) whoever you want, and the same goes for divorce.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda's comments. This epilogue was a little weird. Riley says that legislation is necessary that would make marriage harder to get (she mentions waiting periods and mandatory counseling). This is a strange idea to me. I don't think it is the place of the government to try to prevent failed marriages. That seems like a personal thing. I guess this gets at one of the reoccurring themes in this class: when is family a purely personal thing, and when is it a social building block that should be regulated and defined for the good of society. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg ==<br />
I felt that Mintz and Kellogg kind of sensationalized the struggles that these people went to, particularly those moving out west. I feel that if there continued to be people who made the decision to go out west the risks couldn't be as completely insurmountable as Mintz and Kellogg make them out to be. It just goes back to many of our previous statements that they overgeneralize, I guess. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree with Lacey that Mintz and Kellogg often speak too broadly and generally in this section. Something that Mintz and Kellogg do not mention in their brief discussion of American families on the western trail is that, in spite of their attempts to "maintain a firm sexual division of labor," they were often unable to do so. Women often drove wagons and men had to cook when their wives were ill or unable to do so. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This sectioned mentioned how the main thing pioneers relied on while they were traveling westward was their family. Their family had to work together in order to survive. While this focus is on the nuclear family, it is more about a sense of community with their family rather than the growing individualism seen in the east. The environment a family was in determined how that family reacted to each other. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Any other Questions/Comments about the readings from Tuesday or Thursday ==<br />
<br />
I like this reading (Riley) because of its straightforwardness. Question: What explains the high divorce rate in the West? Answer: Cultural layering and changing courtship/ marriage practices due to the cultural layering.--Amanda</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-02T09:37:58Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Chapter 3 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments about Tuesday's Article ==<br />
<br />
I really found it funny that the guys did not want to plant a little house garden, or even really thought about it because it was 'women's work.' It was also kind of sad that they did not think of it and were malnourished because they weren't eating a good and healthy variety of food. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I also thought that part was funny. The men were getting scurvy because they felt like planting gardens was a woman's job. I loved the part about the "domestic triumphs," like when the one guy finally learned how to make good pancakes. This reading gave me the impression that men did not want to do women's work because they didn't know how to do it and they felt like they would suck at it, not because it was demeaning or embarrassing. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
What pressures did Intermarried couples face?--Joyce<br />
<br />
Riley listed several pressures facing intermarried couples in the West, most of which were related to the family, the community, or legislation. Some of the more specific pressures were related to religion and differences in cultural values. When each individual ascribed too very different ideas about faith, children, and even methods of communication, problems easily resulted. Yet, I believe that on some level, every couple, intermarried or otherwise, had to make concessions or discuss some issues on which they differed. I don't think one can assume that simply because two people come from the same culture or race they shared the exact same values or customs. To be sure, intermarried couples had more differences and hurdles to overcome but I think that every couple would have faced at least a few of the same pressures and challenges. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah. Religion was a major stress factor in interracial families, perhaps the biggest. In a time when religion was all some people had to hold onto, sharing a relationship with someone who did not necessarily hold your religious beliefs must have been hard and started many arguments (what church is the kid going to be baptized in? what church are we going to be married in?) particularly when there are already cultural differences between interracial couples–Andrew B<br />
<br />
<br />
What advantages did intermarried couples have?---Joyce<br />
<br />
Many Native American and Spanish women married Anglo men for economic and social reasons. Anglo men were more economically stable than Native American and Spanish men and the women would therefore have a higher status in society than if they were to marry someone of their own ethnic group. It was also advantageous for Anglo men to marry Native Americans and Spanish because the women knew their native language and culture and therefore was beneficial for trade. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
== Pictures on Pages 102-111==<br />
<br />
I was amused with picture number 18 because I thought the idea that someone would post an item like this, along with a reward for the wife's return. It makes you wonder why she left, if he was able to offer an award their finances might not have been all that bad. Maybe he was abusive, cruel, or something else? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Like Ashley, the Reward poster is what caught my eye. It took me a glance or two to realize it was a man in search of his wife who had run away. As we talked about on Tuesday, life on the frontier was difficult, but I didn't realize that women would just run away. To me, it would be the man who would give up and run away rather than face the emasculating fact that he couldn't support his family or was a wife-beater. It makes you think about where the women would run be it home (too obvious?) or somewhere much father away and risk not surviving. Crazy situations. -Kelly W. <br />
<br />
I think these photographs really show the diversity that the previous chapters talked about, even more than the last set of pictures. You can also see how Anglo culture was imposed on many of the other residents of the west. Particularly in the clothing that they are wearing in the images which for the most part is not their native costume. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that is was an interesting chapter but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of the book. While the other sections seemed to rely more on the notion of cultural layering, this section didn't seem to mention differences in cultural practices except for a few mentions of differing cultural practices at the very beginning. Rather, it seem to focus more on economic influences and differences in gender in relation to rates of divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was really struck by the first part of this chapter. Riley talks about how the idea of divorce fit really well with ideas of change, western democracy, individualism, and the pursuit of personal happiness, ideas which were all really popular in the West. This is not the first time we have seen really big social ideas shape family structure. It reminds me of how ideas from the Revolution shaped families, and how ideas of Republican motherhood shaped expectations for moms. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of Sarah's point, I didn't really think this chapter belonged here, or at least should have tied itself in more with the rest of the book. Riley spent a lot of time in the Introduction discussing cultural layering and then developed that point as she progressed through the other chapters discussing different practices and traditions, but this chapter seemed to focus most on one culture. I think if Riley wanted to make cultural layering such a big focus in the book she should have elaborated on the various cultures in terms of divorce and separation as opposed to the economics of divorce and the logistics behind how it was possible for some and not others. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised that the book ended with a petition to fix the problem of divorce in the West today. Are the concentrations of divorce as high there today as they were in the 19th Century? I also understand her call to teachers. But as a future teacher (who understands the need to influence students positively) I don't know how realistic is to have this expectation. She writes that we need to include courtship practices and marriage customs in multicultural education. Well, we don't teach about that for the "American"/Anglo culture. Parents wouldn't like it. It's too personal (with the variety of diverse family backgrounds today) and frankly beyond the scope of curriculum for our schools. How can we teach children, during school, that divorce is wrong, when some of them might come from broken homes? I felt the jump from the last chapter to the epilogue was a little jolting. I don't know how we can stop the western divorce rate, but I think it's a widespread problem. One thing for sure is that it's not a question we can solve easily. After all though, this is America, and you can marry (almost) whoever you want, and the same goes for divorce.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda's comments. This epilogue was a little weird. Riley says that legislation is necessary that would make marriage harder to get (she mentions waiting periods and mandatory counseling). This is a strange idea to me. I don't think it is the place of the government to try to prevent failed marriages. That seems like a personal thing. I guess this gets at one of the reoccurring themes in this class: when is family a purely personal thing, and when is it a social building block that should be regulated and defined for the good of society. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg ==<br />
I felt that Mintz and Kellogg kind of sensationalized the struggles that these people went to, particularly those moving out west. I feel that if there continued to be people who made the decision to go out west the risks couldn't be as completely insurmountable as Mintz and Kellogg make them out to be. It just goes back to many of our previous statements that they overgeneralize, I guess. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree with Lacey that Mintz and Kellogg often speak too broadly and generally in this section. Something that Mintz and Kellogg do not mention in their brief discussion of American families on the western trail is that, in spite of their attempts to "maintain a firm sexual division of labor," they were often unable to do so. Women often drove wagons and men had to cook when their wives were ill or unable to do so. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This sectioned mentioned how the main thing pioneers relied on while they were traveling westward was their family. Their family had to work together in order to survive. While this focus is on the nuclear family, it is more about a sense of community with their family rather than the growing individualism seen in the east. The environment a family was in determined how that family reacted to each other. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Any other Questions/Comments about the readings from Tuesday or Thursday ==<br />
<br />
I like this reading (Riley) because of its straightforwardness. Question: What explains the high divorce rate in the West? Answer: Cultural layering and changing courtship/ marriage practices due to the cultural layering.--Amanda</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-31T08:28:09Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Pictures */</p>
<hr />
<div>I thought the ethnic differences in courting were incredible. Spanish courtships was not unlike that pursued by Anglos, with more strictures. The Native American courting rituals where the man sits at the foot of the woman's bed with her grandmother as a chaperone was kind of creepy and seemed really archaic. What would you be thinking if your grandmother woke you up in the middle of the night with a guy sitting there watching you? The creep-factor aside, I thought it and other NA methods of courtship were really interesting. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on the creep factor. Heh, that would disturb me greatly... more so with my mom's mom than dad's mom... but the thought gives me shivers. I do have to say I liked how Riley incorporated so many different groups into the book, it gave a lot of easy C/C on the spot. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also would have to agree with both of you on the Native American courtship methods. But I think its also important to remember that the purpose of the book was to introduce the diversity of western marriage and families, and how they are associated today with the highest divorce rates in the nation. I think the courtship chapter makes it clear that the limited contact between male and females of most cultures limited the options for whom they could marry and thus forced relationships. Of course there were other factors as well. I was very intrigued by the common portrayal of women in these cultures. Would a rise in individualism among women in the west result because of strict familial patterns? Or is it their portrayal in the journals, newspapers, forms of media of the day. Example: the woman who put herself as an add in the Waterloo, Iowa paper for courtship and then being compared to a piece of household furniture by an editor in an editorial. --Joe C. <br />
<br />
The first half of this book is interesting. I like Riley's use of the term "cultural layering." I also noticed that she used the phrase "women of color" like the authors from last week. The practices of courtship and marriage certainly varied a lot between groups. Some practices were shocking to me, like the picture brides marrying someone based on correspondence! I had a small problem with Riley's discussion however. I know that she was trying to show the dichotomy with the groups in the West, but I feel like Native Americans need their own assessment. Their traditions may seem weird to us, but that is heightened when you take groups out of their context. I don't feel it's right to lump them together like you can perhaps get away with (like her use of Anglo or Chicana) but the Chippewa can't be examined with tribes of the Southwest. Also, their experience was different because unlike the other groups, they did not emigrate from another country. I like her thesis though, that the interaction among and within families caused conflict.--Amanda <br />
<br />
I think you could say that about a number of the groups. I agree that I thought the same thing about her depiction of Native American rituals and practices, that even her descriptions of the different tribes contrasted each other. But look at the other groups, too. The "Anglos" included English, French, Irish, etc. The practices and rituals of each of these ethnic groups are as varied. Compare them to the Slavs and Jews and we're all over the place. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was really helpful how Riley showed how the different groups of people dealt with issues like courting for example. Having the different groups right next to each other in certain categories really made the similarities and differences easier to notice. Writing it this way made her point a lot easier for me to understand and I felt like I retained a lot more information. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
Riley starts chapter one with an argument that high divorce rates in the West are probably a sign that courtship methods were flawed. She backs this up by saying that it is reasonable to assume that poorly matched spouses are more likely to divorce. I don't agree with Riley's assumption. I can see her logic, but I think that divorce rates are more closely tied to expectations about marriage (emotional fulfillment, compatibility, etc) and the acceptability of divorce than to methods of courtship. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I thought that this book has been quite fascinating so far. It's just more proof that we can't divide America into the North, South, East, and West and say 'this is how it was.' We bring up movies and books alot in class (ok, I bring up movies and books alot) but the part in Chapter 1 where men looked for women who would be able to work along side them and provide good domestic help reminded me of the movie "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." Also, the section about mail order brides and the men and women who advertised for spouses and wrote to each other reminded me of an obscure Judy Garland film called "Harvey Girls" where she goes out west to marry a man she had been writing to, only to be disapointed when she arrives. - Celia<br />
<br />
Celia - I love that "Harvey Girls and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." You're not alone in that. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
The Native American courting rituals were crazy. I don't even understand where some of them came from. Courting and marriage practices seemed to vary drastically amongst the different ethnic groups. I find the difference between the different groups interesting. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I agree with Rebecca that poorly matched spouses was not more likely to cause divorce. There have been many cases of arranged marriages that worked out fine and did not end in divorce. People who were in situations like that dealt with the fact that their marriage was arranged and many times actually ended up eventually loving that person. I think that the elements in living and surviving in the West along with the high expectations about marriage were the main causes of divorce. -- Kari <br />
W. <br />
<br />
I feel like Riley romanticizes Native American culture. She keeps making these sweeping, positive generalizations about aspects of Native American culture. Like on the bottom of page 53 she says "Ojibway women and men worked at different duties, yet extended mutual respect to each other and their work." Isn't that a pretty big claim? Another example is on page 18, "Despite the grace and civility of Native American methods of identifying mates..." I would not characterize their courtship methods that way. It seems like too much of a value judgment, which I believe is not super useful in a historical analysis, since value judgments are so much a product of one's own perspective. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Going off of Celia's comment, as historians we tend to like when things fit into neat little boxes and unfortunately, this book and the Johnson article just elaborates on how impossible that is. The American West is such a broad topic to cover that no two families were truly alike. The American West in the nineteenth century especially since it was such a transitional time for some white families traveling out west and since they were now interacting with Native American families who had a completely different lifestyle in general. Unfortunately for historians, there was no "typical nineteenth century family" and I feel like we keep coming back to this point each week, just more and more disappointed about how true it is. -Kelly W. <br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed reading the first two chapters of Riley's text on Western families. However, the structure of the work was confusing at times. The second chapter in particular, I felt, may have been easier to follow if the pros and cons of each aspect of marriage had been grouped together instead of in two separate sections. I did enjoy the fact that she spoke to the experiences of a variety of races, even though, as Rebecca has pointed out, she does make rather broad generalizations about some of the groups, particularly Native Americans. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
I found this book very interesting. I thought some of the traditions and practices the author discussed were unique, and I enjoyed reading about them. The thing I liked the most about this book was it’s breadth. I like that more than one or two groups or kinds of people were touched on. I feel that all too often, when a book is focused on one particular group of people, the reading gets slow. This was a nice change. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Pictures ==<br />
I really liked the pictures provided on pages 33-41. They provided the idealized woman stereotype and what women actually did and wore. The pictures also allowed a glimpse at what people wore to weddings, including the traditional garb and adopted American garb as shown in picture number 12. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to agree with you as well Ashley. But the pictures section also reminded me of how men and women sent pictures of each other through letters as a way of courting. Would these be the type of pictures that women would send to men in the west? A few of them seem to show that women's domestic duties included work outside the home, especially pictures taken of the Native American women. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
I don't think these pictures were the kind that women were sending to the men, rather the ones of the native women might have been a part of a photographic study and the others for record keeping purposes or to send home to the photograph. This was the era where photographs took off, as well as the concept of sending "family portraits" to friends and family. I thought the contrast between ethnic modes of dress displayed in the portraits quite interesting. It is also neat that you can see that the people who lived then liked to mix and match their ethnic clothing with American styles of dress. It is quite fascinating looking at that from the viewpoint of assimilation. -Lacey<br />
<br />
The one picture that really stood out to me was the one of Lake Andes in South Dakota. As we grow up we're taught about a stereotypical "western story" with the saloons and the ranches, so seeing that the towns when they were first being settled actually did look like this kind of surprised me. But it was also comforting to know that this typical western town wasn't complete fallacy. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashely about the inclusion of the pictures in Riley's work. I really felt that they added to the text. One picture that struck me was the one of Doctors from Hawaii. The caption states that "married couples often combined cultures in their dress." Did anyone else notice that it was the woman who was maintaining the traditional dress in this image while the man had adopted American clothing? I wonder if this image is also speaking to the fact that men were more likely to adopt American ways then women or if women were more likely to try and hold on to traditional customs? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
The “wanted” picture of the runaway wife seems a little strange to me. The caption reads, “For the recovery, or information leading to the recovery.” It sounds as if the woman is a murderer or something, or a lost dog. –Andrew B</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-31T08:20:10Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought the ethnic differences in courting were incredible. Spanish courtships was not unlike that pursued by Anglos, with more strictures. The Native American courting rituals where the man sits at the foot of the woman's bed with her grandmother as a chaperone was kind of creepy and seemed really archaic. What would you be thinking if your grandmother woke you up in the middle of the night with a guy sitting there watching you? The creep-factor aside, I thought it and other NA methods of courtship were really interesting. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on the creep factor. Heh, that would disturb me greatly... more so with my mom's mom than dad's mom... but the thought gives me shivers. I do have to say I liked how Riley incorporated so many different groups into the book, it gave a lot of easy C/C on the spot. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also would have to agree with both of you on the Native American courtship methods. But I think its also important to remember that the purpose of the book was to introduce the diversity of western marriage and families, and how they are associated today with the highest divorce rates in the nation. I think the courtship chapter makes it clear that the limited contact between male and females of most cultures limited the options for whom they could marry and thus forced relationships. Of course there were other factors as well. I was very intrigued by the common portrayal of women in these cultures. Would a rise in individualism among women in the west result because of strict familial patterns? Or is it their portrayal in the journals, newspapers, forms of media of the day. Example: the woman who put herself as an add in the Waterloo, Iowa paper for courtship and then being compared to a piece of household furniture by an editor in an editorial. --Joe C. <br />
<br />
The first half of this book is interesting. I like Riley's use of the term "cultural layering." I also noticed that she used the phrase "women of color" like the authors from last week. The practices of courtship and marriage certainly varied a lot between groups. Some practices were shocking to me, like the picture brides marrying someone based on correspondence! I had a small problem with Riley's discussion however. I know that she was trying to show the dichotomy with the groups in the West, but I feel like Native Americans need their own assessment. Their traditions may seem weird to us, but that is heightened when you take groups out of their context. I don't feel it's right to lump them together like you can perhaps get away with (like her use of Anglo or Chicana) but the Chippewa can't be examined with tribes of the Southwest. Also, their experience was different because unlike the other groups, they did not emigrate from another country. I like her thesis though, that the interaction among and within families caused conflict.--Amanda <br />
<br />
I think you could say that about a number of the groups. I agree that I thought the same thing about her depiction of Native American rituals and practices, that even her descriptions of the different tribes contrasted each other. But look at the other groups, too. The "Anglos" included English, French, Irish, etc. The practices and rituals of each of these ethnic groups are as varied. Compare them to the Slavs and Jews and we're all over the place. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was really helpful how Riley showed how the different groups of people dealt with issues like courting for example. Having the different groups right next to each other in certain categories really made the similarities and differences easier to notice. Writing it this way made her point a lot easier for me to understand and I felt like I retained a lot more information. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
Riley starts chapter one with an argument that high divorce rates in the West are probably a sign that courtship methods were flawed. She backs this up by saying that it is reasonable to assume that poorly matched spouses are more likely to divorce. I don't agree with Riley's assumption. I can see her logic, but I think that divorce rates are more closely tied to expectations about marriage (emotional fulfillment, compatibility, etc) and the acceptability of divorce than to methods of courtship. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I thought that this book has been quite fascinating so far. It's just more proof that we can't divide America into the North, South, East, and West and say 'this is how it was.' We bring up movies and books alot in class (ok, I bring up movies and books alot) but the part in Chapter 1 where men looked for women who would be able to work along side them and provide good domestic help reminded me of the movie "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." Also, the section about mail order brides and the men and women who advertised for spouses and wrote to each other reminded me of an obscure Judy Garland film called "Harvey Girls" where she goes out west to marry a man she had been writing to, only to be disapointed when she arrives. - Celia<br />
<br />
Celia - I love that "Harvey Girls and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." You're not alone in that. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
The Native American courting rituals were crazy. I don't even understand where some of them came from. Courting and marriage practices seemed to vary drastically amongst the different ethnic groups. I find the difference between the different groups interesting. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I agree with Rebecca that poorly matched spouses was not more likely to cause divorce. There have been many cases of arranged marriages that worked out fine and did not end in divorce. People who were in situations like that dealt with the fact that their marriage was arranged and many times actually ended up eventually loving that person. I think that the elements in living and surviving in the West along with the high expectations about marriage were the main causes of divorce. -- Kari <br />
W. <br />
<br />
I feel like Riley romanticizes Native American culture. She keeps making these sweeping, positive generalizations about aspects of Native American culture. Like on the bottom of page 53 she says "Ojibway women and men worked at different duties, yet extended mutual respect to each other and their work." Isn't that a pretty big claim? Another example is on page 18, "Despite the grace and civility of Native American methods of identifying mates..." I would not characterize their courtship methods that way. It seems like too much of a value judgment, which I believe is not super useful in a historical analysis, since value judgments are so much a product of one's own perspective. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Going off of Celia's comment, as historians we tend to like when things fit into neat little boxes and unfortunately, this book and the Johnson article just elaborates on how impossible that is. The American West is such a broad topic to cover that no two families were truly alike. The American West in the nineteenth century especially since it was such a transitional time for some white families traveling out west and since they were now interacting with Native American families who had a completely different lifestyle in general. Unfortunately for historians, there was no "typical nineteenth century family" and I feel like we keep coming back to this point each week, just more and more disappointed about how true it is. -Kelly W. <br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed reading the first two chapters of Riley's text on Western families. However, the structure of the work was confusing at times. The second chapter in particular, I felt, may have been easier to follow if the pros and cons of each aspect of marriage had been grouped together instead of in two separate sections. I did enjoy the fact that she spoke to the experiences of a variety of races, even though, as Rebecca has pointed out, she does make rather broad generalizations about some of the groups, particularly Native Americans. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
I found this book very interesting. I thought some of the traditions and practices the author discussed were unique, and I enjoyed reading about them. The thing I liked the most about this book was it’s breadth. I like that more than one or two groups or kinds of people were touched on. I feel that all too often, when a book is focused on one particular group of people, the reading gets slow. This was a nice change. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Pictures ==<br />
I really liked the pictures provided on pages 33-41. They provided the idealized woman stereotype and what women actually did and wore. The pictures also allowed a glimpse at what people wore to weddings, including the traditional garb and adopted American garb as shown in picture number 12. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to agree with you as well Ashley. But the pictures section also reminded me of how men and women sent pictures of each other through letters as a way of courting. Would these be the type of pictures that women would send to men in the west? A few of them seem to show that women's domestic duties included work outside the home, especially pictures taken of the Native American women. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
I don't think these pictures were the kind that women were sending to the men, rather the ones of the native women might have been a part of a photographic study and the others for record keeping purposes or to send home to the photograph. This was the era where photographs took off, as well as the concept of sending "family portraits" to friends and family. I thought the contrast between ethnic modes of dress displayed in the portraits quite interesting. It is also neat that you can see that the people who lived then liked to mix and match their ethnic clothing with American styles of dress. It is quite fascinating looking at that from the viewpoint of assimilation. -Lacey<br />
<br />
The one picture that really stood out to me was the one of Lake Andes in South Dakota. As we grow up we're taught about a stereotypical "western story" with the saloons and the ranches, so seeing that the towns when they were first being settled actually did look like this kind of surprised me. But it was also comforting to know that this typical western town wasn't complete fallacy. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashely about the inclusion of the pictures in Riley's work. I really felt that they added to the text. One picture that struck me was the one of Doctors from Hawaii. The caption states that "married couples often combined cultures in their dress." Did anyone else notice that it was the woman who was maintaining the traditional dress in this image while the man had adopted American clothing? I wonder if this image is also speaking to the fact that men were more likely to adopt American ways then women or if women were more likely to try and hold on to traditional customs? --Sarah Gardner</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-19T04:11:03Z<p>Abore5mq: /* The American Father */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==<br />
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn's article on Chinese-American families before reading ''China Men''. Reading ''China Men'' cold really set me off kilter, but I think I would have been better prepared for it if we had read the article first. It gives some background into this group of people as a whole which you don't really get in ''China Men'' until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on this. I felt like I understood ''China Men'' more after reading the article, but on the other hand I had to think more about the reading this way I guess. Still, some background about Chinese-Americans would have made this book better to understand overall. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was definately seeing parallels between the two and Glenn's article answered alot of questions I had. It kind of connected the dots in ''China Men''. The big issue, I think, in the two readings is the importance of family, as Glenn writes,"filial piety, respect for elders and reverence for tradion" which are the principle teachings of Confucius. I agree with Lacey, I wish we had read this before the other - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree as well, if I hadn't read another Kingston book in HS, I would have had a lot more questions going into the reading. The article gave a lot more background information that might have been helpful in reading China Men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think its also important to bridge the two genres of a literature/nonfiction work like Kingston with the historical article of Glenn. I think by reading Kingston's work in a history course rather than an English course, its easier for me to pull out the history of families and Chinese culture. --Joyce<br />
<br />
I definitely feel like the Glenn article was a nice addition to the reading because it really helped to put the Kingston book into context. Like we were discussing in class on Tuesday, we went into this topic with very little knowledge about the subject so reading this article maybe first, would have been helpful. It definitely put the oral histories in context, though, which answered a lot of questions. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone that this would have been nicer to have up front. I was very confused reading for Tuesday but I feel like the class discussion was really helpful. The article confirmed a lot of what we said in class. I guess like Ashley said putting the article at the end made it more challenging, but I still would have preferred background knowledge before getting so involved in a book which was so different from the others we have read. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I also agree that reading Glenn’s article on Chinese-American families before reading Kingston’s book would have been beneficial. Glenn’s article gives me, a reader with no prior experience with the topic-area, a foothold. I probably would have grasped some of the ideas we discussed on Tuesday a little better had I read that article first. Having the article at the end does function as a ‘wrap-up’ to the subject. It puts everything in perspective. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== The American Father ==<br />
<br />
Even though the first few pages were confusing at first, it was nice to see the narrator go back to the story about the father who got cheated out of the laundry business and took his wife to California. I did enjoy getting to read more up on that part of the family, but it was still made confusing with the tid bit about the father being born in America after telling us earlier he immigrated to America and that he was in America when he married his wife, only I thought he was in China earlier when he married his wife... @.@ The narrator should stick to one story or simply say I don't know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we're not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
After reading this story I truly feel bad for the Father and his family. Losing a laundry business by being cheated by your partners, moving across the country to lose another job and two houses must have been truly frustrating. I thought it was interesting how when the father gave-up the mother took on the dual role of caregiver and nagger. She both pampered him and yelled at him to try and get him to find another job. I was happy to see that in the end he was able to start a new business and raise his family in a more comfortable manner. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I really got into this first chapter. It felt like I was reading a novel because I got so involved in this family and their situation. I felt really bad for the parents working for that owner and his crazy wife. No wonder Maxine and her family tried to escape them. One part that I found interesting was when the author was talking to the other children and she felt left out because her parents didn't spank her or kiss her good night. Does anyone know if this was just a family thing or was it common in the Chinese culture to have family relationships like that, you know, kind of withheld.- Celia<br />
<br />
I agree, this chapter really read like a novel. It seemed so hard and sad to come to America only to fail. This story seemed especially sad since the men went in as partners and one cheated the other. I do not think that many Chinese families had the close personal relationships that many American families have. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I felt bad for this family, but it was inspiring to read the lengths the family went to in order to gain success. After their hard work, their children went on to continue the tradition of teaching (the brother in Vietnam) and be successful, financially independent, and acculturated citizens.-Joyce M<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading about how the Father was treated by his wife after he lost his business. She pretty much insulted him in every way possible and in front of her children. Middle class whites would not approve of this type of relationship. In some ways I think the mother was a little too harsh on the Father, but I can see how she would be frustrated. With the Father not having a job the family was losing most of their income. I can imagine that would be a terrible situation to live in. Though, I don't think that yelling and nagging him was the most productive way to get the Father to work at the time. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
One thing I have noticed after reading these short stories is the level of involvement women have in family matters. In this story we see the wife openly taking care of her husband and yelling at him to get another job. In a story from tuesday, I remember a wife who sent letters to her husband asking for money, and trying to tell him what to do with his earnings. I don’t think that any past family type we have discussed would permit this level of involvement by women. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Glenn, "Split Household..." ==<br />
I think it is interesting how the Chinese found ways to circumvent the laws and regulations placed on them by white Americans. It is both fascinating and deplorable how they could pull the wool over the eyes of these officals who saw them mashed them all together and weren't willing to learn enough about them to be able to tell them apart. Then there is also the fact that so many of these men were willing to separate themselves from their families for so long in order to be able to give them an opportunity at a life better than what they could have in China. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I also felt that the Chinese were very good about working around laws meant to restrict their immigration. Notably, I thought that the idea of "paper sons" was rather clever and shows how they used the laws to their advantage. It was not quite clear to me how they were able to report so many false births in China, it must have been fairly easy to do so. I wonder how many men came over under a false identity to start a new life in America and if their descendants were told who they truly were. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
It is amazing that any Chinese immigrated to the United States at all with so many restrictions place upon them. I realized their situation in China must have been desperate that they even considered traveling to another country, to leave their families and spouses in order to live in a country where they would make menial money and never become citizens until the 40s.---Joyce M<br />
<br />
I found the debate between cultural and institutional approaches to understanding Chinese American families particularly interesting. Perhaps it is the design of the article, but I found the institutional approach particularly strong with reference to Chinese American families. Glenn makes the argument that this family structure and response was not unique to the Chinese American family (p.77), which he outlines in this article, but I was wondering what other families or ethnic groups also portray this response/structure? Are there any families this semester we have already seen that would demonstrate a situational/institutional response instead of a predominantly cultural one? – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== The Brother in Vietnam ==<br />
I am really confused. We got a good impression of the Chinese impression of the Japanese here, but I thought the chapter would be really different based on the title. I feel, in this chapter more than others, that Kingston's writing is convoluted. I have a hard time understanding her points. Like we discussed before, there are clearly personal influences in her writing that make this not exactly a scholarly source. I don't know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting section. I was surprised by the number of ways men created to try and evade the draft. I also thought that the brothers reaction to being in Taiwan was informative. The idea that by stepping back on his ancestors lands made "their whole lives suddenly make sense," indicates that Chinese Americans did maintain a sense of connection with China, even if they had never been there before (291). However, it took him until he was an adult to understand what China really meant to him. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Um, I'm with Amanda. Based on the title of the section, I was expecting something completely different. I mean, it was an interesting chapter and the involvement in the war was definitely something interesting to learn about, but the book was confusing enough as it is. I didn't really need to be thrown off by another chapter. -Kelly W.</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-19T03:59:39Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Bridging Tues. and Thurs. */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==<br />
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn's article on Chinese-American families before reading ''China Men''. Reading ''China Men'' cold really set me off kilter, but I think I would have been better prepared for it if we had read the article first. It gives some background into this group of people as a whole which you don't really get in ''China Men'' until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on this. I felt like I understood ''China Men'' more after reading the article, but on the other hand I had to think more about the reading this way I guess. Still, some background about Chinese-Americans would have made this book better to understand overall. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was definately seeing parallels between the two and Glenn's article answered alot of questions I had. It kind of connected the dots in ''China Men''. The big issue, I think, in the two readings is the importance of family, as Glenn writes,"filial piety, respect for elders and reverence for tradion" which are the principle teachings of Confucius. I agree with Lacey, I wish we had read this before the other - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree as well, if I hadn't read another Kingston book in HS, I would have had a lot more questions going into the reading. The article gave a lot more background information that might have been helpful in reading China Men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think its also important to bridge the two genres of a literature/nonfiction work like Kingston with the historical article of Glenn. I think by reading Kingston's work in a history course rather than an English course, its easier for me to pull out the history of families and Chinese culture. --Joyce<br />
<br />
I definitely feel like the Glenn article was a nice addition to the reading because it really helped to put the Kingston book into context. Like we were discussing in class on Tuesday, we went into this topic with very little knowledge about the subject so reading this article maybe first, would have been helpful. It definitely put the oral histories in context, though, which answered a lot of questions. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone that this would have been nicer to have up front. I was very confused reading for Tuesday but I feel like the class discussion was really helpful. The article confirmed a lot of what we said in class. I guess like Ashley said putting the article at the end made it more challenging, but I still would have preferred background knowledge before getting so involved in a book which was so different from the others we have read. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I also agree that reading Glenn’s article on Chinese-American families before reading Kingston’s book would have been beneficial. Glenn’s article gives me, a reader with no prior experience with the topic-area, a foothold. I probably would have grasped some of the ideas we discussed on Tuesday a little better had I read that article first. Having the article at the end does function as a ‘wrap-up’ to the subject. It puts everything in perspective. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== The American Father ==<br />
<br />
Even though the first few pages were confusing at first, it was nice to see the narrator go back to the story about the father who got cheated out of the laundry business and took his wife to California. I did enjoy getting to read more up on that part of the family, but it was still made confusing with the tid bit about the father being born in America after telling us earlier he immigrated to America and that he was in America when he married his wife, only I thought he was in China earlier when he married his wife... @.@ The narrator should stick to one story or simply say I don't know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we're not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
After reading this story I truly feel bad for the Father and his family. Losing a laundry business by being cheated by your partners, moving across the country to lose another job and two houses must have been truly frustrating. I thought it was interesting how when the father gave-up the mother took on the dual role of caregiver and nagger. She both pampered him and yelled at him to try and get him to find another job. I was happy to see that in the end he was able to start a new business and raise his family in a more comfortable manner. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I really got into this first chapter. It felt like I was reading a novel because I got so involved in this family and their situation. I felt really bad for the parents working for that owner and his crazy wife. No wonder Maxine and her family tried to escape them. One part that I found interesting was when the author was talking to the other children and she felt left out because her parents didn't spank her or kiss her good night. Does anyone know if this was just a family thing or was it common in the Chinese culture to have family relationships like that, you know, kind of withheld.- Celia<br />
<br />
I agree, this chapter really read like a novel. It seemed so hard and sad to come to America only to fail. This story seemed especially sad since the men went in as partners and one cheated the other. I do not think that many Chinese families had the close personal relationships that many American families have. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I felt bad for this family, but it was inspiring to read the lengths the family went to in order to gain success. After their hard work, their children went on to continue the tradition of teaching (the brother in Vietnam) and be successful, financially independent, and acculturated citizens.-Joyce M<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading about how the Father was treated by his wife after he lost his business. She pretty much insulted him in every way possible and in front of her children. Middle class whites would not approve of this type of relationship. In some ways I think the mother was a little too harsh on the Father, but I can see how she would be frustrated. With the Father not having a job the family was losing most of their income. I can imagine that would be a terrible situation to live in. Though, I don't think that yelling and nagging him was the most productive way to get the Father to work at the time. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
== Glenn, "Split Household..." ==<br />
I think it is interesting how the Chinese found ways to circumvent the laws and regulations placed on them by white Americans. It is both fascinating and deplorable how they could pull the wool over the eyes of these officals who saw them mashed them all together and weren't willing to learn enough about them to be able to tell them apart. Then there is also the fact that so many of these men were willing to separate themselves from their families for so long in order to be able to give them an opportunity at a life better than what they could have in China. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I also felt that the Chinese were very good about working around laws meant to restrict their immigration. Notably, I thought that the idea of "paper sons" was rather clever and shows how they used the laws to their advantage. It was not quite clear to me how they were able to report so many false births in China, it must have been fairly easy to do so. I wonder how many men came over under a false identity to start a new life in America and if their descendants were told who they truly were. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
It is amazing that any Chinese immigrated to the United States at all with so many restrictions place upon them. I realized their situation in China must have been desperate that they even considered traveling to another country, to leave their families and spouses in order to live in a country where they would make menial money and never become citizens until the 40s.---Joyce M<br />
<br />
I found the debate between cultural and institutional approaches to understanding Chinese American families particularly interesting. Perhaps it is the design of the article, but I found the institutional approach particularly strong with reference to Chinese American families. Glenn makes the argument that this family structure and response was not unique to the Chinese American family (p.77), which he outlines in this article, but I was wondering what other families or ethnic groups also portray this response/structure? Are there any families this semester we have already seen that would demonstrate a situational/institutional response instead of a predominantly cultural one? – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== The Brother in Vietnam ==<br />
I am really confused. We got a good impression of the Chinese impression of the Japanese here, but I thought the chapter would be really different based on the title. I feel, in this chapter more than others, that Kingston's writing is convoluted. I have a hard time understanding her points. Like we discussed before, there are clearly personal influences in her writing that make this not exactly a scholarly source. I don't know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting section. I was surprised by the number of ways men created to try and evade the draft. I also thought that the brothers reaction to being in Taiwan was informative. The idea that by stepping back on his ancestors lands made "their whole lives suddenly make sense," indicates that Chinese Americans did maintain a sense of connection with China, even if they had never been there before (291). However, it took him until he was an adult to understand what China really meant to him. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Um, I'm with Amanda. Based on the title of the section, I was expecting something completely different. I mean, it was an interesting chapter and the involvement in the war was definitely something interesting to learn about, but the book was confusing enough as it is. I didn't really need to be thrown off by another chapter. -Kelly W.</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-17T05:28:27Z<p>Abore5mq: /* On Mortality */</p>
<hr />
<div>== In General ==<br />
I have to say, in general, this book was confusing at first. However, after reading the synopsis on the back of the book and trying to differentiate between stories it started making a little more sense. Hopefully everything pulls together better at the end. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== On Discovery & On Fathers ==<br />
I thought these two vingettes were a very weird and unusual way to start off a book. The first is a myth which strips masculinity and the second a sort of memory of fathers. I have a hard time seeing how this fits in with the topic of the class, though it does deal with family ties and how masculinity is created. There is also no bibliography or any kind of sources mentioned, which makes me think that this is a fictionalization of reality, which is also just weird. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Going off of Lacey's point above, part of the problem with the sources is that they are stories told down in families and eventually recorded from how they sound. The book itself reads on that it is Non-Fiction and Literature. One of the questions to think about for tomorrow's discussion is how does this book fit into the rest of the semester. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I read Kingston's ''Woman Warrior'' in high school, and I took most of what is in this book to be written in a similar way to Woman Warrior, in that they are all stories that Kingston was told as a young child. ''Woman Warrior'' was a collection of stories that Kingston remembered from childhood, several with her own experiences mixed in as part of the collection. This is what I believe is the reason for not having source material. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I have to agree that the understanding the context of this work is difficult at first. I did not immediately understand that this was a series of narratives told by the author. A brief introduction explaining the format and the origin of the text would have been helpful for readers to understand the intent of the work sooner rather then immediately diving into The On Discovery section. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Going back to the issue of sources -- if these are stories passed down by family members, we have to wonder how accurate these stories really are. The person telling the story could have left things out which they felt gave the family a poor name or something of the sort. I feel that if there was more context to this book it would be more useful. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Kind of going off Kari's comment, there are things that just might have been forgotten over the years. Oral histories are always hard to trust because things are so easily left out either on purpose or accidentally. I think it's an interesting route to take as far as a secondary source is concerned. It's different from what we've been reading which has been documents and letters and journals, essentially. Oral histories, regardless of what was left out, can be just as accurate as a written document. -Kelly W. <br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah's point. I thought this was a novel when I first started reading. A disclaimer would have been nice. But even knowing it's her own stories, what do we make of the sources? How representative are the vignettes? --Amanda<br />
<br />
I was very confused at first with this book, especially since I have a different copy than the one the bookstore sells. I wasn't sure if I was reading the right book. So far, this kind of reminds me of an Amy Tan novel, especially "The Bonesetter's Daughter." I think that this book paints an interesting picture of Chinese families. Though it may not represent a large group of people as a whole, it brings up some subjects that I have seen in other works on Chinese families, inlcuding their fascination with fortune-telling and their deep respect for intelligent people. But again, we have to remember that this is written about one family, and as the others have mentioned, what are her sources and how reliable are they? - Celia<br />
<br />
I am not sure what to make of this book at this point. Like others, I was confused by the author’s approach, and did not really know what I was reading to begin with. I also find myself questioning the authenticity of these stories. Humans are fallible creatures. Whether purposely, or inadvertently, it is possible for stories to be modified. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
Although there was a lot to be said about the two Chinese fathers who immigrated to the United States, I think there was an interesting concept on American cultures and values. The American dream is portrayed as people being honest and able to trust each other with a handshake. But because of the great wealth that is accumulated, "American's are careless and forgetful from one day to the next." Kingston's analysis here can certainly portray future American intellect that in this society, wealth and fortune are easy to achieve and little work is necessary to get there. Unfortunately I find this to be a contagious aspect of American society today. Am I far from the truth? - Joe C.<br />
<br />
== The Father from China ==<br />
<br />
I found the part about the two fathers making the trip to America very interesting. I am not sure which one had it easier, both the legal and illegal father seem to have endured a hard trip. The illegal father, had to smuggle into a small box to be transported as freight on a cargo ship, while is trip may have been harder once he arrived he was free to go as he pleased. The legal father, however, came as an immigrant, and therefore had to pass through the Immigrant Station on Angel Island and be detained for an indefinite amount of time. While it might be a harder journey, being smuggled on board a ship, it would be nice to be able to go as you please. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In reading this section I couldn't help feeling sorry for the father. To be a scholar and study for exams for so hard and so long and ultimately work in a laundry must have felt degrading. I also thought it was interesting that he insisted that his wife get an education before coming to America as he did not want "an ignorant villager for his American wife." (68) Despite his work in a laundry, he still wanted to have the proper appearance of an educated man with a modern wife. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
It was probably because he was "born" intelligent. He was built a certain way so his family and tutors expected him to be intelligent. Even if he didn't have a lofty job or position in life, he was still "intelligent", so it made sense to want someone who would uphold that idea that he was genetically inclined to be scholarly. - Celia<br />
<br />
Were the Four Valuable Things a link between American and Chinese education/intellect or was it more based on retaining the values of the Confucian scholar? They seem to be referenced a lot throughout this section and yet this could be a potential topic discussion. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
== On Mortality ==<br />
Can we just talk for a moment about how powerful that story about the Taoist and immortality was? It was one of those tales that really showed how strong of an emotion love is and how essential it is to the human race. It's a universal emotion and the story really portrays how important it is to families in a very large scale. We spend so much time talking about New England and Southern families that sometimes, as historians, it's hard to remember that some basic morals are the same for every family type. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
After reading On Mortality and On Mortality Again, I wonder if silence is culturally significant to the Chinese. Both stories blame failure on noise. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== The Grandfather of the Sierra Nevada ==<br />
I thought this chapter was surreal. It reads a lot like ''Memoirs of a Geisha'' where history and myth are intertwined to make the moral of the story understandable, but the thing that this story is trying to tell is more amorphous and yet more real. I had heard of the legend of the Spinning Girl and the Cowboy and I understand why men fresh from China would feel connected and homesick from it. I also knew about the way that Chinamen were made to work on the railways. But these things combined with the way that he felt he was having sex with the world or the fact that the white men were impish demons just destroyed the credibilty. And I know that makes me seem as if I am contradicting myself because all of these things relate back to the construction of an ethnic masculinity and family relationships, but this really threw me for a loop. -Lacey.<br />
<br />
== The Making of More Americans ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this section really illustrated the variety of effects that coming to America could have on Chinese immigrants. For example, Sao puts priority on his daughters instead of his mother back in China. Traditionally he would have been responsible for his mother's welfare and care in her old age. However, he buys into the idea of American materialism and invests in a tv and a car instead of feeding his own mother who starves to death. Oppositely, Uncle Bon is so disgusted by what he sees as wasteful American practices and selfishness that he returns to China with the intent of joining the communists. It seems that while some Chinese Americans became acculturated into American society, others were repulsed by it. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also noticed what Sarah points out about Sao not providing for his family in China. His family wrote him many letters complaining about their hunger and health and Sao feels it is more beneficial to take care of his immediate family and life in America, not his extended family in China. This shows the switch to a more nuclear family and individual focus rather than extended/community family focus. In this case the distance of being in America made that process possible, but in order to survive in America and in American culture, Sao had to look out for himself. --Kari W.<br />
<br />
I think that this was the most interesting part of the book. Like Sarah and Kari have pointed out, it really demonstrates how some Chinese Americans are relinquishing their whole extended family support system and are focusing in more on immediate family. It also shows how some families, like Sao's, are placing more value on female children. - Celia</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-17T05:08:27Z<p>Abore5mq: /* On Discovery & On Fathers */</p>
<hr />
<div>== In General ==<br />
I have to say, in general, this book was confusing at first. However, after reading the synopsis on the back of the book and trying to differentiate between stories it started making a little more sense. Hopefully everything pulls together better at the end. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== On Discovery & On Fathers ==<br />
I thought these two vingettes were a very weird and unusual way to start off a book. The first is a myth which strips masculinity and the second a sort of memory of fathers. I have a hard time seeing how this fits in with the topic of the class, though it does deal with family ties and how masculinity is created. There is also no bibliography or any kind of sources mentioned, which makes me think that this is a fictionalization of reality, which is also just weird. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Going off of Lacey's point above, part of the problem with the sources is that they are stories told down in families and eventually recorded from how they sound. The book itself reads on that it is Non-Fiction and Literature. One of the questions to think about for tomorrow's discussion is how does this book fit into the rest of the semester. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I read Kingston's ''Woman Warrior'' in high school, and I took most of what is in this book to be written in a similar way to Woman Warrior, in that they are all stories that Kingston was told as a young child. ''Woman Warrior'' was a collection of stories that Kingston remembered from childhood, several with her own experiences mixed in as part of the collection. This is what I believe is the reason for not having source material. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I have to agree that the understanding the context of this work is difficult at first. I did not immediately understand that this was a series of narratives told by the author. A brief introduction explaining the format and the origin of the text would have been helpful for readers to understand the intent of the work sooner rather then immediately diving into The On Discovery section. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Going back to the issue of sources -- if these are stories passed down by family members, we have to wonder how accurate these stories really are. The person telling the story could have left things out which they felt gave the family a poor name or something of the sort. I feel that if there was more context to this book it would be more useful. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Kind of going off Kari's comment, there are things that just might have been forgotten over the years. Oral histories are always hard to trust because things are so easily left out either on purpose or accidentally. I think it's an interesting route to take as far as a secondary source is concerned. It's different from what we've been reading which has been documents and letters and journals, essentially. Oral histories, regardless of what was left out, can be just as accurate as a written document. -Kelly W. <br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah's point. I thought this was a novel when I first started reading. A disclaimer would have been nice. But even knowing it's her own stories, what do we make of the sources? How representative are the vignettes? --Amanda<br />
<br />
I was very confused at first with this book, especially since I have a different copy than the one the bookstore sells. I wasn't sure if I was reading the right book. So far, this kind of reminds me of an Amy Tan novel, especially "The Bonesetter's Daughter." I think that this book paints an interesting picture of Chinese families. Though it may not represent a large group of people as a whole, it brings up some subjects that I have seen in other works on Chinese families, inlcuding their fascination with fortune-telling and their deep respect for intelligent people. But again, we have to remember that this is written about one family, and as the others have mentioned, what are her sources and how reliable are they? - Celia<br />
<br />
I am not sure what to make of this book at this point. Like others, I was confused by the author’s approach, and did not really know what I was reading to begin with. I also find myself questioning the authenticity of these stories. Humans are fallible creatures. Whether purposely, or inadvertently, it is possible for stories to be modified. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== The Father from China ==<br />
<br />
I found the part about the two fathers making the trip to America very interesting. I am not sure which one had it easier, both the legal and illegal father seem to have endured a hard trip. The illegal father, had to smuggle into a small box to be transported as freight on a cargo ship, while is trip may have been harder once he arrived he was free to go as he pleased. The legal father, however, came as an immigrant, and therefore had to pass through the Immigrant Station on Angel Island and be detained for an indefinite amount of time. While it might be a harder journey, being smuggled on board a ship, it would be nice to be able to go as you please. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In reading this section I couldn't help feeling sorry for the father. To be a scholar and study for exams for so hard and so long and ultimately work in a laundry must have felt degrading. I also thought it was interesting that he insisted that his wife get an education before coming to America as he did not want "an ignorant villager for his American wife." (68) Despite his work in a laundry, he still wanted to have the proper appearance of an educated man with a modern wife. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
It was probably because he was "born" intelligent. He was built a certain way so his family and tutors expected him to be intelligent. Even if he didn't have a lofty job or position in life, he was still "intelligent", so it made sense to want someone who would uphold that idea that he was genetically inclined to be scholarly. - Celia<br />
<br />
== On Mortality ==<br />
Can we just talk for a moment about how powerful that story about the Taoist and immortality was? It was one of those tales that really showed how strong of an emotion love is and how essential it is to the human race. It's a universal emotion and the story really portrays how important it is to families in a very large scale. We spend so much time talking about New England and Southern families that sometimes, as historians, it's hard to remember that some basic morals are the same for every family type. -Kelly W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== The Grandfather of the Sierra Nevada ==<br />
I thought this chapter was surreal. It reads a lot like ''Memoirs of a Geisha'' where history and myth are intertwined to make the moral of the story understandable, but the thing that this story is trying to tell is more amorphous and yet more real. I had heard of the legend of the Spinning Girl and the Cowboy and I understand why men fresh from China would feel connected and homesick from it. I also knew about the way that Chinamen were made to work on the railways. But these things combined with the way that he felt he was having sex with the world or the fact that the white men were impish demons just destroyed the credibilty. And I know that makes me seem as if I am contradicting myself because all of these things relate back to the construction of an ethnic masculinity and family relationships, but this really threw me for a loop. -Lacey.<br />
<br />
== The Making of More Americans ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this section really illustrated the variety of effects that coming to America could have on Chinese immigrants. For example, Sao puts priority on his daughters instead of his mother back in China. Traditionally he would have been responsible for his mother's welfare and care in her old age. However, he buys into the idea of American materialism and invests in a tv and a car instead of feeding his own mother who starves to death. Oppositely, Uncle Bon is so disgusted by what he sees as wasteful American practices and selfishness that he returns to China with the intent of joining the communists. It seems that while some Chinese Americans became acculturated into American society, others were repulsed by it. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also noticed what Sarah points out about Sao not providing for his family in China. His family wrote him many letters complaining about their hunger and health and Sao feels it is more beneficial to take care of his immediate family and life in America, not his extended family in China. This shows the switch to a more nuclear family and individual focus rather than extended/community family focus. In this case the distance of being in America made that process possible, but in order to survive in America and in American culture, Sao had to look out for himself. --Kari W.<br />
<br />
I think that this was the most interesting part of the book. Like Sarah and Kari have pointed out, it really demonstrates how some Chinese Americans are relinquishing their whole extended family support system and are focusing in more on immediate family. It also shows how some families, like Sao's, are placing more value on female children. - Celia</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-10T04:37:14Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Chapter 2 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Ideas ==<br />
<br />
So far I do like this read, but I do have one problem with it. I know its just the style or whatever, but the Preface and Intro had a lot of the author and her ideas and whatnot, I loved the story that led to the creation of this work.... and the rest of the chapters are mostly 'here read the source yourself and have very little comment and input from me' and on top of it at first it was hard to distinguish who was the author and what wasn't because the preface and intro had the author's speech in regular print whereas in the chapter the author's speech in italicized... its rather confusing and annoying. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I wasn't really sure where to put this because it was mentioned in a few of the chapters, the whole eating thing. I have my own theory on some of their theories, like the guy who said that sexual desires decreased/desisted when a person eats only bread and water. Well, duh. The body is having a hard time subsisting on the mediocre food its getting and, at least with other critters and animals, if the body isn't getting enough nutrients they don't have the desire to mate and reproduce. Well, in the long run we'd have those same instincts, so if our bodies don't have enough nutrients, it would be then possible for our desire to go down because we don't have the nutrients. That, or because we're still hungry and we may think of survival before pleasure >^.^< Just a thought and a rant. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
My opinion of this half of the book is that it's interesting but complete ludicrous. It tells us something (I'm not sure what) that people believed this stuff, wrote about it, read it, and perhaps took some of it to heart. But there was no scientific proof or logical reason for most of the advice given, and I have a hard time understanding the rationale of the time period.--Amanda<br />
<br />
My feelings on this book have been interesting. I have to say this has been the most entertaining book. I have been sharing a couple passages with people and I even laugh out loud at some points. I agree with Amanda that some of this seems ludicrous to us now, but people really believed it then, just like we really believe that eating blueberries will prevent cancer. - Celia <br />
<br />
I think this is the most entertaining book we have read all semester. Agreeing with Celia and Amanda, the majority of the “advice” given seems ludicrous by today’s standards. It reminds me of a similar book or article I read a while back about outdated medical treatments. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
I am very glad for the preparation the introduction of this text provides. I felt as if I was stepping into a world that was completely alien to what we see today, that is not to say that I don't see the relation to the modern sense of American modesty and taboo. But they go to such great lengths to have a conversation about they are so hesitant about that they talk in circles around the simplest of concepts. I feel very much akin to Frederick Marryat's take on American prudery. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
I feel like, definitely in the beginning of, chapter one really elaborated on the importance of a proper upbringing by the mother. Children were to be taught from the get-go about chastity and saved before they even had the chance to understand the idea of sex so that they never had to worry about harm or improper behavior. The emphasis of all of this education falling on the mother delves back into the idea of the Republican Motherhood and the mother being the one in charge of the children - a topic we've been discussing for the past couple of weeks. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
One of the things I found particularly interesting about Ch. 2 was the incorporation of science, specifically medicine, into the understanding of the damaging effects of “sexual excess.” I don’t think any of us were surprised by the relationship between inappropriate sexual acts and sin, but I found the incorporation of science to be very interesting. By listing physical ailments and symptoms as well as using empirical evidence (even if it is cited as weak by Walters) plus the role of physicians, advice manual writers were able to bring a justification to their concerns about sexual excess. I think by giving examples of physical ailments associated with this type of sexual deviance they were not only further pointing out the damages to the person, but even giving physical proof of the sin within these people. Even phrenologists used physical anatomy to attempt to better understand sexual excess, pointing to a larger desire for physical, scientific evidence of sexual deviance. –Mary Beth <br />
<br />
This is kind of a small point but I found it interesting reading about the Oneidas. They were the complete opposite of what these manuals were teaching and yet they still gained some what of a following. It was interesting to read that not everyone believed the extreme ideas about chastity during the time period. Not that I am endorsing the Oneidas at all (I think they are just crazy), but it was somewhat refreshing to read something other than "sex is bad". -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Elaborating on Mary Beth’s comments, it seems to me that this was the beginning of our modern approach to sex. Today’s parents, teachers, and church leaders often discourage the acts under pretenses of science as well as sin. As noted, this was a somewhat new idea. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
This chapter was the first mention of family. The book discussed the incorporation of nurses and the replacement of mothers. Apparently the advice of the time was to not use them if possible, but if necessary, to watch them very closely. Then Walters goes on to explain how Dr. Kellogg thought sexual corruption was a hereditary trait through "libidinous blood" (p. 52). I found the parts about how masturbation was a main cause of insanity interesting. And, I had no idea about corsets being used to prevent blood from "overloading sexual organs" (58). In terms of the advice about what to eat and not to eat, I was wondering what the heck people could eat. It seems as though safe diets must have consisted of primarily milk. -Amanda<br />
<br />
Chapter 3, entitled "The Path Downward" shows many factors in the corruption of society from certain points of view. It doesn't take the reader long to realize that many of these advise columns, or lectures or treatises were written by men and women from a certain social class with certain idealized ideas about what American sexuality should be. In what ways does Walters demonstrate the middle-class idea that certain classes contributed to the downfall of the nation's youth? - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting that nurses were blamed for the sexual behavior of their charges. While the advice manuals in no way vindicated parents from being responsible for their children, it seems clear that it was the influence of nurses and maids of the poorer classes who were to blame for initially polluting upper and middle class children. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
Just wanted to point out that Walters talks about women& hysterics on page 72. The hysterical woman has been recurrent throughout the periods and topics we've covered so far. --Amanda<br />
<br />
In his introduction Walters points out that there is underrepresentation of women in sex advice columns in the nineteenth century, which is apparently true by the numbers of sources in this book by men and the number of sources by women. Walters states that women were considered less sexual than men, so there was very little informtion on women's sexuality to write on. However, in chapter four the reader learns about the role of women regarding sexuality- at least mostly from men's point of view. How did some of these male writers view women and their sensuality? - Celia<br />
<br />
Women were viewed in a variety of ways by male writers. For example, Beecher wrote, indirectly, about male fears of female seduction. Sanger wrote about women as prostitutes, a topic which seemed to fascinate many of the male writers. I suppose this was largely due to the fact that prostitution was an anomaly to men who viewed women as virtuous creatures with little to no sexual drive. I also have to wonder as to the accuracy of Sanger's survey of prostitutes. How many of them would have been inclined to tell the truth or to speak with him and his investigators at all? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I'm not saying this was the case in this particular situation, Sarah, but if they felt it would help their general well-being, the average prostitute may be more willing to talk. You've gotta figure, these are women who are making their livelihood in the late hours on the seedier areas of town. Their job isn't safe, and they don't have a reputation that will get them more respectable work. They have to go with what they have. Who knows, maybe they just wanted to be taken a little bit more seriously. -Cash<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
It's apparent that marriage was indeed an important element to society during this time period. I just wanted to point out one little sentence that seriously had me a bit perplexed (and laughing?) - "If all men and women were married and their marriages were perfect, wars would cease; disease would disappear; supreme order would prevail; love universal would reign; heaven would descend to earth."(81) I find this viewpoint, and Holcombe's continuing idea that sex and marriage are both as spiritual as love meaning they are eternal, to be a bit extreme. The fact that he hoped for sex after death is a new idea to me. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that Evrie's discussion of slaves really illustrated how subhuman some individuals believed black slaves to be. His descriptions make them appear no better then animals and his accusations are untrue. For example, as we discussed in class, slaves did attempt to have stable families and were negatively impacted and hurt by separation from those they loved. However, it is by labeling them as incapable of sustaining the same relations as whites that makes slavery permissible to him and other pro-slavery authors. The capability to understand and participate in marriage and family then, were symbols of civilization and superiority and, at least to some, distinguished black from white in Victorian America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I found this chapter really interesting because it gave two different viewpoints. There was Evrie's argument that Sarah talked about, which seems to be the common attitude towards slaves, but there was also Tower's abolitionist argument. I enjoyed reading the different perspectives, especially Tower's. It was nice to read about someone actually sticking up for the the black population and calling out white plantation owners. --Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-10T04:29:06Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Overarching Ideas */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Ideas ==<br />
<br />
So far I do like this read, but I do have one problem with it. I know its just the style or whatever, but the Preface and Intro had a lot of the author and her ideas and whatnot, I loved the story that led to the creation of this work.... and the rest of the chapters are mostly 'here read the source yourself and have very little comment and input from me' and on top of it at first it was hard to distinguish who was the author and what wasn't because the preface and intro had the author's speech in regular print whereas in the chapter the author's speech in italicized... its rather confusing and annoying. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I wasn't really sure where to put this because it was mentioned in a few of the chapters, the whole eating thing. I have my own theory on some of their theories, like the guy who said that sexual desires decreased/desisted when a person eats only bread and water. Well, duh. The body is having a hard time subsisting on the mediocre food its getting and, at least with other critters and animals, if the body isn't getting enough nutrients they don't have the desire to mate and reproduce. Well, in the long run we'd have those same instincts, so if our bodies don't have enough nutrients, it would be then possible for our desire to go down because we don't have the nutrients. That, or because we're still hungry and we may think of survival before pleasure >^.^< Just a thought and a rant. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
My opinion of this half of the book is that it's interesting but complete ludicrous. It tells us something (I'm not sure what) that people believed this stuff, wrote about it, read it, and perhaps took some of it to heart. But there was no scientific proof or logical reason for most of the advice given, and I have a hard time understanding the rationale of the time period.--Amanda<br />
<br />
My feelings on this book have been interesting. I have to say this has been the most entertaining book. I have been sharing a couple passages with people and I even laugh out loud at some points. I agree with Amanda that some of this seems ludicrous to us now, but people really believed it then, just like we really believe that eating blueberries will prevent cancer. - Celia <br />
<br />
I think this is the most entertaining book we have read all semester. Agreeing with Celia and Amanda, the majority of the “advice” given seems ludicrous by today’s standards. It reminds me of a similar book or article I read a while back about outdated medical treatments. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
I am very glad for the preparation the introduction of this text provides. I felt as if I was stepping into a world that was completely alien to what we see today, that is not to say that I don't see the relation to the modern sense of American modesty and taboo. But they go to such great lengths to have a conversation about they are so hesitant about that they talk in circles around the simplest of concepts. I feel very much akin to Frederick Marryat's take on American prudery. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
I feel like, definitely in the beginning of, chapter one really elaborated on the importance of a proper upbringing by the mother. Children were to be taught from the get-go about chastity and saved before they even had the chance to understand the idea of sex so that they never had to worry about harm or improper behavior. The emphasis of all of this education falling on the mother delves back into the idea of the Republican Motherhood and the mother being the one in charge of the children - a topic we've been discussing for the past couple of weeks. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
One of the things I found particularly interesting about Ch. 2 was the incorporation of science, specifically medicine, into the understanding of the damaging effects of “sexual excess.” I don’t think any of us were surprised by the relationship between inappropriate sexual acts and sin, but I found the incorporation of science to be very interesting. By listing physical ailments and symptoms as well as using empirical evidence (even if it is cited as weak by Walters) plus the role of physicians, advice manual writers were able to bring a justification to their concerns about sexual excess. I think by giving examples of physical ailments associated with this type of sexual deviance they were not only further pointing out the damages to the person, but even giving physical proof of the sin within these people. Even phrenologists used physical anatomy to attempt to better understand sexual excess, pointing to a larger desire for physical, scientific evidence of sexual deviance. –Mary Beth <br />
<br />
This is kind of a small point but I found it interesting reading about the Oneidas. They were the complete opposite of what these manuals were teaching and yet they still gained some what of a following. It was interesting to read that not everyone believed the extreme ideas about chastity during the time period. Not that I am endorsing the Oneidas at all (I think they are just crazy), but it was somewhat refreshing to read something other than "sex is bad". -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
This chapter was the first mention of family. The book discussed the incorporation of nurses and the replacement of mothers. Apparently the advice of the time was to not use them if possible, but if necessary, to watch them very closely. Then Walters goes on to explain how Dr. Kellogg thought sexual corruption was a hereditary trait through "libidinous blood" (p. 52). I found the parts about how masturbation was a main cause of insanity interesting. And, I had no idea about corsets being used to prevent blood from "overloading sexual organs" (58). In terms of the advice about what to eat and not to eat, I was wondering what the heck people could eat. It seems as though safe diets must have consisted of primarily milk. -Amanda<br />
<br />
Chapter 3, entitled "The Path Downward" shows many factors in the corruption of society from certain points of view. It doesn't take the reader long to realize that many of these advise columns, or lectures or treatises were written by men and women from a certain social class with certain idealized ideas about what American sexuality should be. In what ways does Walters demonstrate the middle-class idea that certain classes contributed to the downfall of the nation's youth? - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting that nurses were blamed for the sexual behavior of their charges. While the advice manuals in no way vindicated parents from being responsible for their children, it seems clear that it was the influence of nurses and maids of the poorer classes who were to blame for initially polluting upper and middle class children. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
Just wanted to point out that Walters talks about women& hysterics on page 72. The hysterical woman has been recurrent throughout the periods and topics we've covered so far. --Amanda<br />
<br />
In his introduction Walters points out that there is underrepresentation of women in sex advice columns in the nineteenth century, which is apparently true by the numbers of sources in this book by men and the number of sources by women. Walters states that women were considered less sexual than men, so there was very little informtion on women's sexuality to write on. However, in chapter four the reader learns about the role of women regarding sexuality- at least mostly from men's point of view. How did some of these male writers view women and their sensuality? - Celia<br />
<br />
Women were viewed in a variety of ways by male writers. For example, Beecher wrote, indirectly, about male fears of female seduction. Sanger wrote about women as prostitutes, a topic which seemed to fascinate many of the male writers. I suppose this was largely due to the fact that prostitution was an anomaly to men who viewed women as virtuous creatures with little to no sexual drive. I also have to wonder as to the accuracy of Sanger's survey of prostitutes. How many of them would have been inclined to tell the truth or to speak with him and his investigators at all? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I'm not saying this was the case in this particular situation, Sarah, but if they felt it would help their general well-being, the average prostitute may be more willing to talk. You've gotta figure, these are women who are making their livelihood in the late hours on the seedier areas of town. Their job isn't safe, and they don't have a reputation that will get them more respectable work. They have to go with what they have. Who knows, maybe they just wanted to be taken a little bit more seriously. -Cash<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
It's apparent that marriage was indeed an important element to society during this time period. I just wanted to point out one little sentence that seriously had me a bit perplexed (and laughing?) - "If all men and women were married and their marriages were perfect, wars would cease; disease would disappear; supreme order would prevail; love universal would reign; heaven would descend to earth."(81) I find this viewpoint, and Holcombe's continuing idea that sex and marriage are both as spiritual as love meaning they are eternal, to be a bit extreme. The fact that he hoped for sex after death is a new idea to me. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that Evrie's discussion of slaves really illustrated how subhuman some individuals believed black slaves to be. His descriptions make them appear no better then animals and his accusations are untrue. For example, as we discussed in class, slaves did attempt to have stable families and were negatively impacted and hurt by separation from those they loved. However, it is by labeling them as incapable of sustaining the same relations as whites that makes slavery permissible to him and other pro-slavery authors. The capability to understand and participate in marriage and family then, were symbols of civilization and superiority and, at least to some, distinguished black from white in Victorian America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I found this chapter really interesting because it gave two different viewpoints. There was Evrie's argument that Sarah talked about, which seems to be the common attitude towards slaves, but there was also Tower's abolitionist argument. I enjoyed reading the different perspectives, especially Tower's. It was nice to read about someone actually sticking up for the the black population and calling out white plantation owners. --Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-26T01:12:51Z<p>Abore5mq: /* "Freed Women" Article */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
In this chapter, we once again see the role of religion in the South after the Civil War. While, it appears to be less pronounced than in other points of this class, it is still an important factor in these Southern men and women’s lives. In my Religion in America class we just finished discussing the role of religion during the Civil War. My professor emphasized that both sides still viewed the outcomes as the will of God, which we can see in this chapter. Confederates were forced to submit to the will of God and re-evaluate their faithfulness to God, thus crediting their loss not as God being against them, but as a reflection of their lack of submission and faithfulness. We see in the case of the Thomas family, the struggle Southern families faced when trying to understand religion in the context of such great losses. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I still cannot see the role of religion in Whites's book to play that big of a role. Honestly, most of the talk about religion came from quotes from diaries, speeches, etc... that would have been common forms of speech and thought then. I didn't notice Whites particularly playing off on the religion aspect. What I did notice was Whites discussing the hardships ex-Confederate men went through after they returned defeated and the attempts and ways they tried to overcome their humiliation and reinstate their masculinity in society. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Beth, and as we talked about on Tuesday, I believe that religion is highlighted as a theme in this book. Going off of what Mary Beth said, I think that religion could have been used as a rationalization for defeat. A means to shift the blame from themselves, ie the confederacy, to God. If everything was divinely inspired, then it could not have been the soldiers’ fault for losing the war. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
This chapter is the best example yet of how the Civil War changed gender roles and family structures. Men who did return to their families strove at least to resume their position as protector, but the manliness of labor was somewhat undermined by the presence of women in the workforce during the war. Also, the new position of free blacks changed the role of men and women. I felt little sympathy for the wives of men like Charles Jones (p. 151), except that she had to adjust to the "decline in their class position."<br />
Religion, I thought, was a theme in the chapter and book that Whites uses too much. I understand both MB and Ashley's position. ''Some'' families used religion as rationale for defeat, like Andrew said. But like we discussed on Tuesday, religion was much more accepted and mainstreamed at the time, so religious references were not uncommon. I also thought it was interesting to see the role of the Augusta newspaper played. It sounded like they stressed the importance of moving on after Appomattox, though some people were not able or willing to comply.--Amanda<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
In this chapter, we see another form of “social mothering.” Women were able to appropriately and publicly participate in the memorials of Confederate soldiers. We see women tending to the graves and creating associations specifically responsible for the creation and upkeep of memorials to confederate soldiers. I found it particularly interesting the point Whites made that it was easier for women to homogenize deceased soldiers than the actual soldiers they cared for. We see again the extension of “social mothering” with the example of the woman who placed a wreath on the grave of a boy whose mother could not visit, giving the impression that women felt this need and this desire to care for all the deceased soldiers because they knew these men were someone’s father, brother, son, or uncle. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
I learned something new from this chapter! I actually didn't know that such organizations, like the Confederate Survivors' Association, were created. I also (not that this is specifically chapter 7...) liked how Whites included the memorials and the different thoughts, debates, etc. that went into the memorials. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
=="Freed Women" Article==<br />
Before reading this article I did not realize how many choices and responsibilities black women had to their families during and after the civil war. I never took into account that families were often broken up by sales and death. It was all too common to see single black mothers taking care of their children. I was particularly touched by the story of the black women with two children under her arms, another child on her back, a live chicken, a pig and a goat. These women often had to do everything by themselves. –Andrew B</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-26T00:35:00Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Chapter 5 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
In this chapter, we once again see the role of religion in the South after the Civil War. While, it appears to be less pronounced than in other points of this class, it is still an important factor in these Southern men and women’s lives. In my Religion in America class we just finished discussing the role of religion during the Civil War. My professor emphasized that both sides still viewed the outcomes as the will of God, which we can see in this chapter. Confederates were forced to submit to the will of God and re-evaluate their faithfulness to God, thus crediting their loss not as God being against them, but as a reflection of their lack of submission and faithfulness. We see in the case of the Thomas family, the struggle Southern families faced when trying to understand religion in the context of such great losses. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I still cannot see the role of religion in Whites's book to play that big of a role. Honestly, most of the talk about religion came from quotes from diaries, speeches, etc... that would have been common forms of speech and thought then. I didn't notice Whites particularly playing off on the religion aspect. What I did notice was Whites discussing the hardships ex-Confederate men went through after they returned defeated and the attempts and ways they tried to overcome their humiliation and reinstate their masculinity in society. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Beth, and as we talked about on Tuesday, I believe that religion is highlighted as a theme in this book. Going off of what Mary Beth said, I think that religion could have been used as a rationalization for defeat. A means to shift the blame from themselves, ie the confederacy, to God. If everything was divinely inspired, then it could not have been the soldiers’ fault for losing the war. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
In this chapter, we see another form of “social mothering.” Women were able to appropriately and publicly participate in the memorials of Confederate soldiers. We see women tending to the graves and creating associations specifically responsible for the creation and upkeep of memorials to confederate soldiers. I found it particularly interesting the point Whites made that it was easier for women to homogenize deceased soldiers than the actual soldiers they cared for. We see again the extension of “social mothering” with the example of the woman who placed a wreath on the grave of a boy whose mother could not visit, giving the impression that women felt this need and this desire to care for all the deceased soldiers because they knew these men were someone’s father, brother, son, or uncle. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
I learned something new from this chapter! I actually didn't know that such organizations, like the Confederate Survivors' Association, were created. I also (not that this is specifically chapter 7...) liked how Whites included the memorials and the different thoughts, debates, etc. that went into the memorials. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
=="Freed Women" Article==</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-24T01:51:18Z<p>Abore5mq: /* The Book in General */</p>
<hr />
<div>== The Book in General ==<br />
<br />
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do. However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work. So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive. I feel like I'm reading the same thing over and over. I guess that's the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there. And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas's journal thoughts in the Whites's work. I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work. It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas's journal that I had read in a previous class. I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion. The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it. Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing. It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I also noticed the women’s reliance on religion. Perhaps they developed this reliance in the pre-war years. Given the male-dominated society they belonged to, a women's relationship with God may have been one of the only things they had control over. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction. Whites line about the "great southern slaveholding planters" really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history. In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant. All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders. Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey<br />
<br />
==Chapter 1==<br />
<br />
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands. I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to. These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves. And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence. They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man's perogative. There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree it is amazing, I don't think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
==Chapter 2== <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Chapter 3== <br />
<br />
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men. It was almost like they couldn't imagine living any other way. While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or "town fathers", for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Why change the only life you know? It was very difficult for these women to change their way of thinking and take over as head of the household. It was almost easier to just remain subordinate. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yes, it must have been hard for the women and for everyone in general to imagine a life in which women were not subordinate. It would have been like speaking a new language. It is always easier to revert back to your first language. The dominance of men was the foundation for everything in their society. The family, the community, their economy, everything functioned around this idea. Those women given more independence didn’t recognize this as an opportunity; it stood against everything they had known their entire life. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
==Chapter 4==</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-24T01:50:27Z<p>Abore5mq: /* The Book in General */</p>
<hr />
<div>== The Book in General ==<br />
<br />
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do. However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work. So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive. I feel like I'm reading the same thing over and over. I guess that's the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there. And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas's journal thoughts in the Whites's work. I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work. It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas's journal that I had read in a previous class. I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion. The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it. Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing. It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I also noticed the women’s reliance on religion. Perhaps they developed this reliance in the pre-war years. Their relationship with God may have been one of the only things they had control over. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction. Whites line about the "great southern slaveholding planters" really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history. In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant. All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders. Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey<br />
<br />
==Chapter 1==<br />
<br />
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands. I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to. These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves. And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence. They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man's perogative. There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree it is amazing, I don't think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
==Chapter 2== <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Chapter 3== <br />
<br />
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men. It was almost like they couldn't imagine living any other way. While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or "town fathers", for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Why change the only life you know? It was very difficult for these women to change their way of thinking and take over as head of the household. It was almost easier to just remain subordinate. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yes, it must have been hard for the women and for everyone in general to imagine a life in which women were not subordinate. It would have been like speaking a new language. It is always easier to revert back to your first language. The dominance of men was the foundation for everything in their society. The family, the community, their economy, everything functioned around this idea. Those women given more independence didn’t recognize this as an opportunity; it stood against everything they had known their entire life. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
==Chapter 4==</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-24T01:45:11Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Chapter 3 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== The Book in General ==<br />
<br />
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do. However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work. So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive. I feel like I'm reading the same thing over and over. I guess that's the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there. And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas's journal thoughts in the Whites's work. I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work. It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas's journal that I had read in a previous class. I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion. The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it. Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing. It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction. Whites line about the "great southern slaveholding planters" really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history. In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant. All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders. Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey<br />
<br />
==Chapter 1==<br />
<br />
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands. I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to. These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves. And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence. They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man's perogative. There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree it is amazing, I don't think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
==Chapter 2== <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Chapter 3== <br />
<br />
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men. It was almost like they couldn't imagine living any other way. While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or "town fathers", for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Why change the only life you know? It was very difficult for these women to change their way of thinking and take over as head of the household. It was almost easier to just remain subordinate. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yes, it must have been hard for the women and for everyone in general to imagine a life in which women were not subordinate. It would have been like speaking a new language. It is always easier to revert back to your first language. The dominance of men was the foundation for everything in their society. The family, the community, their economy, everything functioned around this idea. Those women given more independence didn’t recognize this as an opportunity; it stood against everything they had known their entire life. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
==Chapter 4==</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-19T07:34:45Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Chapter 6 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
After reading last week's monograph and this week's monograph, I have a curiosity question. In my Latin America studies class, there were court cases where white men tried to seduce and have sex with black male slaves. Is there any evidence that white men tried/did have sex with black men (free or slave)? And, is there any evidence for the white female and black female (free or slave)? I'm not trying to be gross, I'm just wondering if it also happened in America. I'm not sure if this is something people would have brought to court in America because not only would it be sex across the color line, but also homosexual which was just as bad if not worse. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
During Tuesday's class, we discussed what we thought white women might do if their husbands had extramarital sex (fancy word for cheating if you ask me...). Well, on page 134, Rothman discussed this, if ever so briefly, and I quote, "White women responded to the extramarital affairs of their spouses with a combination of resignation, denial, and displaced hostility and vidictiveness toward their slaves." I figured since we talked about it, I'd go ahead and put it up on the wiki. Also, later on in the reading it discussed how some women filed for divorced based on their husbands 'extramarital sex,' but they had to also prove that the reason their husband was having these affairs was not because she was not pious, submissive, etc.. I just thought that was interesting in its own way. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One thing I found interesting was the reason behind sexual violence. "Interracial sexual abuse reminded enslaved black women that their bodies were never their own. It placed black men on notice that their families were insignificant and their pretenses to protecting their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters from harm ultimately futile." (134) White men raped their slave women to prove their power. In response to Ashley, their wives wanted to prove their power over their slaves, and that it didn't matter what their husbands were doing. These women wanted to make sure their slaves did not look at them differently just because of their husband's indiscretions. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It seems to me that there was a little bit of irony in this chapter. It discusses at the beginning of the chapter that although the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female. Rothman then goes on to state that Virginia communities did not always agree with that sort of punishment without all the evidence and particular circumstances considered. After reading the cases of the chapter, it appears to me that the majority of cases went straight to the death penalty, especially in Manuel's case. Therefore, the argument should be that a male slave who acted alone in murdering a white male, regardless of the crime the white male committed, the black slave would be on a one way street to the gallows. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
Rothman certainly had more sources for this chapter and made his points well. The cases were fascinating but I was frankly shocked by some of the circumstances (Ben, the wife and Gooding come to mind). And actually, I have to disagree with Joe. While some slaves such as Manuel and Henry were hanged, many were acquitted or the sentence was lessened to "transportation." I was really surprised by this. This chapter exposed many facets of white&black relations that are not usually taught. I had no idea the extent to which whites tried and often succeeded in intervening on the behalf of slaves. Even the fact that some slaves had attorneys and their cases were brought into courts surprised me. After reading this chapter, I felt that slave women had one choice in life: between rape or death.--Amanda<br />
<br />
Responding to Amanda's comment about transportation instead of execution: I don't see this as whites intervening on behalf of slaves. I think it was totally self-serving. At least that is how Rothman presents it in this chapter. I also think that reason behind the attorneys was maybe not so much to protect the slave. Maybe it was just because the slave was a valuable piece of property, so the decision to kill the slave had to go through proper legal channels. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
In reading this chapter, I was struck by how much personal relationships and situations influenced the sentences of slaves accused of murdering white men. Like Amanda, I did not expect to read that white men often petitioned the governor on the behalf of a slave. Granted, as Rothman discusses, slaves were viewed as "valuable" and so many men wanted to save them for work, yet many of the petitioners were neighbors who seem to legitimately have had some feeling for the victims. I also was unaware of the frequency with which slaves were able to testify in court. Ultimately though, this chapter really illustrated the social hierarchy to me. That white men would stand up for a black man who clearly raped a white woman, because she was poor, really surprised me and shows that gender and class were, at least occasionally, as important as race in court cases and public opinion. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda. When I first started to read this chapter, I thought it would be all about black slaves receiving the death penalty for killing white people. But I was surprised at the number of sentences that were not death penalties. I was also surprised that when black men had sex with white women of sordid reputation, no male protection or were poor, they (the slaves) often gained the sympathy of white men. This is mostly because the black slaves were considered more valuable and less contemptible to society. This and, as Amanda wrote above, some of the cases where white men were lenient towards blacks were surprising. - Celia<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Joe here. As Joe points out the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female yet there are contradictions in terms of how/if/what punishment was carried out. However, Sarah too raises a very important point about value. -Stephen<br />
<br />
I wanted to elaborate on Kellye's point a bit and just point out that, as twenty-first century individuals, we tend to forget that (enslaved) black women once did not have ownership of their own bodies. Because they were property their bodies too were simply a thing that belonged to a white slave owner. Essentially, they were toys for their masters to play with, as horrible as that sounds. I did find it interesting though, that at one point Rothman discussed the issue of Malinda, a slave woman who killed another black man as he tried to sexually assault her. Against someone of her own kind, she had the ability to cry self-defense. Against any white man that typically was not the case. -Kelly<br />
<br />
I found this chapter to be very disturbing first of all. However, I found the case of Peggy and Patrick very interesting. They were first given the death penalty, but the jury thought that Peggy received mercy because of her horrible treatment prior to the murder. It was almost like these white men were trying to say that her horrible treatment was a rare case and that slave owners are not normally like that in order to give slaveholders a better name. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the chapter, a question kept running through my mind. Did men or women ever lie about interracial adultery, or was it always proven to be the case that the offending party was in fact sleeping with someone that was not only not the husband/wife, but of a different race? It just seems to me like this is a claim that could just be thrown out there no matter what and because of the scandal attached, there wouldn't be much in the way of defense for the offending party. -Cash<br />
<br />
To answer Cash's first question, I would say of course they lied. The only proof of adultery only came from being caught in the act, or having a child. In southern American society, especially within the legal constructs of Virginia, males were the more convincing because they were only guilty if they were caught in the act. Both scenarios for proof of adulterous activity were possible for women and in a gender polarized society, white males generally had the upper hand and were more convincing. I laughed after reading on page 175 at the list of men from Nansemond County that had told the legislature they acted responsibly. Although it is possible, the white slave owning males' word was their only proof of innocence. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
While I think we are inclined to speculate that people lied about interracial marriages (and it is definitely possible that it did happen) I think we need to keep in mind the shame associated with making a public claim. Rotham goes to great length to describe the shame that both men and women felt. If a man was cheating it was not only embarrassing to the man, but in some way the woman was unable to fulfill her role as a proper women, including sexually pleasing the man. If a woman was cheating it was embarrassing for her, but even more embarrassing for a man who had loss control of his wife, particularly her sexual life, which attacked not only his role as husband, but his masculinity. While it is an interesting point to consider I think we must remember the public shame associated with all of these accusations. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I think it's interesting that Rothman explained that whites felt it wasn't white supremacy on the line, but rather the sanctity of marriage. Clearly just as Stevenson said it was much easier for men to get divorces. I am really perplexed by the case of Sarah and Richard Hall on p. 178-179. Why the heck did Sarah get married if she was already involved with a black man? I thought perhaps it was about property and legal status, but did she just expect to keep having the black man's children and live with her husband? What ''was'' she thinking?!--Amanda<br />
<br />
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Chapter 4 Rothman was talking about how when white men were having sex with black women it was more a power thing, something to emasculate the black male slaves. But in Chapter 5, when white women had sex with black men it was a violation of their marriage vows. I am not a fan of either man or wife cheating, but I thought that this situation was very off balanced. Anyone else agree? -Celia<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Celia. Those poor women who wanted a divorce had to have so much evidence other than adultery in order for it to actually be considered and if a man wanted to get a divorce he just had to state that his wife was sleeping with a slave. Also, women had to prove that they were a good wife to the jury in order to get a divorce. The double standard is really ridiculous. I understand that my opinion is based off of modern times and ideas, but still you would think people would be able to see that back then. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
In reading this chapter I was reminded of our past discussions on the role of the community on marital relations and divorce. Clearly one needed the community to be supportive of one's divorce petition in order to have a chance of obtaining one. I thought it was interesting that while the community appeared happy to help a man or women who was filing for divorce and testify for them, they made it a point not to encourage divorce. As I recall, Stevenson's section on divorce made it sound as if the community expected individuals to obtain a divorce under certain situations and pressured people to do so, whereas Rothman presents the communities role in a different light. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I was amazed that there was 61 different ways to describe the skin tone of blacks. I also found it sad that even if someone was legally white as well as looked white, the community did not always accept the fact that they were white. The most important the community viewed after physical and legal conditions was who the person associated with. Community standing was probably the most significant factor when determining a persons whiteness. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think Rothman's point about racial ambiguity was well argued. None of the cases were clear cut and although ancestry was the legal determining factor, physical characteristics often played a role as well.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda and Kellye. The dicatomy for charaterizing slaves was intresting, but also valueable in seeking a better understanding of the legal factors of the day. - Stephen<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that social reputation played a role in defining color. Does that mean a light skinned slave is blacker than a dark skinned freeman? It makes little sense to me. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
I, like Kelly, was surprised that there were so many ways to categorize the color of African Americans. Also, I had never really questioned why ancestry was the means of determining a persons racial classification. Having read Rothman's work, I now wonder why that was used as the definitive means of determining if a person was black, white or mulatto. If society truly wanted to not have a large population of whites with black heritage, I would have thought they would have established a more limiting system then that. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Although Rothman notes the complications that Native American’s make, he does not fully discuss this. I think that a study of attitudes regarding Native Americans and interracial sex would be interesting. I wonder how they compared to Blacks? –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
In the Epilogue, Rothman discusses a valuable point of view that most Americans today tend to default their way in to (for lack of a better phrase) and that is the "slavery was bad but everyone is equal now" approach to life. Although rather cheesey, Rothman lays it all on the line as he says "Finally, they seem to feel we can move on. Tom and Sally were really in love, after all, and slavery was a long time ago." He argues that interracial sex and the amount of time and energy whites spent hating blacks and both sides of the color line spent feuding is often overlooked in history classes today in a "slavery ended hundreds of years ago and we're not like that anymore" sort of way. So I have a question - do you think that's true? Do Americans today kind of, "romanticize" the era, so to speak? -Kelly</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-19T07:27:19Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Chapter 6 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
After reading last week's monograph and this week's monograph, I have a curiosity question. In my Latin America studies class, there were court cases where white men tried to seduce and have sex with black male slaves. Is there any evidence that white men tried/did have sex with black men (free or slave)? And, is there any evidence for the white female and black female (free or slave)? I'm not trying to be gross, I'm just wondering if it also happened in America. I'm not sure if this is something people would have brought to court in America because not only would it be sex across the color line, but also homosexual which was just as bad if not worse. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
During Tuesday's class, we discussed what we thought white women might do if their husbands had extramarital sex (fancy word for cheating if you ask me...). Well, on page 134, Rothman discussed this, if ever so briefly, and I quote, "White women responded to the extramarital affairs of their spouses with a combination of resignation, denial, and displaced hostility and vidictiveness toward their slaves." I figured since we talked about it, I'd go ahead and put it up on the wiki. Also, later on in the reading it discussed how some women filed for divorced based on their husbands 'extramarital sex,' but they had to also prove that the reason their husband was having these affairs was not because she was not pious, submissive, etc.. I just thought that was interesting in its own way. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One thing I found interesting was the reason behind sexual violence. "Interracial sexual abuse reminded enslaved black women that their bodies were never their own. It placed black men on notice that their families were insignificant and their pretenses to protecting their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters from harm ultimately futile." (134) White men raped their slave women to prove their power. In response to Ashley, their wives wanted to prove their power over their slaves, and that it didn't matter what their husbands were doing. These women wanted to make sure their slaves did not look at them differently just because of their husband's indiscretions. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It seems to me that there was a little bit of irony in this chapter. It discusses at the beginning of the chapter that although the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female. Rothman then goes on to state that Virginia communities did not always agree with that sort of punishment without all the evidence and particular circumstances considered. After reading the cases of the chapter, it appears to me that the majority of cases went straight to the death penalty, especially in Manuel's case. Therefore, the argument should be that a male slave who acted alone in murdering a white male, regardless of the crime the white male committed, the black slave would be on a one way street to the gallows. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
Rothman certainly had more sources for this chapter and made his points well. The cases were fascinating but I was frankly shocked by some of the circumstances (Ben, the wife and Gooding come to mind). And actually, I have to disagree with Joe. While some slaves such as Manuel and Henry were hanged, many were acquitted or the sentence was lessened to "transportation." I was really surprised by this. This chapter exposed many facets of white&black relations that are not usually taught. I had no idea the extent to which whites tried and often succeeded in intervening on the behalf of slaves. Even the fact that some slaves had attorneys and their cases were brought into courts surprised me. After reading this chapter, I felt that slave women had one choice in life: between rape or death.--Amanda<br />
<br />
Responding to Amanda's comment about transportation instead of execution: I don't see this as whites intervening on behalf of slaves. I think it was totally self-serving. At least that is how Rothman presents it in this chapter. I also think that reason behind the attorneys was maybe not so much to protect the slave. Maybe it was just because the slave was a valuable piece of property, so the decision to kill the slave had to go through proper legal channels. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
In reading this chapter, I was struck by how much personal relationships and situations influenced the sentences of slaves accused of murdering white men. Like Amanda, I did not expect to read that white men often petitioned the governor on the behalf of a slave. Granted, as Rothman discusses, slaves were viewed as "valuable" and so many men wanted to save them for work, yet many of the petitioners were neighbors who seem to legitimately have had some feeling for the victims. I also was unaware of the frequency with which slaves were able to testify in court. Ultimately though, this chapter really illustrated the social hierarchy to me. That white men would stand up for a black man who clearly raped a white woman, because she was poor, really surprised me and shows that gender and class were, at least occasionally, as important as race in court cases and public opinion. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda. When I first started to read this chapter, I thought it would be all about black slaves receiving the death penalty for killing white people. But I was surprised at the number of sentences that were not death penalties. I was also surprised that when black men had sex with white women of sordid reputation, no male protection or were poor, they (the slaves) often gained the sympathy of white men. This is mostly because the black slaves were considered more valuable and less contemptible to society. This and, as Amanda wrote above, some of the cases where white men were lenient towards blacks were surprising. - Celia<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Joe here. As Joe points out the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female yet there are contradictions in terms of how/if/what punishment was carried out. However, Sarah too raises a very important point about value. -Stephen<br />
<br />
I wanted to elaborate on Kellye's point a bit and just point out that, as twenty-first century individuals, we tend to forget that (enslaved) black women once did not have ownership of their own bodies. Because they were property their bodies too were simply a thing that belonged to a white slave owner. Essentially, they were toys for their masters to play with, as horrible as that sounds. I did find it interesting though, that at one point Rothman discussed the issue of Malinda, a slave woman who killed another black man as he tried to sexually assault her. Against someone of her own kind, she had the ability to cry self-defense. Against any white man that typically was not the case. -Kelly<br />
<br />
I found this chapter to be very disturbing first of all. However, I found the case of Peggy and Patrick very interesting. They were first given the death penalty, but the jury thought that Peggy received mercy because of her horrible treatment prior to the murder. It was almost like these white men were trying to say that her horrible treatment was a rare case and that slave owners are not normally like that in order to give slaveholders a better name. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the chapter, a question kept running through my mind. Did men or women ever lie about interracial adultery, or was it always proven to be the case that the offending party was in fact sleeping with someone that was not only not the husband/wife, but of a different race? It just seems to me like this is a claim that could just be thrown out there no matter what and because of the scandal attached, there wouldn't be much in the way of defense for the offending party. -Cash<br />
<br />
To answer Cash's first question, I would say of course they lied. The only proof of adultery only came from being caught in the act, or having a child. In southern American society, especially within the legal constructs of Virginia, males were the more convincing because they were only guilty if they were caught in the act. Both scenarios for proof of adulterous activity were possible for women and in a gender polarized society, white males generally had the upper hand and were more convincing. I laughed after reading on page 175 at the list of men from Nansemond County that had told the legislature they acted responsibly. Although it is possible, the white slave owning males' word was their only proof of innocence. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
While I think we are inclined to speculate that people lied about interracial marriages (and it is definitely possible that it did happen) I think we need to keep in mind the shame associated with making a public claim. Rotham goes to great length to describe the shame that both men and women felt. If a man was cheating it was not only embarrassing to the man, but in some way the woman was unable to fulfill her role as a proper women, including sexually pleasing the man. If a woman was cheating it was embarrassing for her, but even more embarrassing for a man who had loss control of his wife, particularly her sexual life, which attacked not only his role as husband, but his masculinity. While it is an interesting point to consider I think we must remember the public shame associated with all of these accusations. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I think it's interesting that Rothman explained that whites felt it wasn't white supremacy on the line, but rather the sanctity of marriage. Clearly just as Stevenson said it was much easier for men to get divorces. I am really perplexed by the case of Sarah and Richard Hall on p. 178-179. Why the heck did Sarah get married if she was already involved with a black man? I thought perhaps it was about property and legal status, but did she just expect to keep having the black man's children and live with her husband? What ''was'' she thinking?!--Amanda<br />
<br />
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Chapter 4 Rothman was talking about how when white men were having sex with black women it was more a power thing, something to emasculate the black male slaves. But in Chapter 5, when white women had sex with black men it was a violation of their marriage vows. I am not a fan of either man or wife cheating, but I thought that this situation was very off balanced. Anyone else agree? -Celia<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Celia. Those poor women who wanted a divorce had to have so much evidence other than adultery in order for it to actually be considered and if a man wanted to get a divorce he just had to state that his wife was sleeping with a slave. Also, women had to prove that they were a good wife to the jury in order to get a divorce. The double standard is really ridiculous. I understand that my opinion is based off of modern times and ideas, but still you would think people would be able to see that back then. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
In reading this chapter I was reminded of our past discussions on the role of the community on marital relations and divorce. Clearly one needed the community to be supportive of one's divorce petition in order to have a chance of obtaining one. I thought it was interesting that while the community appeared happy to help a man or women who was filing for divorce and testify for them, they made it a point not to encourage divorce. As I recall, Stevenson's section on divorce made it sound as if the community expected individuals to obtain a divorce under certain situations and pressured people to do so, whereas Rothman presents the communities role in a different light. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I was amazed that there was 61 different ways to describe the skin tone of blacks. I also found it sad that even if someone was legally white as well as looked white, the community did not always accept the fact that they were white. The most important the community viewed after physical and legal conditions was who the person associated with. Community standing was probably the most significant factor when determining a persons whiteness. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think Rothman's point about racial ambiguity was well argued. None of the cases were clear cut and although ancestry was the legal determining factor, physical characteristics often played a role as well.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda and Kellye. The dicatomy for charaterizing slaves was intresting, but also valueable in seeking a better understanding of the legal factors of the day. - Stephen<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that social reputation played a role in defining color. Does that mean a light skinned slave is blacker than a dark skinned freeman? It makes little sense to me. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
In the Epilogue, Rothman discusses a valuable point of view that most Americans today tend to default their way in to (for lack of a better phrase) and that is the "slavery was bad but everyone is equal now" approach to life. Although rather cheesey, Rothman lays it all on the line as he says "Finally, they seem to feel we can move on. Tom and Sally were really in love, after all, and slavery was a long time ago." He argues that interracial sex and the amount of time and energy whites spent hating blacks and both sides of the color line spent feuding is often overlooked in history classes today in a "slavery ended hundreds of years ago and we're not like that anymore" sort of way. So I have a question - do you think that's true? Do Americans today kind of, "romanticize" the era, so to speak? -Kelly</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-17T00:28:12Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book. I'm not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me. I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a "oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world." --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole "Those two people can't be together and have a family because of the color of their skin." So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed. I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn't people just leave others alone? If you don't like what 2 other people are doing, don't look at them. If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don't pay attention to them. Let them live their lives and ignore them. If they want to have a kid, who cares. The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex 'across the color line,' but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free? Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia. I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south. When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships? -Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==<br />
<br />
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most. I guess this was just my naive "The Founding Fathers are Gods" education but I didn't realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was. I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side. Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly. However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Kelly, I totally agree with you. I felt much of the same way. It seems to me that a lot of people do what Jefferson did, that is cast someone aside that is no longer of value to them. Callender was really there just to meet Jefferson's needs. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have read so many accounts and so many interpretations of the Thomas Jefferson / Sally Hemings saga that I could barely make it through chapter 1. One thing, however, did stick out to me. I felt as if Rothman was discounting the fact that Jefferson was a racist slave owner. I felt as if Rothman gave Jefferson too much credit, as if… “yea he owns slaves, but, he was a founding father, so it is OK.” -Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-17T00:23:26Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Overarching Topics */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book. I'm not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me. I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a "oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world." --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole "Those two people can't be together and have a family because of the color of their skin." So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed. I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn't people just leave others alone? If you don't like what 2 other people are doing, don't look at them. If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don't pay attention to them. Let them live their lives and ignore them. If they want to have a kid, who cares. The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex 'across the color line,' but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free? Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia. I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south. When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships? -Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==<br />
<br />
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most. I guess this was just my naive "The Founding Fathers are Gods" education but I didn't realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was. I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side. Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly. However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-12T03:45:03Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Slave Family */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Slave Family ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I always knew it happened, but it was still sad to read about the cases where slaves would marry (with or without permission from their 'masters') and then one of the spouses be sold off, or their children get sold off. Compared to the whites, slave family was vastly different, especially the most households being headed by a female member. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Stevenson spends quite some time discussing the matrifocal family. I found it particularly interesting the link between matrifocal structured families and Virginia law as well as a reference to family structures back in Africa. While I can see how the law dictating the status of a child via the mother would create a matrifocally structured family, I struggle to understand how slaves might have preferred this family structure (p.223). While it may have been familiar it was certainly not ideal and I think it is a stretch to make such a claim that since matrifocally structured families were popular in West Africa that families might even prefer this set up in Virginia. Granted, Stevenson has not painted the picture of stability for those families that were able or willing to have nuclear families, but matrifocal families placed such a burden of protection and sole caretaker on the woman, that it seems far from a preference for matrifocal families, but more likely a necessity of the situation. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
Looking at the two accounts by Stevenson and Mintz and Kellogg, one gets a look into how "exceptional" Loudoun County, VA was in Antebellum South. Stevenson offers many numbers and figures on how slave families were seperated, for the most part, between various plantations that their masters owned. Mintz and Kellogg declare that slave families were very rarely seperated. I suppose this goes to show how Loudoun was made up of different people, lots of white upper-class who owned numerous plantations all over the state and many parts of the South. This explains why Stevenson stresses seperation amongst black slave families -- Celia<br />
<br />
Slave families were certainly different from free families. Although there are a number of similarities, there were numerous differences. I found one passage to be extremely telling of the situation--“We were not allowed to call our mammies ‘mother.’” In some cases, slave families were not even recognized by whites. It is hard to form a cohesive family unit when you are dominated by a group of people who do not recognize your right to a family. It is easy to see why the community played such a large role in the slave family. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Slave Children ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In some ways, the slave children can be compared to the children of the slums in the NY. Only sorta mind you. The comparison is that they both had to start working from a really early age. I know we didn't get an age for the kids in NY, but the slave children were working at the age of 6... which means some of them probably got beat for 'misbehaving' at the age of 6... or even younger. :-( --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
== It takes a village... ==<br />
After reading both sections of Stevenson's book about white and black families, I wonder which group this statement applies to best: it takes a village to raise a child. I can see both sides. White families may have had a mid-wife involved in the family, along with slave nurses, and extended family. White women seem to have had more time to raise their own children. In black families and communities, childrearing defaulted to other slaves and older women. Mothers had little if any time to be mothers, and may have been separated from their kids either by work or sale. Is it clear cut which group--black or white--raised children with the community? -Amanda<br />
<br />
It is interesting to see the parallels between slave families and white families during industrialization. Both sets were facing exploitation of some sort, and both relied on the community. In the case of slaves, the community functioned as a defacto family. One could count on the community to raise your child if you were every separated. The community was also responsible for babysitting and food preparation. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Childbirth ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading the chapter on slave marriage and families, I was struck by the practice of slave masters encouraging pregnancy in their female slaves for their own financial benefit. This seems to be a grave contradiction with the statistics that Stevenson provides showing that over half of slave babies died before the age of 1. It seems very odd that a master would provide incentives for female slaves to reproduce and yet provide them with such poor living situations and conditions that only half of their babies survived to actually be an asset to them. This really illustrates the lack of value they put on the life of slaves as human beings. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
That did seem strange. I guess people didn't really think things through when it came to making money. -- Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
== Distinctions ==<br />
<br />
I was really interested in the section in Mintz and Kellogg about African American kinship systems and how they made distinctions between themselves and their white owners. The authors state that the slaves did not merely wish to continue their African customs or to deviate completely from their white owners' ways. They combined the two to suit their situation. The thing that jumped out at me was their view on first-cousin marriage. They believed it was incest and this belief was carried over with them from West Africa, while at the same time many Southerners married first-cousins. This goes to show that the slaves put a lot of emphasis on their extended family system. -- Celia</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-12T03:39:26Z<p>Abore5mq: /* It takes a village... */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Slave Family ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I always knew it happened, but it was still sad to read about the cases where slaves would marry (with or without permission from their 'masters') and then one of the spouses be sold off, or their children get sold off. Compared to the whites, slave family was vastly different, especially the most households being headed by a female member. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Stevenson spends quite some time discussing the matrifocal family. I found it particularly interesting the link between matrifocal structured families and Virginia law as well as a reference to family structures back in Africa. While I can see how the law dictating the status of a child via the mother would create a matrifocally structured family, I struggle to understand how slaves might have preferred this family structure (p.223). While it may have been familiar it was certainly not ideal and I think it is a stretch to make such a claim that since matrifocally structured families were popular in West Africa that families might even prefer this set up in Virginia. Granted, Stevenson has not painted the picture of stability for those families that were able or willing to have nuclear families, but matrifocal families placed such a burden of protection and sole caretaker on the woman, that it seems far from a preference for matrifocal families, but more likely a necessity of the situation. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
Looking at the two accounts by Stevenson and Mintz and Kellogg, one gets a look into how "exceptional" Loudoun County, VA was in Antebellum South. Stevenson offers many numbers and figures on how slave families were seperated, for the most part, between various plantations that their masters owned. Mintz and Kellogg declare that slave families were very rarely seperated. I suppose this goes to show how Loudoun was made up of different people, lots of white upper-class who owned numerous plantations all over the state and many parts of the South. This explains why Stevenson stresses seperation amongst black slave families -- Celia<br />
<br />
== Slave Children ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In some ways, the slave children can be compared to the children of the slums in the NY. Only sorta mind you. The comparison is that they both had to start working from a really early age. I know we didn't get an age for the kids in NY, but the slave children were working at the age of 6... which means some of them probably got beat for 'misbehaving' at the age of 6... or even younger. :-( --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
== It takes a village... ==<br />
After reading both sections of Stevenson's book about white and black families, I wonder which group this statement applies to best: it takes a village to raise a child. I can see both sides. White families may have had a mid-wife involved in the family, along with slave nurses, and extended family. White women seem to have had more time to raise their own children. In black families and communities, childrearing defaulted to other slaves and older women. Mothers had little if any time to be mothers, and may have been separated from their kids either by work or sale. Is it clear cut which group--black or white--raised children with the community? -Amanda<br />
<br />
It is interesting to see the parallels between slave families and white families during industrialization. Both sets were facing exploitation of some sort, and both relied on the community. In the case of slaves, the community functioned as a defacto family. One could count on the community to raise your child if you were every separated. The community was also responsible for babysitting and food preparation. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Childbirth ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading the chapter on slave marriage and families, I was struck by the practice of slave masters encouraging pregnancy in their female slaves for their own financial benefit. This seems to be a grave contradiction with the statistics that Stevenson provides showing that over half of slave babies died before the age of 1. It seems very odd that a master would provide incentives for female slaves to reproduce and yet provide them with such poor living situations and conditions that only half of their babies survived to actually be an asset to them. This really illustrates the lack of value they put on the life of slaves as human beings. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
That did seem strange. I guess people didn't really think things through when it came to making money. -- Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
== Distinctions ==<br />
<br />
I was really interested in the section in Mintz and Kellogg about African American kinship systems and how they made distinctions between themselves and their white owners. The authors state that the slaves did not merely wish to continue their African customs or to deviate completely from their white owners' ways. They combined the two to suit their situation. The thing that jumped out at me was their view on first-cousin marriage. They believed it was incest and this belief was carried over with them from West Africa, while at the same time many Southerners married first-cousins. This goes to show that the slaves put a lot of emphasis on their extended family system. -- Celia</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-05T01:30:55Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Chapter 3 it talked about child labor in urban areas. I found this very interesting to look at the differences between child labor in the midwest like we talked about earlier and child labor in urban areas. This was very different from the urban family "ideal." Not only were children working in factories to help "earn their keep", but older children were raising younger children so their mothers could work longer hours. This once again proves that the ideal was never the norm. It's really interesting to read how different living situations affected family life. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Chapter 8 about Domestic Service. It was interesting to read about the shift to immigrant workers and how women used immigrant workers to gain status in society. Previously, mistresses were used to help the lady of the house out with domestic chores. However, when issues of status came into effect, women started making their mistresses do everything. Also, it was more respected to have an immigrant worker do everything so the lady of the house could do things such as read and other leizure activities. It sounds like women are trying to gain some independence and superiority by ordering around their servants. --Kari W.<br />
<br />
'''Children''' It just struck home again as to how vital children were to the working class economy. They were errand-runners, scavengers, domestic workers and wage earners. Without them, many working class families would not have, or did not, survive in urban areas like New York. If the mother was able to stay home children were emissaries to the outside world, running errands to buy things, or scavenging them to save their family a few pennies, perhaps they were even sent outside the home to earn money for the family. And yet, the middle class and upper class residents of the city did not deign to see that without these children the working class family would have collapsed and their lives of relative comfort and security would not have been possible. Even working class families were not always able to appreciate their children because they did not meet their standards of production, thus the House of Refuge. There are an incredible number of dynamics that affect the lives of children in such a place, so many that it seems a number of them were lost to the people who were there for the experience. -Lacey<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service.'''I have to say, that Chapter 8 gave me some new insights that I didn't know beforehand. One of the main things that was new to me was that even though there were so many new immigrants, and so much overcrowding, according to ''City of Women'', young women who worked in domestic service had enough leverage to negotiate their terms of service because demand for them was so high. This amazed me with the types of negotiations mentioned, and threats they used to get their way. Granted, I doubt it worked every time, but it must have been nice having some say in what they would and would not do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Children.''' The part of the excerpt from ''City of Women'' that discussed what the children's roles in family were actually kind of amazed me. I mean I always figured those old enough to walk around, but too young to do wage worked helped somewhere, I just never really thought of how. The scavenging that some of them did is just amazing. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Scavenging''' The bits in chapter 3 about scavenging really blew me away. Throughout this entire section, I kept picturing The Kid from Dick Tracy (yes, The Kid in capital letters. I checked it on IMDB to be sure) before he gets rescued. I think we tend to take the immense responsibility of the parents for granted in these situations, assuming that the children involved would not have to contribute at the same level. It really brought home the idea of family as a community, and not just the parents bringing in supplies and income. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
'''Thesis''' What is the main argument of Stansell's work?<br />
<br />
'''Connection''' How do the sections of reading today connect to the understand we established yesterday between the diffrence between the ideal and the practical family system?<br />
<br />
'''Neighborhood''' The concept of the neighborhood and its effect on working class women was a concept in Chapter 3 that I found extremely important. The argument of Stansell is that working-class neighborhoods gave women leverage in their dealings with men and was the "court system" of urban working class society. Although there was no glorifying physical aspect of the neighborhood, the idea that '''aid to neighbors structured expectations of reciprocal help''' was the accepted tradition among the working class. -Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Thesis''' I think the thesis of Stansell's work is that although the role and class structure of women in 19th century urban society varied, they all shared an accepted inequality to men. I think the argument also breaks down the class structure of all men and women in urban society and it describes how the lifestyle of working class women contrasted with those of the middle class. Clearly there was much more freedom for women living in the upper echelon of urban society, yet they were also still subjected to a defined and accepted role that was unequal to their male counterparts. -Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Standards''' It seemed to me that the women in these chapters were dealing with standards they would never be able to achieve. How would it be possible for these women to scrounge for enough money to try and make ends meet for themselves and their families, while also finding it necessary to wear the CLOTHES to seem acceptable in society's eyes? I realize I've been saying this a lot lately in these wiki entries, but I dunno if I would even have it in me to get out of bed in the morning with that kind of pressure on me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I think chapter 8 touches on a very big transition for women and the family, namely the strong shift towards domestic service. With an influx of immigrants there was an abundance of domestic servants. As it became fashionable to have servants, the family experienced a change. I think that this is a big transition for the family because middle class families now included an extra member or members, the servants. This certainly changed the role of women in relation to household duties and child care. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
'''Children''' I am still amazed at how important the role of children was in working class families. I understand that they needed to work in order to help provide support for the family but it never really occurred to me to what extent or how hard they had to work to help their families. They had to put in just as much effort and work as their parents. I guess part of me didn't want to believe that these children would be put in that situation. It is kind of depressing, but it really shows how close it could pull the family together. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
'''Family''' I know that a number of people have touched on this, but it is amazing how important every member of the family was. Imagine a child, barely able to walk, scavenging the streets of Fredericksburg. Someone would call social services. It is amazing, and almost unfathomable that this was once a common place occurrence. Children must have grown up so much faster in those days. –Andrew B</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-05T01:25:51Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Chapter 3 it talked about child labor in urban areas. I found this very interesting to look at the differences between child labor in the midwest like we talked about earlier and child labor in urban areas. This was very different from the urban family "ideal." Not only were children working in factories to help "earn their keep", but older children were raising younger children so their mothers could work longer hours. This once again proves that the ideal was never the norm. It's really interesting to read how different living situations affected family life. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Chapter 8 about Domestic Service. It was interesting to read about the shift to immigrant workers and how women used immigrant workers to gain status in society. Previously, mistresses were used to help the lady of the house out with domestic chores. However, when issues of status came into effect, women started making their mistresses do everything. Also, it was more respected to have an immigrant worker do everything so the lady of the house could do things such as read and other leizure activities. It sounds like women are trying to gain some independence and superiority by ordering around their servants. --Kari W.<br />
<br />
'''Children''' It just struck home again as to how vital children were to the working class economy. They were errand-runners, scavengers, domestic workers and wage earners. Without them, many working class families would not have, or did not, survive in urban areas like New York. If the mother was able to stay home children were emissaries to the outside world, running errands to buy things, or scavenging them to save their family a few pennies, perhaps they were even sent outside the home to earn money for the family. And yet, the middle class and upper class residents of the city did not deign to see that without these children the working class family would have collapsed and their lives of relative comfort and security would not have been possible. Even working class families were not always able to appreciate their children because they did not meet their standards of production, thus the House of Refuge. There are an incredible number of dynamics that affect the lives of children in such a place, so many that it seems a number of them were lost to the people who were there for the experience. -Lacey<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service.'''I have to say, that Chapter 8 gave me some new insights that I didn't know beforehand. One of the main things that was new to me was that even though there were so many new immigrants, and so much overcrowding, according to ''City of Women'', young women who worked in domestic service had enough leverage to negotiate their terms of service because demand for them was so high. This amazed me with the types of negotiations mentioned, and threats they used to get their way. Granted, I doubt it worked every time, but it must have been nice having some say in what they would and would not do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Children.''' The part of the excerpt from ''City of Women'' that discussed what the children's roles in family were actually kind of amazed me. I mean I always figured those old enough to walk around, but too young to do wage worked helped somewhere, I just never really thought of how. The scavenging that some of them did is just amazing. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Scavenging''' The bits in chapter 3 about scavenging really blew me away. Throughout this entire section, I kept picturing The Kid from Dick Tracy (yes, The Kid in capital letters. I checked it on IMDB to be sure) before he gets rescued. I think we tend to take the immense responsibility of the parents for granted in these situations, assuming that the children involved would not have to contribute at the same level. It really brought home the idea of family as a community, and not just the parents bringing in supplies and income. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
'''Thesis''' What is the main argument of Stansell's work?<br />
<br />
'''Connection''' How do the sections of reading today connect to the understand we established yesterday between the diffrence between the ideal and the practical family system?<br />
<br />
'''Neighborhood''' The concept of the neighborhood and its effect on working class women was a concept in Chapter 3 that I found extremely important. The argument of Stansell is that working-class neighborhoods gave women leverage in their dealings with men and was the "court system" of urban working class society. Although there was no glorifying physical aspect of the neighborhood, the idea that '''aid to neighbors structured expectations of reciprocal help''' was the accepted tradition among the working class. -Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Thesis''' I think the thesis of Stansell's work is that although the role and class structure of women in 19th century urban society varied, they all shared an accepted inequality to men. I think the argument also breaks down the class structure of all men and women in urban society and it describes how the lifestyle of working class women contrasted with those of the middle class. Clearly there was much more freedom for women living in the upper echelon of urban society, yet they were also still subjected to a defined and accepted role that was unequal to their male counterparts. -Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Standards''' It seemed to me that the women in these chapters were dealing with standards they would never be able to achieve. How would it be possible for these women to scrounge for enough money to try and make ends meet for themselves and their families, while also finding it necessary to wear the CLOTHES to seem acceptable in society's eyes? I realize I've been saying this a lot lately in these wiki entries, but I dunno if I would even have it in me to get out of bed in the morning with that kind of pressure on me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I think chapter 8 touches on a very big transition for women and the family, namely the strong shift towards domestic service. With an influx of immigrants there was an abundance of domestic servants. As it became fashionable to have servants, the family experienced a change. I think that this is a big transition for the family because middle class families now included an extra member or members, the servants. This certainly changed the role of women in relation to household duties and child care. –Andrew B</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-03T11:45:37Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Mintz & Kellogg */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions/Comments ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' I thought the differences in the use of sources was very interesting. Boydston used a lot of numerical data and analysis thereof to formulate an understanding of the meaning of being a poor woman in American cities. Stansell on the other hand seems to be using other sorts of records, including first hand accounts of people who were living in New York at the time. I found it fascinating to look at the similar outcomes that came from these two different methods of study.<br />
<br />
'''“Family Wage”''': All three readings for Tuesday in some form dealt with the notion of a family wage. Boydston defined it as the ability for the male, head of household to be able to provide enough income for his family to survive as well as prevent women in the family from working outside the home. Mintz and Kellogg also discussed it as the father’s responsibility to provide a sufficient income for the entire family. All three readings deal with this ideal that was established by the middle-class that women were expected to remain at home and work within the sphere of domesticity, while fathers were the sole economic provider for the entire family. Boydston discussed how women were responsible for stretching the income of their husbands by buying items in bulk, utilizing food from a garden, and working outside the home either helping husbands or being a domestic servant. Stansell spent a significant time discussing that the cult of domesticity was class specific and created by a bourgeois self-consciousness. The notion of “poor” changed substantially from ideas of elder, handicapped or widowed individuals to those people simply struggling to survive in a new system of manufacturing. Stansell also alludes to the notion of charity extended by genteel women to working-class women. We see again the struggle to meet an ideal based upon religion and the home as appropriate spheres for women, yet these spheres are unrealistic for working-class women who cannot work just within their homes or participate fully in religious clubs or activities. In all three readings we see the working-class family struggle to live up to an ideal that is simply unrealistic and out of reach. We also see how this ideal family causes stress and tension on the working-class family as they struggle to meet this ideal, but more importantly as they struggle to survive. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
'''Misfortune''' So are we to assume from this week's readings that women of the time were either itinerant peddlers or brothel fodder? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== Boydston ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Invisibility:''' Boydston talks about how the woman's contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than in the mid 1800s. For example, a man reported in 1830 that "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." Today we would not even think to comment on this. For instance, if a guy is a banker, we just assume that all of his income comes from banking. So, I would guess that this notion of 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''Inequality:''' Boydston talks about the impact of a worker's wage being equated to his family subsistence. He mentions that employers would often talk about paying employees a certain amount because that is what they needed to support their families. This made me think about how women are typically paid less than men to do the same jobs. I suspect that the reasoning behind this is that women are either single, which means they probably have no kids and therefore don't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don't need to make as much. Men, on the other hand, can justify needing to be paid more because they are, ostensibly, supporting a family, or are saving up money to do so in future. I think that the issues that Boydston explores are still very relevant for women today, because the belief that men are supposed to be the primary, if not the sole, providers for families, and the belief that wages equate to subsistence, are beliefs that still hurt women's earning potential today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I wanted to add to Rebecca's first comment on the non-wage-earning woman because I think that there are other factors that play in. To some extent the housewife's role is more appreciated, because it means that their family is well-enough off to be able to afford to have a family member who does not earn an external income. Also, there is the factor that the wife is willing to not work in order to take care of the household and any young children. In both cases, I think the work of the homemaker is appreciated, but at the same time I think they are overlooked or dismissed because women now have the option of working outside the home and not being seen as amoral or pretending above their station. I think many of these women would be passed off as not being able to stand up for themselves or able to support themselves outside of the nuclear family structure. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I think the role of none-wage-earning women is hard to compare to today. Gender equality was not nearly as evolved as it is today and equality in the workplace is something women in the 1800s did not experience. The contributions women made then and make today are very different as well. I don't think as many working-class wives and mothers today need to scavenge the docks for shoes or scrape flour out of an old barrel. However this essay tells us of where women fit in with the transition to family wages and we know how important they were. What I don't understand is how men in some families could witness women's contributions and still think they spent "more time trifling than a baby"? -Amanda<br />
<br />
To also comment on the non-wage-earning women, I also feel that there is growing acceptance now that housewives do work as well, that its not all fun and games. Taking care of a household (cooking, cleaning, maintaining), taking care of any pet(s) there are/maybe in the household, along with taking care of her husband is actually a lot of work. Its usually unpaid work, but I've heard of some husbands who give their wife part of his wages to spend as she wants (for little trifles she may want) that don't come out of the normal family budget. From reading Boydston's article, I think its made clear that even though the housewife's work was becoming more invisible it was still very important for her to do what she did because it saved the family money here and there, or in some cases also earned a little extra money. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Obligation''' To what extent does Boydston provide evidence that the tasks performed by wifes were seen as obligations? What evidence does she give? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Implied Obligation'''I don't know if it is necessarily explicitly mentioned, Stephen, but there was definitely an undercurrent of the wives being expected to perform the jobs that they did. It's not that these are jobs that only women can perform, but there was definitely an idea of the women being the only ones who SHOULD perform them. -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
'''Marx''' I find Boydston's crtique of Marxism as fundemental to her understanding of the role and definition of subsistence in a family. Does Boydston do a fair job in showing that housewives' labor was distinctive enough to be reconized outside of the typical Marxist analysis? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I the statement that the made the most sense to me was that the reason industrial capitalism grew was because of the denial of the economic value of housework. This really seemed to make a lot of sense to me. It seemed that as long as men had control over the family's income women would never truly be considered able to contribute to the family's economic growth. While they do accept the fact that women do work at home, such as, caring for the children or cooking and cleaning, they still hold the belief that their work had little to no economic value. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
'''Interesting''': I thought that this article concerning the value of housework was fascinating. The process Boydston used to approximate the monetary value of women's housework and labor was something that I had never contemplated doing. However, I am not terribly familiar with what the average wage would have been for a working male laborer so it was hard for me to understand exactly how much she was bringing in compared to her husband. It is unfortunate that women were not recognized by their husbands, or by society, for their work in providing for themselves and their families. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' While reading this article, my mind went immediately to the Faragher reading last week. At the end of his article, Faragher stated that though women worked continuously in the home, it was an invisible occupation. The man's work was in the public eye, he was the one who dealt with the community and the market, while his wife was hidden behind the "domestic curtain." Boydston points out that men rarely acknowledged the woman's contribution to the goods sold at market. So of course it looks like the man is pulling all the weight of the family's income; he is just the only income-provider visible to the public eye. Boydston's article also tied in to the article we read on the ideal middle-class family and how the wives role is to provide "comfort and counsel" to the husbands returning from a long, hard day at the factory. It is fascinating seeing the different sides of American families tie together.--Celia<br />
<br />
'''"Ambiguity"''' This article has more significance on the role of women and their relationship to the market business. While men's roles were more defined, women were labeled as a group and were less visible to being contributors in the economy. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
== Mintz & Kellogg ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' How does the Homestead example used by Mintz and Kellogg provide a good/bad example of the work life, hours, wages, lifestyle, and living standards of American working families at this time in history? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Destruction''' Do you agree with Carroll Wright (pg. 85) who maintained that the factory system destroys family life? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' What are the fundemental diffrences outlined by Mintz and Kellogg regarding immigrant families and those who were already established in this country? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' I think Homestead is a good example of typical life in a mill town during the mid-19th Century in a northern city. Mintz& Kellogg go on to explain conditions in other northern cities, especially for immigrants. One continuity for all working-class families is the need for subsistence from all members (or more than the male head of house) of the family. Like Stansell, M&K describe scavenging as a way to produce more income. It reminded me of immigrant or "guest worker" programs of today to read about the Italian brothers who wanted to take/send their earnings home. --Amanda<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' I found it interesting that people who immigrated alone created a type of community with each other. Most came alone to earn money to bring the rest of their family to the new world and they bonded over their common situations. They created their own type of family. People also created a sense of family by boarding with other low income families. It is interesting how important a sense of family was to these immigrants. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
'''Strength''': In response to Stephen's question concerning Wright's statement, I believe that the factory system did not in fact "destroy family life." While certainly any environment has the potential to cause hardship on family life, the factory did, as Mintz and Kellogg discuss, provide opportunities for increased family togetherness. For instance, children were allowed to live at home longer and were not send off to live somewhere else and learn a trade at an early age. Additionally, working in the factories allowed for a shard sense of family identity and promoted the common good. While this idea certainly leaves room for jealousy and contempt for having to sacrifice for the greater good, it appears that many families were strengthened by their shared work and economic dependence. While today we may view child labor as having a negative impact on family life, it was a common practice, if these families were farmers, all of their children would have been contributing to the economic benefit of the family in some way. Therefore, I believe that it was really what each family chose to make of the situation that meant division or cohesion and that factory life did not inherently destroy the life of American families. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''"Diversity"''': I found it interesting that the portrayal of the working-class family was more varied in Mintz and Kellogg's book when previous readings within the book portray families as homogenous. Did anyone catch the diversity of the role of not just the family, but also the ethnicity of families that were discussed? --Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Strength''' I have to agree with Sarah. M&K point out earlier patterns of child labor. They do say, however, that these patterns, associated with the farm, allowed families to work together. Although families were not necessarily always working side by side in the factory, the concept of work was nothing new, so I do not think it played a large role in the destruction of the family. As Sarah said, the effects of factory life were felt only as much as families allowed. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
'''Immigrant Community''' I know from first hand experience how strong community ties can be among new immigrants. My family is from Port Richmond, Philadelphia. Almost everyone who lives there was born in Poland, or is of Polish descent. People from Poland flock to Port Richmond because they know there is a community of people there who have gone through the immigration process and are willing to help them. The community is extremely important to Port Richmond residents. I have family members who have arrived in America in recent years. If it was not for the support of family and community, they would have had a hard time assimilating. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Stansell ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
The exert from Stansell's book brings up a lot of the same point that I recall reading in Boydston's article. First of all, the poor section of the city was overcrowded, with filthy housing and living conditions, and bad sanitary problems. Both also spoke of the disease epidemics that hit and spread in these areas from the bad sanitation conditions. However, Boydston's article seemed to exalt and shine light onto the lives of the non-wage-earner woman, while Stansell's book exert made it sound like women were help to be pieces of crap that were evil and sinful and men could do whatever they wanted to women because women provided little to nothing for the household, even if they did manage to earn some kind of wage... at least that's how I felt after reading it... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Republic''' How did "Republican ideas of government, authority, and power," support already familiar justifications of sexual hierarchies? That is to say "in a republican culture which placed the independence of the male citizen at its zenith," how did the dependent status of women effect this era in understanding the family? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Debauchery''' In the Bedlow/Sawyer rape trial it is argued that the girl should have been better attuned to the "etiquette of debauchery." Is this not both an example of the gender gap but also the inherent flaw of that gap? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Republican Motherhood:''' Stansell points out other factors that related to the changing family situation. The influx of immigrants, post-Revolution conditions, rise of the city, and economic and gender expectations all played a role in the change in family structure. It seems though that "republican motherhood" did not apply to women outside the middle class, and in fact, lower-class women were looked down upon for not being able to be educators. Also, as we discussed in class, the advent of American patriotism coincided with a new American family. Stansell mentions how women craftworkers banded together to stop the importation of British goods.--Amanda<br />
<br />
'''Ideal?'''This excerpt showed that the domestic "ideal" described in Mintz and Kellogg was rarely met. Women's domestic sphere was interrupted when they were forced to go to work in order to help provide for the family. However, some of the work women did was house work for families who wealthier. This kept some of the "ideal" norms for women but they were done outside of the home.--Kari W.<br />
<br />
'''Disruptive''' The fact that women ended up going to work and were being social and productive outside the home was disruptive, in my opinion, to the societal norms that families had adhered to for so long. A woman's place was in the home and when women began working outside the home in factories and other homes, the domestic spheres were thrown off. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
'''Educator''' To answer Stephen's question about the Republic ideal (and this kind of ties in with Amanda's comment about Republican Motherhood) I believe that without the woman in the family the entire unit would essentially fall apart. Although the wife was dependent on the man and his income and independence, the mother was the educator of the family. She was the caretaker and the one raising the sons who would one day lead the country. Women had quite a few roles within the family and were a vital asset, but were only as strong as the man of the house. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
'''Criminal''': In reading this article, I could not get past the treatment of women in cases of rape and kidnapping. The concept that a rape could be justified by women acting in what was construed to be a suggestive manner is very foreign to our modern concepts of sexual harassment and abuse. To me this really illustrated the lengths to which men would go to illustrate their authority and power over women and how they used womens supposed evil, seductive nature for their benefit and to justify their wrongs. I agree with Stephen that this illustrates both the gender gap itself but also its inherent flaw. Taking the separation of genders so far as to justify such acts against women is truly terribly and criminal. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Also Criminal:''' This is only tangentially related to Sarah's comment, but it popped in my head when I read her post. Did you know the Italian Supreme Court determined that a man cannot be convicted of raping a woman if she was wearing jeans during the alleged rape? The reasoning is that a man cannot possibly get a woman out of her jeans without her consent. Now granted, Italian jeans ARE pretty tight, but... I think this "jean alibi" is the same kind of misogynistic behavior we read about in "City of Women." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/277263.stm -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''"Disintegration"''' The disintegration of household economies and the disappearance of productive households disintegrate the collective role of the family and base the importance more on the individual family members.--Joe C.</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-03T11:34:07Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Mintz & Kellogg */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions/Comments ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' I thought the differences in the use of sources was very interesting. Boydston used a lot of numerical data and analysis thereof to formulate an understanding of the meaning of being a poor woman in American cities. Stansell on the other hand seems to be using other sorts of records, including first hand accounts of people who were living in New York at the time. I found it fascinating to look at the similar outcomes that came from these two different methods of study.<br />
<br />
'''“Family Wage”''': All three readings for Tuesday in some form dealt with the notion of a family wage. Boydston defined it as the ability for the male, head of household to be able to provide enough income for his family to survive as well as prevent women in the family from working outside the home. Mintz and Kellogg also discussed it as the father’s responsibility to provide a sufficient income for the entire family. All three readings deal with this ideal that was established by the middle-class that women were expected to remain at home and work within the sphere of domesticity, while fathers were the sole economic provider for the entire family. Boydston discussed how women were responsible for stretching the income of their husbands by buying items in bulk, utilizing food from a garden, and working outside the home either helping husbands or being a domestic servant. Stansell spent a significant time discussing that the cult of domesticity was class specific and created by a bourgeois self-consciousness. The notion of “poor” changed substantially from ideas of elder, handicapped or widowed individuals to those people simply struggling to survive in a new system of manufacturing. Stansell also alludes to the notion of charity extended by genteel women to working-class women. We see again the struggle to meet an ideal based upon religion and the home as appropriate spheres for women, yet these spheres are unrealistic for working-class women who cannot work just within their homes or participate fully in religious clubs or activities. In all three readings we see the working-class family struggle to live up to an ideal that is simply unrealistic and out of reach. We also see how this ideal family causes stress and tension on the working-class family as they struggle to meet this ideal, but more importantly as they struggle to survive. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
'''Misfortune''' So are we to assume from this week's readings that women of the time were either itinerant peddlers or brothel fodder? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== Boydston ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Invisibility:''' Boydston talks about how the woman's contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than in the mid 1800s. For example, a man reported in 1830 that "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." Today we would not even think to comment on this. For instance, if a guy is a banker, we just assume that all of his income comes from banking. So, I would guess that this notion of 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''Inequality:''' Boydston talks about the impact of a worker's wage being equated to his family subsistence. He mentions that employers would often talk about paying employees a certain amount because that is what they needed to support their families. This made me think about how women are typically paid less than men to do the same jobs. I suspect that the reasoning behind this is that women are either single, which means they probably have no kids and therefore don't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don't need to make as much. Men, on the other hand, can justify needing to be paid more because they are, ostensibly, supporting a family, or are saving up money to do so in future. I think that the issues that Boydston explores are still very relevant for women today, because the belief that men are supposed to be the primary, if not the sole, providers for families, and the belief that wages equate to subsistence, are beliefs that still hurt women's earning potential today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I wanted to add to Rebecca's first comment on the non-wage-earning woman because I think that there are other factors that play in. To some extent the housewife's role is more appreciated, because it means that their family is well-enough off to be able to afford to have a family member who does not earn an external income. Also, there is the factor that the wife is willing to not work in order to take care of the household and any young children. In both cases, I think the work of the homemaker is appreciated, but at the same time I think they are overlooked or dismissed because women now have the option of working outside the home and not being seen as amoral or pretending above their station. I think many of these women would be passed off as not being able to stand up for themselves or able to support themselves outside of the nuclear family structure. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I think the role of none-wage-earning women is hard to compare to today. Gender equality was not nearly as evolved as it is today and equality in the workplace is something women in the 1800s did not experience. The contributions women made then and make today are very different as well. I don't think as many working-class wives and mothers today need to scavenge the docks for shoes or scrape flour out of an old barrel. However this essay tells us of where women fit in with the transition to family wages and we know how important they were. What I don't understand is how men in some families could witness women's contributions and still think they spent "more time trifling than a baby"? -Amanda<br />
<br />
To also comment on the non-wage-earning women, I also feel that there is growing acceptance now that housewives do work as well, that its not all fun and games. Taking care of a household (cooking, cleaning, maintaining), taking care of any pet(s) there are/maybe in the household, along with taking care of her husband is actually a lot of work. Its usually unpaid work, but I've heard of some husbands who give their wife part of his wages to spend as she wants (for little trifles she may want) that don't come out of the normal family budget. From reading Boydston's article, I think its made clear that even though the housewife's work was becoming more invisible it was still very important for her to do what she did because it saved the family money here and there, or in some cases also earned a little extra money. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Obligation''' To what extent does Boydston provide evidence that the tasks performed by wifes were seen as obligations? What evidence does she give? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Implied Obligation'''I don't know if it is necessarily explicitly mentioned, Stephen, but there was definitely an undercurrent of the wives being expected to perform the jobs that they did. It's not that these are jobs that only women can perform, but there was definitely an idea of the women being the only ones who SHOULD perform them. -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
'''Marx''' I find Boydston's crtique of Marxism as fundemental to her understanding of the role and definition of subsistence in a family. Does Boydston do a fair job in showing that housewives' labor was distinctive enough to be reconized outside of the typical Marxist analysis? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I the statement that the made the most sense to me was that the reason industrial capitalism grew was because of the denial of the economic value of housework. This really seemed to make a lot of sense to me. It seemed that as long as men had control over the family's income women would never truly be considered able to contribute to the family's economic growth. While they do accept the fact that women do work at home, such as, caring for the children or cooking and cleaning, they still hold the belief that their work had little to no economic value. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
'''Interesting''': I thought that this article concerning the value of housework was fascinating. The process Boydston used to approximate the monetary value of women's housework and labor was something that I had never contemplated doing. However, I am not terribly familiar with what the average wage would have been for a working male laborer so it was hard for me to understand exactly how much she was bringing in compared to her husband. It is unfortunate that women were not recognized by their husbands, or by society, for their work in providing for themselves and their families. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' While reading this article, my mind went immediately to the Faragher reading last week. At the end of his article, Faragher stated that though women worked continuously in the home, it was an invisible occupation. The man's work was in the public eye, he was the one who dealt with the community and the market, while his wife was hidden behind the "domestic curtain." Boydston points out that men rarely acknowledged the woman's contribution to the goods sold at market. So of course it looks like the man is pulling all the weight of the family's income; he is just the only income-provider visible to the public eye. Boydston's article also tied in to the article we read on the ideal middle-class family and how the wives role is to provide "comfort and counsel" to the husbands returning from a long, hard day at the factory. It is fascinating seeing the different sides of American families tie together.--Celia<br />
<br />
'''"Ambiguity"''' This article has more significance on the role of women and their relationship to the market business. While men's roles were more defined, women were labeled as a group and were less visible to being contributors in the economy. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
== Mintz & Kellogg ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' How does the Homestead example used by Mintz and Kellogg provide a good/bad example of the work life, hours, wages, lifestyle, and living standards of American working families at this time in history? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Destruction''' Do you agree with Carroll Wright (pg. 85) who maintained that the factory system destroys family life? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' What are the fundemental diffrences outlined by Mintz and Kellogg regarding immigrant families and those who were already established in this country? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' I think Homestead is a good example of typical life in a mill town during the mid-19th Century in a northern city. Mintz& Kellogg go on to explain conditions in other northern cities, especially for immigrants. One continuity for all working-class families is the need for subsistence from all members (or more than the male head of house) of the family. Like Stansell, M&K describe scavenging as a way to produce more income. It reminded me of immigrant or "guest worker" programs of today to read about the Italian brothers who wanted to take/send their earnings home. --Amanda<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' I found it interesting that people who immigrated alone created a type of community with each other. Most came alone to earn money to bring the rest of their family to the new world and they bonded over their common situations. They created their own type of family. People also created a sense of family by boarding with other low income families. It is interesting how important a sense of family was to these immigrants. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
'''Strength''': In response to Stephen's question concerning Wright's statement, I believe that the factory system did not in fact "destroy family life." While certainly any environment has the potential to cause hardship on family life, the factory did, as Mintz and Kellogg discuss, provide opportunities for increased family togetherness. For instance, children were allowed to live at home longer and were not send off to live somewhere else and learn a trade at an early age. Additionally, working in the factories allowed for a shard sense of family identity and promoted the common good. While this idea certainly leaves room for jealousy and contempt for having to sacrifice for the greater good, it appears that many families were strengthened by their shared work and economic dependence. While today we may view child labor as having a negative impact on family life, it was a common practice, if these families were farmers, all of their children would have been contributing to the economic benefit of the family in some way. Therefore, I believe that it was really what each family chose to make of the situation that meant division or cohesion and that factory life did not inherently destroy the life of American families. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''"Diversity"''': I found it interesting that the portrayal of the working-class family was more varied in Mintz and Kellogg's book when previous readings within the book portray families as homogenous. Did anyone catch the diversity of the role of not just the family, but also the ethnicity of families that were discussed? --Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Strength''' I have to agree with Sarah. M&K point out earlier patterns of child labor. They do say, however, that these patterns, associated with the farm, allowed families to work together. Although families were not necessarily always working side by side in the factory, the concept of work was nothing new, so I do not think it played a large role in the destruction of the family. As Sarah said, the effects of factory life were felt only as much as families allowed. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Stansell ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
The exert from Stansell's book brings up a lot of the same point that I recall reading in Boydston's article. First of all, the poor section of the city was overcrowded, with filthy housing and living conditions, and bad sanitary problems. Both also spoke of the disease epidemics that hit and spread in these areas from the bad sanitation conditions. However, Boydston's article seemed to exalt and shine light onto the lives of the non-wage-earner woman, while Stansell's book exert made it sound like women were help to be pieces of crap that were evil and sinful and men could do whatever they wanted to women because women provided little to nothing for the household, even if they did manage to earn some kind of wage... at least that's how I felt after reading it... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Republic''' How did "Republican ideas of government, authority, and power," support already familiar justifications of sexual hierarchies? That is to say "in a republican culture which placed the independence of the male citizen at its zenith," how did the dependent status of women effect this era in understanding the family? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Debauchery''' In the Bedlow/Sawyer rape trial it is argued that the girl should have been better attuned to the "etiquette of debauchery." Is this not both an example of the gender gap but also the inherent flaw of that gap? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Republican Motherhood:''' Stansell points out other factors that related to the changing family situation. The influx of immigrants, post-Revolution conditions, rise of the city, and economic and gender expectations all played a role in the change in family structure. It seems though that "republican motherhood" did not apply to women outside the middle class, and in fact, lower-class women were looked down upon for not being able to be educators. Also, as we discussed in class, the advent of American patriotism coincided with a new American family. Stansell mentions how women craftworkers banded together to stop the importation of British goods.--Amanda<br />
<br />
'''Ideal?'''This excerpt showed that the domestic "ideal" described in Mintz and Kellogg was rarely met. Women's domestic sphere was interrupted when they were forced to go to work in order to help provide for the family. However, some of the work women did was house work for families who wealthier. This kept some of the "ideal" norms for women but they were done outside of the home.--Kari W.<br />
<br />
'''Disruptive''' The fact that women ended up going to work and were being social and productive outside the home was disruptive, in my opinion, to the societal norms that families had adhered to for so long. A woman's place was in the home and when women began working outside the home in factories and other homes, the domestic spheres were thrown off. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
'''Educator''' To answer Stephen's question about the Republic ideal (and this kind of ties in with Amanda's comment about Republican Motherhood) I believe that without the woman in the family the entire unit would essentially fall apart. Although the wife was dependent on the man and his income and independence, the mother was the educator of the family. She was the caretaker and the one raising the sons who would one day lead the country. Women had quite a few roles within the family and were a vital asset, but were only as strong as the man of the house. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
'''Criminal''': In reading this article, I could not get past the treatment of women in cases of rape and kidnapping. The concept that a rape could be justified by women acting in what was construed to be a suggestive manner is very foreign to our modern concepts of sexual harassment and abuse. To me this really illustrated the lengths to which men would go to illustrate their authority and power over women and how they used womens supposed evil, seductive nature for their benefit and to justify their wrongs. I agree with Stephen that this illustrates both the gender gap itself but also its inherent flaw. Taking the separation of genders so far as to justify such acts against women is truly terribly and criminal. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Also Criminal:''' This is only tangentially related to Sarah's comment, but it popped in my head when I read her post. Did you know the Italian Supreme Court determined that a man cannot be convicted of raping a woman if she was wearing jeans during the alleged rape? The reasoning is that a man cannot possibly get a woman out of her jeans without her consent. Now granted, Italian jeans ARE pretty tight, but... I think this "jean alibi" is the same kind of misogynistic behavior we read about in "City of Women." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/277263.stm -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''"Disintegration"''' The disintegration of household economies and the disappearance of productive households disintegrate the collective role of the family and base the importance more on the individual family members.--Joe C.</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-29T06:31:18Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Faragher ==<br />
<br />
Faragher says that the “Notion of born self-sufficiency should not conjure up images of isolated, impoverished farmers…” yet he created this image as well. Where is the clarity? - Stephen<br />
<br />
Maybe not impoverished because they were self-sufficient, so impoverished may not have entered their minds. However, they seemed fairly isolated during the spring-fall time, except maybe in the winter they saw people as there was less work to do than in the planting, taking care of, and harvesting the crops. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think a very intresting point Faragher brought up is the role childbareing played in the female farmer's role on the farm. How is this similar/different to an understanding of work before and after childbirth elseware in location and history? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I have to say that I did like this article because it did not paint women as having to be this picture perfect ideal woman, it was what real women did in the midwest to help support the family. Which is awesome compared to Mintz and Kellogg who consider basically urban middle-class New Englanders the way the US was at the time. It drives me nuts because its obvious that places in the United States was vastly different and this article is a perfect example, the women are planting crops, milking cows, feeding livestock, butchering, cooking, sewing, weaving, mending, etc. This article I feel provides an awesome incite into what families did do to survive. They all bucked up and did their share, however tiresome to get by, to live, to survive. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the economic aspect of this article to be particularly interesting. Faragher briefly discusses the Market Revolution, which we touched upon in class, explaining the changes in farming due to market opportunity as well as market competition. I think this is one of the first times we have really have been able to see how technology has directly influenced the family. The introduction of farm tools, particularly an evolution away from hand tools, plus the introduction of improved and more widespread transportation allowed farmers to produce and sell more to a wider population, thus changing the role and responsibility of a farming family. I think it is important to remember that these farmers first relied on a local market for goods exchange and the opportunity to move beyond sustenance farming and then to a wider market as it became available. I believe that is where Faragher challenged the idea of farm self-sufficiency as isolated and impoverished since there was a significant change within local communities as well as local and larger markets, thus forcing farmers to interact socially and economically as well as view farming as a way to obtain other goods or money, not simply survive. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
This article was definitely different from what we have been previously reading. I really liked not reading about New England for a change. :) However, I did find it interesting that the study by Dr. W.W. Hall defended women's role on the farm. It also talks about the separate domestic sphere for women and a loving and nurturing relationships between a husband and wife. It was interesting how Hall was trying to put the ideal of New England into the Midwest. --Kari W. <br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article as well. Not only did it feed my Laura Ingalls Wilder fascination, it was a great window into the daily lives of 19th century self-sufficiency farmers. The quote "a Woman's Work is never done" pretty much sums up this article. I think of the magazine Real Simple and imagine them frantically trying to figure out a way to dish out tips to these women in order for them to simplify their lives. First of all, I want to rag on that song towards the end where it lists all the chores a woman can do, yet she is "dumb, dumb, dumb." Well, of course she is! Look at all the work she has to do; families feel they don't have the need to educate a girl because all she needs to know is the insanely long list of chores she will eventually have to do. Moving to the end of the article, where Faragher talks about how women make "tanglible articles" out of the man's products. So while women are actually doing a majority of the work, it is hidden and out of public sight as men's work is more involved in the wider commercial and social circles. And though they may help bring the family with them into bigger social circles, it seems unfair that the women don't get the credit they deserve. Celia <br />
<br />
I also liked Faragher's description of the difference between men and women's work. Men's work was "social" because it was able "to reach out and connect the family to the larger social world." Women's work on the other hand was "always looking inward." This is interesting to me, because I think it says a lot about how women's work was perceived. It seems like women's work went unnoticed and that it was considered less important than the men's work. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
<br />
It's really nice to read about how important women were in a farming family. Yes the men do a lot of the manual labor as far as plowing and tending to the crops goes, but the women had to help men with the crops but also take care of the kids, the house and any of the items the family manufactured. Women did a lot more than they were given credit for and reading how important they were to a family's success is a nice change from the "women are jipped in every way" articles. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
I agree Kelly, most of the time it really doesn't seem as though women are given credit for the amount of work they do in the farming family. Every job on a farm is equally important in making sure that the farm runs. Without one task no matter who is responsible for it, it is necessary. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
If women were to be seen as best friends of their husbands, shared a division of labor and contributed so much to the family, how could they be viewed as "dumb, dumb, dumb"? Compared to the urban middle-class families in Mintz& Kellogg, it seems like the women of farming families on the Great Plains had more fulfillment in their work. At the same time, they may have had a harder life and higher expectations for contributing to and producing for the family than urban women. --Amanda<br />
<br />
To answer Stephen's question, I think that the role of women in the Midwestern family in the 19th century was a lot more wide-ranging than according to Mintz and Kellogg's analysis of New England wives. An interesting point that maybe some people had noticed were how men and women's roles in the Faragher and Dublin readings rarely overlapped. In contrast to the exposure of men to women in the factory, it seems that the same can be attributed to men and women in the Midwest. As Faragher stated in the article, overlapped skills of men and women were butchering and their energies on planting. The theme of work regimented based on gender seems to be the theme of Midwest agricultural families and New England factory families. When discussing the role of both men and women in New England agricultural families, there is a much more of an overlap on the duty of the family regardless of gender. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
I thought that this article was very interesting and also enjoyed the setting change from New England. One thing that I noticed in the article was how it was acceptable for women to step into the male sphere and assist in the butchering or the fieldwork when needed, but men never stepped into the woman's domain. You wouldn't have found too many men doing the laundry, churning butter, or baking bread in a Midwestern family. I believe, that at least in part, this stems from the ideas touched upon in Faragher's article that men saw their work as more important then women's. This is ironic as without their female counterparts they would be ill-fed, ill-clothed, and childless. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Dublin ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how the women at Lowell created a sort of familial relationship with other women at the mill. There are examples of a relationship between new workers and those more experienced that toes the line between sisterly and motherly. The more experienced workers teach the newer ones how to perform the day-to-day tasks in the mill in a kind of elder sister fashion. It appears also that they formed a community outside of the workplace and became moral support for their sister workers. I imagine this sort of sorority was what made it possible for them to think it possible that they could achieve something by going on strike. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I think part of the reasons these relationships were created was because there wasn't anyone else for them to bond and for connections with... I think that these relationships helped to keep the mill running -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Lowell was intended to be different than the factory towns of Europe. It was to be an example of a community that was more wholesome and healthful than the industrial cities of Europe. Was it succesful? Or was it more of the same? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I only kind of liked this article, it was mostly a boring read for me. :-( However, I did find the sense of such a strong community a little interesting and was wondering if this was just a Lowell, MA thing, or if it happened at other places around the US? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the emphasis on economic security and the role of their “Yankee heritage” as interesting driving factors for this particular group of women to protest working conditions and wages. Dublin argues that these women were capable of returning to the farm to work and therefore did not necessarily have to completely depend upon the work at the mill. He notes that during times of economic depressions that protesting diminished or ceased completely, thus marking a relationship between economic security and their job at the mills. I think it also points to a trend of using immigrant workers or workers from poorer families later on who would be dependent upon their wages from the mill and consequently be less likely to strike. I also found it interesting that Dublin noted their “Yankee heritage” and revolutionary rhetoric as driving forces for an idea that these women deserved certain rights. I wonder if we would be able to find non-Yankee women of this time that felt and demanded what they deemed were their rights in the mills. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
It was refreshing to read an article about women that seemed to be more empowering, as opposed to the rest of the stuff that seemed to really be showing the unfortunate plight of women at the time. What struck me as most impressive throughout the Dublin reading was the fact that the women in the piece were all so determined to stick up for each other, down to picking up the slack when one of their own was sick or had to miss work. In today's times, I feel like it's rare to hear of such camaraderie in the work force, regardless of gender. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I think that the importance of the Dublin's reading was to emphasize the significant active role of women in the factory town. Women's success in the factory was contributed to their ability to create an autonomy and development of a close-knit community. I found it interesting that the author mentioned that women's success in organizing a community in the workplace was the major factor that contributed to the turn-out strikes. It was also interesting to learn about the contrasts between the first two turn-out protests where women demonstrated against reduced wages and were able to garner more people in their support. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
I really liked reading about women who actually stood up for themselves. They knew they were being treated unfairly and they gathered together and did something about it. Even though they failed, they still persevered and created The Lowell Female Labor Reform Association. The elected officers and sent delegates to the New England Workingmen's Association. It was definitely a huge change from the supposed "submissive" women we read about before. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
It was probably also empowering for these women to know that they were independent women who were able to provide a little for their families back home. They were also able to choose to stand up for and demand what they wanted and for what they thought was right, through protests, literature and politics. I was looking at the questions at the end of this chapter and question 2 really caught my attention. The women who were the forefront of industrialization probably had different views of family and community than the men back home because the women depended on friends and co-workers. Their sense of community with the other women was based more on equality and support, whereas the men who had families were connected to their loved ones through a sort of familial hierarchy. Within families, it was harder to "challenge...paternalism." (122)- Celia<br />
<br />
I found this to be a very interesting article. While reading it, I was struck by the contradiction of exploitation and liberation which Dublin addresses. The fact that I really noticed was that women were empowered by their employment to protest against their exploitation at the job which had liberated them initially. The mills seem to represent women's independence but also their susceptibility. They were able to leave their homes and farms to make their own living but by doing so they exposed themselves to another means of being put beneath men. It seems that at the heart of their protesting was the issues of the dignity of women. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also seem to recall that working in the mills was often very harmful to the health of women as they were stuck in a closed room with little ventilation for 10 hours or more everyday and then went home to sleep in very close quarters. However, health is never really addressed in this issue. Does anyone know if there really were a lot of negative health affects caused by working in this mills? If so, why were they not included in their grievances along with the decreased wages? I was also trying to ascertain what the average "career" of a mill woman was. Due to the huge number of women in training, it would seem that there must have been a rather high turnover rate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was actually really surprised to read about how the women in factories actually formed a strong bond with one another. When you think of factories, typically everything seems to individual and just removed -- not a place of big conversation. But to read about how these women helped each other learn and formed a sense of community is refreshing and a nice change to what we normally read about factory life. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
I found the Lowell community of women based on "mutual dependence" interesting. Women really created their own community, covered shifts for each other and banded together to strike and improve their conditions. In response to Ashley's "did this happen other places" I think it was probably unique to factories. Where else in this time period were women only interacting with one another, no men and had to rely on each other to survive? In a sense these women were their own family.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I think that an important thing to remember about these women is that they were pretty young. Dublin says that over 80 percent of the female workforce was between 15 and 30. It seems like working in a factory was something the women did for a little while, after which they probably went home, got married and had some babies. I think that these women were in a pretty good position to strike, because they did not have dependents to support, and they had homes to go back to if they lost their jobs. Of course I applaud them for standing up to their exploitative employers, but I think that it is important to note that most of them had safety nets in place, which makes striking a lot easier. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I was intrigued by the relationships between the women of the town. It seems to me that the "close knit community among women working in the mills," as described by the author, served as a makeshift union. It allowed them to organize, strike, and cover all their bases. Without the unity they displayed, the women would have had a very small voice relative to the one they rendered as a group. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comparative comments/questions ==<br />
It was neat to look at the different ways that people tried to create a better life for themselves in very different ways. Some families who could manage to send their daughters to the mills did so, and others used newly innovative tools to be able to produce enough to turn a profit on their farms. All of this was so that they could afford to purchase goods in what was quickly becoming a highly competitive, capitalistic world. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Wow. I have to say, both of these articles honestly left me in a much better mood than any of the other reading we have previously done. It seems like finally, the women have a legitimate role in familial society, instead of just being responsible for birthing and raising children. From organizing labor strikes to tilling the land, both of these articles finally began to give women a chance to roar. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I was struck by both articles in how in depth and intense a 'typical' workday was for men and women of this era. It left me first of all thankful I live in 2009 and not 1839, but also wondering whether I would have preferred a 73 hour a week mill job in Lowell or the never ending tasks of a preindustrial Midwest. I also noticed that the families of the Midwest during the 19th century seem much more family-orientated in their economic endeavors, while conversely the female mill workers of Lowel seemed more motivated by individual goals of self sufficiency. -Joyce<br />
<br />
Joyce: I think it's those early urban working women we have to thank for unions, equality in the workplace, etc. Women of the Plains paid their due in a different way. -Amanda<br />
<br />
It is certainly interesting to see how different the lives of individuals can be depending on their location. The inward subsistence focus of the Midwestern farm family vs. the factory life of an urban dweller. Even today, I believe that family life follows a mold similar to the ones discussed in these articles. –Andrew B</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-29T06:20:57Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Faragher ==<br />
<br />
Faragher says that the “Notion of born self-sufficiency should not conjure up images of isolated, impoverished farmers…” yet he created this image as well. Where is the clarity? - Stephen<br />
<br />
Maybe not impoverished because they were self-sufficient, so impoverished may not have entered their minds. However, they seemed fairly isolated during the spring-fall time, except maybe in the winter they saw people as there was less work to do than in the planting, taking care of, and harvesting the crops. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think a very intresting point Faragher brought up is the role childbareing played in the female farmer's role on the farm. How is this similar/different to an understanding of work before and after childbirth elseware in location and history? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I have to say that I did like this article because it did not paint women as having to be this picture perfect ideal woman, it was what real women did in the midwest to help support the family. Which is awesome compared to Mintz and Kellogg who consider basically urban middle-class New Englanders the way the US was at the time. It drives me nuts because its obvious that places in the United States was vastly different and this article is a perfect example, the women are planting crops, milking cows, feeding livestock, butchering, cooking, sewing, weaving, mending, etc. This article I feel provides an awesome incite into what families did do to survive. They all bucked up and did their share, however tiresome to get by, to live, to survive. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the economic aspect of this article to be particularly interesting. Faragher briefly discusses the Market Revolution, which we touched upon in class, explaining the changes in farming due to market opportunity as well as market competition. I think this is one of the first times we have really have been able to see how technology has directly influenced the family. The introduction of farm tools, particularly an evolution away from hand tools, plus the introduction of improved and more widespread transportation allowed farmers to produce and sell more to a wider population, thus changing the role and responsibility of a farming family. I think it is important to remember that these farmers first relied on a local market for goods exchange and the opportunity to move beyond sustenance farming and then to a wider market as it became available. I believe that is where Faragher challenged the idea of farm self-sufficiency as isolated and impoverished since there was a significant change within local communities as well as local and larger markets, thus forcing farmers to interact socially and economically as well as view farming as a way to obtain other goods or money, not simply survive. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
This article was definitely different from what we have been previously reading. I really liked not reading about New England for a change. :) However, I did find it interesting that the study by Dr. W.W. Hall defended women's role on the farm. It also talks about the separate domestic sphere for women and a loving and nurturing relationships between a husband and wife. It was interesting how Hall was trying to put the ideal of New England into the Midwest. --Kari W. <br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article as well. Not only did it feed my Laura Ingalls Wilder fascination, it was a great window into the daily lives of 19th century self-sufficiency farmers. The quote "a Woman's Work is never done" pretty much sums up this article. I think of the magazine Real Simple and imagine them frantically trying to figure out a way to dish out tips to these women in order for them to simplify their lives. First of all, I want to rag on that song towards the end where it lists all the chores a woman can do, yet she is "dumb, dumb, dumb." Well, of course she is! Look at all the work she has to do; families feel they don't have the need to educate a girl because all she needs to know is the insanely long list of chores she will eventually have to do. Moving to the end of the article, where Faragher talks about how women make "tanglible articles" out of the man's products. So while women are actually doing a majority of the work, it is hidden and out of public sight as men's work is more involved in the wider commercial and social circles. And though they may help bring the family with them into bigger social circles, it seems unfair that the women don't get the credit they deserve. Celia <br />
<br />
I also liked Faragher's description of the difference between men and women's work. Men's work was "social" because it was able "to reach out and connect the family to the larger social world." Women's work on the other hand was "always looking inward." This is interesting to me, because I think it says a lot about how women's work was perceived. It seems like women's work went unnoticed and that it was considered less important than the men's work. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
<br />
It's really nice to read about how important women were in a farming family. Yes the men do a lot of the manual labor as far as plowing and tending to the crops goes, but the women had to help men with the crops but also take care of the kids, the house and any of the items the family manufactured. Women did a lot more than they were given credit for and reading how important they were to a family's success is a nice change from the "women are jipped in every way" articles. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
I agree Kelly, most of the time it really doesn't seem as though women are given credit for the amount of work they do in the farming family. Every job on a farm is equally important in making sure that the farm runs. Without one task no matter who is responsible for it, it is necessary. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
If women were to be seen as best friends of their husbands, shared a division of labor and contributed so much to the family, how could they be viewed as "dumb, dumb, dumb"? Compared to the urban middle-class families in Mintz& Kellogg, it seems like the women of farming families on the Great Plains had more fulfillment in their work. At the same time, they may have had a harder life and higher expectations for contributing to and producing for the family than urban women. --Amanda<br />
<br />
To answer Stephen's question, I think that the role of women in the Midwestern family in the 19th century was a lot more wide-ranging than according to Mintz and Kellogg's analysis of New England wives. An interesting point that maybe some people had noticed were how men and women's roles in the Faragher and Dublin readings rarely overlapped. In contrast to the exposure of men to women in the factory, it seems that the same can be attributed to men and women in the Midwest. As Faragher stated in the article, overlapped skills of men and women were butchering and their energies on planting. The theme of work regimented based on gender seems to be the theme of Midwest agricultural families and New England factory families. When discussing the role of both men and women in New England agricultural families, there is a much more of an overlap on the duty of the family regardless of gender. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
== Dublin ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how the women at Lowell created a sort of familial relationship with other women at the mill. There are examples of a relationship between new workers and those more experienced that toes the line between sisterly and motherly. The more experienced workers teach the newer ones how to perform the day-to-day tasks in the mill in a kind of elder sister fashion. It appears also that they formed a community outside of the workplace and became moral support for their sister workers. I imagine this sort of sorority was what made it possible for them to think it possible that they could achieve something by going on strike. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I think part of the reasons these relationships were created was because there wasn't anyone else for them to bond and for connections with... I think that these relationships helped to keep the mill running -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Lowell was intended to be different than the factory towns of Europe. It was to be an example of a community that was more wholesome and healthful than the industrial cities of Europe. Was it succesful? Or was it more of the same? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I only kind of liked this article, it was mostly a boring read for me. :-( However, I did find the sense of such a strong community a little interesting and was wondering if this was just a Lowell, MA thing, or if it happened at other places around the US? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the emphasis on economic security and the role of their “Yankee heritage” as interesting driving factors for this particular group of women to protest working conditions and wages. Dublin argues that these women were capable of returning to the farm to work and therefore did not necessarily have to completely depend upon the work at the mill. He notes that during times of economic depressions that protesting diminished or ceased completely, thus marking a relationship between economic security and their job at the mills. I think it also points to a trend of using immigrant workers or workers from poorer families later on who would be dependent upon their wages from the mill and consequently be less likely to strike. I also found it interesting that Dublin noted their “Yankee heritage” and revolutionary rhetoric as driving forces for an idea that these women deserved certain rights. I wonder if we would be able to find non-Yankee women of this time that felt and demanded what they deemed were their rights in the mills. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
It was refreshing to read an article about women that seemed to be more empowering, as opposed to the rest of the stuff that seemed to really be showing the unfortunate plight of women at the time. What struck me as most impressive throughout the Dublin reading was the fact that the women in the piece were all so determined to stick up for each other, down to picking up the slack when one of their own was sick or had to miss work. In today's times, I feel like it's rare to hear of such camaraderie in the work force, regardless of gender. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I think that the importance of the Dublin's reading was to emphasize the significant active role of women in the factory town. Women's success in the factory was contributed to their ability to create an autonomy and development of a close-knit community. I found it interesting that the author mentioned that women's success in organizing a community in the workplace was the major factor that contributed to the turn-out strikes. It was also interesting to learn about the contrasts between the first two turn-out protests where women demonstrated against reduced wages and were able to garner more people in their support. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
I really liked reading about women who actually stood up for themselves. They knew they were being treated unfairly and they gathered together and did something about it. Even though they failed, they still persevered and created The Lowell Female Labor Reform Association. The elected officers and sent delegates to the New England Workingmen's Association. It was definitely a huge change from the supposed "submissive" women we read about before. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
It was probably also empowering for these women to know that they were independent women who were able to provide a little for their families back home. They were also able to choose to stand up for and demand what they wanted and for what they thought was right, through protests, literature and politics. I was looking at the questions at the end of this chapter and question 2 really caught my attention. The women who were the forefront of industrialization probably had different views of family and community than the men back home because the women depended on friends and co-workers. Their sense of community with the other women was based more on equality and support, whereas the men who had families were connected to their loved ones through a sort of familial hierarchy. Within families, it was harder to "challenge...paternalism." (122)- Celia<br />
<br />
I found this to be a very interesting article. While reading it, I was struck by the contradiction of exploitation and liberation which Dublin addresses. The fact that I really noticed was that women were empowered by their employment to protest against their exploitation at the job which had liberated them initially. The mills seem to represent women's independence but also their susceptibility. They were able to leave their homes and farms to make their own living but by doing so they exposed themselves to another means of being put beneath men. It seems that at the heart of their protesting was the issues of the dignity of women. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also seem to recall that working in the mills was often very harmful to the health of women as they were stuck in a closed room with little ventilation for 10 hours or more everyday and then went home to sleep in very close quarters. However, health is never really addressed in this issue. Does anyone know if there really were a lot of negative health affects caused by working in this mills? If so, why were they not included in their grievances along with the decreased wages? I was also trying to ascertain what the average "career" of a mill woman was. Due to the huge number of women in training, it would seem that there must have been a rather high turnover rate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was actually really surprised to read about how the women in factories actually formed a strong bond with one another. When you think of factories, typically everything seems to individual and just removed -- not a place of big conversation. But to read about how these women helped each other learn and formed a sense of community is refreshing and a nice change to what we normally read about factory life. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
I found the Lowell community of women based on "mutual dependence" interesting. Women really created their own community, covered shifts for each other and banded together to strike and improve their conditions. In response to Ashley's "did this happen other places" I think it was probably unique to factories. Where else in this time period were women only interacting with one another, no men and had to rely on each other to survive? In a sense these women were their own family.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I think that an important thing to remember about these women is that they were pretty young. Dublin says that over 80 percent of the female workforce was between 15 and 30. It seems like working in a factory was something the women did for a little while, after which they probably went home, got married and had some babies. I think that these women were in a pretty good position to strike, because they did not have dependents to support, and they had homes to go back to if they lost their jobs. Of course I applaud them for standing up to their exploitative employers, but I think that it is important to note that most of them had safety nets in place, which makes striking a lot easier. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I was intrigued by the relationships between the women of the town. It seems to me that the "close knit community among women working in the mills," as described by the author, served as a makeshift union. It allowed them to organize, strike, and cover all their bases. Without the unity they displayed, the women would have had a very small voice relative to the one they rendered as a group. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comparative comments/questions ==<br />
It was neat to look at the different ways that people tried to create a better life for themselves in very different ways. Some families who could manage to send their daughters to the mills did so, and others used newly innovative tools to be able to produce enough to turn a profit on their farms. All of this was so that they could afford to purchase goods in what was quickly becoming a highly competitive, capitalistic world. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Wow. I have to say, both of these articles honestly left me in a much better mood than any of the other reading we have previously done. It seems like finally, the women have a legitimate role in familial society, instead of just being responsible for birthing and raising children. From organizing labor strikes to tilling the land, both of these articles finally began to give women a chance to roar. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I was struck by both articles in how in depth and intense a 'typical' workday was for men and women of this era. It left me first of all thankful I live in 2009 and not 1839, but also wondering whether I would have preferred a 73 hour a week mill job in Lowell or the never ending tasks of a preindustrial Midwest. I also noticed that the families of the Midwest during the 19th century seem much more family-orientated in their economic endeavors, while conversely the female mill workers of Lowel seemed more motivated by individual goals of self sufficiency. -Joyce<br />
<br />
Joyce: I think it's those early urban working women we have to thank for unions, equality in the workplace, etc. Women of the Plains paid their due in a different way. -Amanda</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-01-27T04:30:51Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>The first section of chapter seven of the ''American Manhood'' reading struck me as really interesting. I had known that there was a change in the way the actual marriage ceremony took place, but I admit I was largely unaware of the scope and significance of the changes. There were some particularly obvious things, such as the fact that wedding dresses previous to this change could be the nicest dress that the bride already own, or if a new one was made it usually was not today's standard white, at least on the information we have today about known or attributed wedding gowns. It was interesting to begin to understand the changes that took place in regards to community interaction and the focus on the two individuals being wed. I also found the modern sense of the feeling of intimacy, on all counts, increased in the nineteenth century. That we get more sense that men and women thus united found themselves knowing, if not every last detail, but a great deal more of the personal aspects of their spouse is very interesting. Of course there are other aspects to marriages, such as divorce and alienation of the partners, that counterbalance this ideal and give history the character it deserves. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Just continuing what Lacey was mentioning about with the dresses, I know my grandmother didn't have a white dress or a big wedding or anything of that sort in the early 1900s... erm, I think it was in the mid 1940s that she married her husband. They went down to the church, no one went with them and she wore what she had at the house. None of the family went to her wedding except her brother who passed by the church while he was out hunting. (They lived in the hollows of West Virginia). My mother on the other hand borrow a pink cocktail dress from a friend and married my dad in the priest's office of the church, I think mom said that 2 other people were there as witnesses and they married in the 1960s. So weddings and things may have begun to change in the 19th century, I believe this was probably more or less for the urban area wealthier people. Some rural areas probably had some of the bigger type of wedding, but it still wasn't universal for the couple in the center of it all surrounded by friends and family in the 1960s, who knows if it is yet. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Most of the changes in the family that Mintz and Kellogg describe in this chapter (the home became a sanctuary, family members were supposed to give emotional support to one another, women took on purely domestic roles rather than productive roles, etc) they attribute to the fact that men were working outside of the home. Instead of producing everything they needed from within the household, they were working elsewhere, making a salary, and buying what they needed. So what about more rural families? They were still living on largely self-sufficient farms, so did they not undergo these changes? I would guess that the advice manuals, magazine articles, and other bits of literature about the new ideal family were reaching them (at least to some extent). So I wonder if they felt pressure to conform to this new ideal of the family even though their lifestyle was not really conducive to it. I think it would be hard for some woman on a farm, who has to work alongside her husband producing everything the household needed, to also conform to the ideal mother who is totally focused on domestic tasks and sensitive child rearing. It reminds me of "Little House on the Prairie." Laura's mom would do something like build a barn or drive hostile indians off of her land, and then she would put on a nice dress and act very feminine and delicate and totally dependent on her husband. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I think that as they have in the past, Mintz and Kellogg are making generalizations about society in America. It seems that their argument for this chapter is focused very much on urban areas, like Scholten's argument on obstetrics for last week. It seems that in more rural areas it would take time for this new "Democratic Family" to articulate itself. They were still relatively independent and self-sufficient to the extent that they could be. Again, I think that these changes would have taken time and not come entirely to fruition until travel and the intermingling of the rural and urban became possible. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey here, Mitz and Kellogg seem to be focusing on just urban and mostly New England area. They then apply this to the rest of the nation, which is absurd because the rest of the nation is vastly different from New England. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey and Ashley in this regard. Despite being from New England myself, I can say the whole notion of community there is very different then anyplace else I have ever been. There is a correlation between family and these notions I beleive and thus, using Urban and industrializing New England as the American model is unfair to the rest of the nation. -Stephen<br />
<br />
I am curious as to how the rural families adapt to the changes that those in cities were facing? Did they change to where the family was mainly supported by the husband as they did in urban areas? I think that part of the reason the family became so private was the rapid growth of cities. It was easier to have a close family from the community in small towns but as they grew this became harder. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Even with the men working outside the home, why would the need for the family to provide emotional support change? It seems that no matter where the husband/father worked, the home should have been a place where you could receive emotional support. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Did anyone else notice in chapter 7 of "American Manhood" the paragraph that stated that a woman's fortune, social standing and reputation depended on that of her husband's? My mind went immediately to Abigail and Greenleaf Patch. Their story seems to be a perfect example of this. No matter what Abigail did to try to improve her family's station in life after she divorced Greenleaf, she could never climb out of the hole her husband dug for her. According to Rotundo this power that belonged to the man gave him the authority to make decisions regarding the family's welfare even if, as in the example of Henry Poor's poor financial decisions, they weren't the most rational. But Rotundo admits later that this wasn't the case in all marriages and some couples appointed one person or the other to make certain decisions depending on their individual strengths and needs. Thank goodness for that! Celia M.<br />
<br />
I agree that this chapter deals only with newly urbanized areas. Was this development of a more individualized, nurturing family the norm once the other parts of the country became industrialized or was this solely a New England thing? --Kari <br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this chapter in Mintz and Kellogg. It was interesting reading about the roles of women. This time period showed a significant increase in women's responsibilities from only being submissive to their husbands to actually being able to be in control of property and their own wages. Also, I found it interesting that men wanted women to raise the next generation of patriots. Its fascinating that throughout history, wars always bring more rights to women. Although a lot of those, like jobs, are taken away when the men come home, it always leaves a lasting effect. -- Kari<br />
<br />
I have a question that perhaps Dr. McClurken (or anyone else for that matter) could answer. In Mintz and Kellogg's book on page 59, the authors wrote that children were kept at home for a longer time, past puberty, in order to guide them through an age that is "a period of rapid physical growth and moral, sexual, and physiological upheaval" during which teens were vulnerable to the "corruptions" of the adult world. I was wondering, did this prolonged dependence on parents and sheltering cause a decrease in pregnancies out of wedlock? They didn't say and I was curious. I know birth control was more widely used so perhaps it is hard to get an accurate number. Celia<br />
<br />
The chapters from American Manhood highlight gender differences through marriage and work. It made me very glad to be living today, not in the 19th Century. Women were subject to their husband's demands and needs, though some were lucky to enjoy loving relationships and "flourishing intimacy" with their husbands. I enjoyed reading about the degrees of a marriage in this time. Some were merely a union of persons, and some were partnerships and a system of helpmates. Charles and Persis are the perfect example of the latter. The fact that Charles used his health to seek nurture shows that he may have been dependent on his wife, but didn't want to outwardly reveal it. In addition, men retreated to work to provide for their families and escape "unwelcome thoughts". Men were scared of failure and bankruptcy was seen as failure (not a sometimes too-convenient option like today). Again with the conceptions of gender: men experienced "neurasthenia" from too much work, while women experienced "hysterics". Clearly men and women were on unequal footing.--Amanda<br />
<br />
Admittedly I am only about 10 pages in, but in American Manhood, the focus on men needing to uphold their masculinity really struck me as a bizarre reason to make sure a marriage remained successful. The idea of "proper gender norms" being the most vital part of a relationship just seems counter-intuitive in today's culture where the most important part of (most) marriages is the assurance that both parties are very much in love with each other. My question, however, is thus: were there ever divorces in the 19th century that, while still being the wife's idea, were less about the husband being a generally vice-driven jerk and more about the fact that the wife just flat-out didn't love him anymore? I get the feeling this is a more modern construct, but did it happen "back then" as well? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Honestly, the whole first chapter of the online reading just made me uncomfortable. As they explained the husband's necessity to get away from the household as much as possible, I kept being reminded of the lyrics to Tracy Chapman's "Fast Car," as she chides her husband for "stay[ing] out drinking late at the bar," and "see[ing] more of your friends than you do you of your kids." While I believe that we have progressed far past what marriage USED to be, there is apparently a lot that never really changed. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I'm wondering, is the lack of discussion on rural and farming families because of a lack of sources? I feel like there wouldn't be as much on those families as in urban areas because of how differently the societies were ran. Or are Mintz and Kellogg really just infatuated with urban New England families? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
<br />
I was interested to read that marriages began to focus more on love and compatibility in the early 19th Century. Mintz& Kellogg do acknowledge the large percentage of families that lived on farms, but their generalizations seem not to apply to this majority. Kelly might be right. I doubt that rural women had much access to women's magazines or novels and experienced different transformations post-Revolution.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I found Mintz and Kellogg's brief discussion of the development of polygamy during the early 1840s intriguing and unexpected. While the "democratic family" emphasized the establishment of solid moral values and attempted to strengthen the affectionate bonds between family members through a system of mutual support, the Mormon families sought to reestablish a sense of patriarchy and traditional male dominance. The middle class family saw the rise of such practices as "deviant and disorganized," and well as an institution that 'degrades womanhood, motherhood, and family (p. 65.)" In the midst of the rising sense of duty to instill notions of purity into the hearts and minds of their children, the "democratic family" apparently faced issues of conformity and acceptance of diverse notions of family structure and sexuality<br />
-Augusta<br />
<br />
Chapter 8 of American Identity was kind of intense. I find it scary how much a man's well, manliness, depended on not only his social standing but his job as well. I know that we freak out today about at least finding a job. These men were not only worried about that, but what kind of job they would end up in. It just seems intense that a man's true identity depended fully on his occupation. Even more so, this affected the way his family members were treated as well. If you were married to someone in a lower position, you were automatically going to be seen as lower in status just because of him. Crazy. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
American Manhood reveals how the ideal vision of marriage underwent a significant change during the nineteenth century, emphasizing the importance of intimacy and affection between a couple; however, the majority of American families did not conform to this concept of marriage. Although men held the pervading influence on his family's social role and status in society, both of the sexes held a fundamental emotional commitment to the intimate relationship of marriage. The letters between spouses during the last third of the nineteenth century illustrate the increased emphasis on intimacy as a method maintaining the family's long-term stability. <br />
-Augusta<br />
<br />
The first section of chapter seven of the American Manhood about the marriage ceremony was interesting to me as well. I had always assumed that the procedures were pretty standardized, but this is obviously not the case. I like how the chapter shifted focus that the analysis of how weddings and marriage affect the rest of society. -Stephen<br />
<br />
Just commenting on Lacey’s first remark. I read an interesting article not long ago about the influence media has on relationships. Apparently, women have increasingly unreal expectations for their husbands b/c of romantic comedies (they think every man should be like Mathew McConaughey). I wonder how much t.v., movies, and print really played a role in the transformation of wedding ceremonies. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
I think the weakness of these chapters from "Domestic Revolutions" was the vagueness in explaining the familial changes throughout the 17th-19th centuries. The authors approach the transformation between a public economically driven family to a private and loving marriage as the rule, not the exception. They seem to ignore the fact that probably many marriages throughout and until the 19th century were full of love for spouses and affection for children-this probability does not work into the author's explanation of the familial changes, so they just leave it out. Also, many pages were dedicated to the progressive changes of female expectations as wife and mother, but they do not emphasize enough on the persistent negative attitudes society had for women. --Joyce<br />
<br />
Commenting on Cash and adding to what I just said; I wonder how many divorces can be attributed to the media. I assume increased divorce rates have something to do with failed expectations. But when did these expectations begin to play a role in relationships? --Andrew B.</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-01-27T04:03:47Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>The first section of chapter seven of the ''American Manhood'' reading struck me as really interesting. I had known that there was a change in the way the actual marriage ceremony took place, but I admit I was largely unaware of the scope and significance of the changes. There were some particularly obvious things, such as the fact that wedding dresses previous to this change could be the nicest dress that the bride already own, or if a new one was made it usually was not today's standard white, at least on the information we have today about known or attributed wedding gowns. It was interesting to begin to understand the changes that took place in regards to community interaction and the focus on the two individuals being wed. I also found the modern sense of the feeling of intimacy, on all counts, increased in the nineteenth century. That we get more sense that men and women thus united found themselves knowing, if not every last detail, but a great deal more of the personal aspects of their spouse is very interesting. Of course there are other aspects to marriages, such as divorce and alienation of the partners, that counterbalance this ideal and give history the character it deserves. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Just continuing what Lacey was mentioning about with the dresses, I know my grandmother didn't have a white dress or a big wedding or anything of that sort in the early 1900s... erm, I think it was in the mid 1940s that she married her husband. They went down to the church, no one went with them and she wore what she had at the house. None of the family went to her wedding except her brother who passed by the church while he was out hunting. (They lived in the hollows of West Virginia). My mother on the other hand borrow a pink cocktail dress from a friend and married my dad in the priest's office of the church, I think mom said that 2 other people were there as witnesses and they married in the 1960s. So weddings and things may have begun to change in the 19th century, I believe this was probably more or less for the urban area wealthier people. Some rural areas probably had some of the bigger type of wedding, but it still wasn't universal for the couple in the center of it all surrounded by friends and family in the 1960s, who knows if it is yet. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Most of the changes in the family that Mintz and Kellogg describe in this chapter (the home became a sanctuary, family members were supposed to give emotional support to one another, women took on purely domestic roles rather than productive roles, etc) they attribute to the fact that men were working outside of the home. Instead of producing everything they needed from within the household, they were working elsewhere, making a salary, and buying what they needed. So what about more rural families? They were still living on largely self-sufficient farms, so did they not undergo these changes? I would guess that the advice manuals, magazine articles, and other bits of literature about the new ideal family were reaching them (at least to some extent). So I wonder if they felt pressure to conform to this new ideal of the family even though their lifestyle was not really conducive to it. I think it would be hard for some woman on a farm, who has to work alongside her husband producing everything the household needed, to also conform to the ideal mother who is totally focused on domestic tasks and sensitive child rearing. It reminds me of "Little House on the Prairie." Laura's mom would do something like build a barn or drive hostile indians off of her land, and then she would put on a nice dress and act very feminine and delicate and totally dependent on her husband. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I think that as they have in the past, Mintz and Kellogg are making generalizations about society in America. It seems that their argument for this chapter is focused very much on urban areas, like Scholten's argument on obstetrics for last week. It seems that in more rural areas it would take time for this new "Democratic Family" to articulate itself. They were still relatively independent and self-sufficient to the extent that they could be. Again, I think that these changes would have taken time and not come entirely to fruition until travel and the intermingling of the rural and urban became possible. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey here, Mitz and Kellogg seem to be focusing on just urban and mostly New England area. They then apply this to the rest of the nation, which is absurd because the rest of the nation is vastly different from New England. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey and Ashley in this regard. Despite being from New England myself, I can say the whole notion of community there is very different then anyplace else I have ever been. There is a correlation between family and these notions I beleive and thus, using Urban and industrializing New England as the American model is unfair to the rest of the nation. -Stephen<br />
<br />
I am curious as to how the rural families adapt to the changes that those in cities were facing? Did they change to where the family was mainly supported by the husband as they did in urban areas? I think that part of the reason the family became so private was the rapid growth of cities. It was easier to have a close family from the community in small towns but as they grew this became harder. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Even with the men working outside the home, why would the need for the family to provide emotional support change? It seems that no matter where the husband/father worked, the home should have been a place where you could receive emotional support. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Did anyone else notice in chapter 7 of "American Manhood" the paragraph that stated that a woman's fortune, social standing and reputation depended on that of her husband's? My mind went immediately to Abigail and Greenleaf Patch. Their story seems to be a perfect example of this. No matter what Abigail did to try to improve her family's station in life after she divorced Greenleaf, she could never climb out of the hole her husband dug for her. According to Rotundo this power that belonged to the man gave him the authority to make decisions regarding the family's welfare even if, as in the example of Henry Poor's poor financial decisions, they weren't the most rational. But Rotundo admits later that this wasn't the case in all marriages and some couples appointed one person or the other to make certain decisions depending on their individual strengths and needs. Thank goodness for that! Celia M.<br />
<br />
I agree that this chapter deals only with newly urbanized areas. Was this development of a more individualized, nurturing family the norm once the other parts of the country became industrialized or was this solely a New England thing? --Kari <br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this chapter in Mintz and Kellogg. It was interesting reading about the roles of women. This time period showed a significant increase in women's responsibilities from only being submissive to their husbands to actually being able to be in control of property and their own wages. Also, I found it interesting that men wanted women to raise the next generation of patriots. Its fascinating that throughout history, wars always bring more rights to women. Although a lot of those, like jobs, are taken away when the men come home, it always leaves a lasting effect. -- Kari<br />
<br />
I have a question that perhaps Dr. McClurken (or anyone else for that matter) could answer. In Mintz and Kellogg's book on page 59, the authors wrote that children were kept at home for a longer time, past puberty, in order to guide them through an age that is "a period of rapid physical growth and moral, sexual, and physiological upheaval" during which teens were vulnerable to the "corruptions" of the adult world. I was wondering, did this prolonged dependence on parents and sheltering cause a decrease in pregnancies out of wedlock? They didn't say and I was curious. I know birth control was more widely used so perhaps it is hard to get an accurate number. Celia<br />
<br />
The chapters from American Manhood highlight gender differences through marriage and work. It made me very glad to be living today, not in the 19th Century. Women were subject to their husband's demands and needs, though some were lucky to enjoy loving relationships and "flourishing intimacy" with their husbands. I enjoyed reading about the degrees of a marriage in this time. Some were merely a union of persons, and some were partnerships and a system of helpmates. Charles and Persis are the perfect example of the latter. The fact that Charles used his health to seek nurture shows that he may have been dependent on his wife, but didn't want to outwardly reveal it. In addition, men retreated to work to provide for their families and escape "unwelcome thoughts". Men were scared of failure and bankruptcy was seen as failure (not a sometimes too-convenient option like today). Again with the conceptions of gender: men experienced "neurasthenia" from too much work, while women experienced "hysterics". Clearly men and women were on unequal footing.--Amanda<br />
<br />
Admittedly I am only about 10 pages in, but in American Manhood, the focus on men needing to uphold their masculinity really struck me as a bizarre reason to make sure a marriage remained successful. The idea of "proper gender norms" being the most vital part of a relationship just seems counter-intuitive in today's culture where the most important part of (most) marriages is the assurance that both parties are very much in love with each other. My question, however, is thus: were there ever divorces in the 19th century that, while still being the wife's idea, were less about the husband being a generally vice-driven jerk and more about the fact that the wife just flat-out didn't love him anymore? I get the feeling this is a more modern construct, but did it happen "back then" as well? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Honestly, the whole first chapter of the online reading just made me uncomfortable. As they explained the husband's necessity to get away from the household as much as possible, I kept being reminded of the lyrics to Tracy Chapman's "Fast Car," as she chides her husband for "stay[ing] out drinking late at the bar," and "see[ing] more of your friends than you do you of your kids." While I believe that we have progressed far past what marriage USED to be, there is apparently a lot that never really changed. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I'm wondering, is the lack of discussion on rural and farming families because of a lack of sources? I feel like there wouldn't be as much on those families as in urban areas because of how differently the societies were ran. Or are Mintz and Kellogg really just infatuated with urban New England families? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
<br />
I was interested to read that marriages began to focus more on love and compatibility in the early 19th Century. Mintz& Kellogg do acknowledge the large percentage of families that lived on farms, but their generalizations seem not to apply to this majority. Kelly might be right. I doubt that rural women had much access to women's magazines or novels and experienced different transformations post-Revolution.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I found Mintz and Kellogg's brief discussion of the development of polygamy during the early 1840s intriguing and unexpected. While the "democratic family" emphasized the establishment of solid moral values and attempted to strengthen the affectionate bonds between family members through a system of mutual support, the Mormon families sought to reestablish a sense of patriarchy and traditional male dominance. The middle class family saw the rise of such practices as "deviant and disorganized," and well as an institution that 'degrades womanhood, motherhood, and family (p. 65.)" In the midst of the rising sense of duty to instill notions of purity into the hearts and minds of their children, the "democratic family" apparently faced issues of conformity and acceptance of diverse notions of family structure and sexuality<br />
-Augusta<br />
<br />
Chapter 8 of American Identity was kind of intense. I find it scary how much a man's well, manliness, depended on not only his social standing but his job as well. I know that we freak out today about at least finding a job. These men were not only worried about that, but what kind of job they would end up in. It just seems intense that a man's true identity depended fully on his occupation. Even more so, this affected the way his family members were treated as well. If you were married to someone in a lower position, you were automatically going to be seen as lower in status just because of him. Crazy. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
American Manhood reveals how the ideal vision of marriage underwent a significant change during the nineteenth century, emphasizing the importance of intimacy and affection between a couple; however, the majority of American families did not conform to this concept of marriage. Although men held the pervading influence on his family's social role and status in society, both of the sexes held a fundamental emotional commitment to the intimate relationship of marriage. The letters between spouses during the last third of the nineteenth century illustrate the increased emphasis on intimacy as a method maintaining the family's long-term stability. <br />
-Augusta<br />
<br />
The first section of chapter seven of the American Manhood about the marriage ceremony was interesting to me as well. I had always assumed that the procedures were pretty standardized, but this is obviously not the case. I like how the chapter shifted focus that the analysis of how weddings and marriage affect the rest of society. -Stephen<br />
<br />
Just commenting on Lacey’s first remark. I read an interesting article not long ago about the influence media has on relationships. Apparently, women have increasingly unreal expectations for their husbands b/c of romantic comedies (they think every man should be like Mathew McConaughey). I wonder how much t.v., movies, and print really played a role in the transformation of wedding ceremonies. –Andrew B</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-22T03:02:38Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Paul Johnson */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Readings ==<br />
<br />
== Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
Wow, I never realized that was when they started making women lay down on their backs to give birth. That is like, the absolute worse way to give birth (Except perhaps trying to do it on your stomach...). So because men wanted to break into that field and take over it, midwives were kicked out the door for the most part. To be honest, this is something I've researched a little in the past (the hubby and I have been talking about pregnancies the past year), and lying on your back is the hard way to give birth because of the way your trying to push the baby out, however, with walking around and standing/squatting/sitting gravity works with the body and the baby goes straight out instead of having to do a bit of a curve. At least from what I have read and what my friend who is a doula has explained to me. Then, at that time (and I understand the whole humility/embarassment thing), making women lay down on their back and covered up just seems more dangerous because the person can't see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can't even see, thats just stupidity. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ok, maybe I missed it in the reading, but at what point did society have that epiphany and realize that women and their children were worth saving during childbirth and that women deserved to have the most pain-free birthing (an oxymoron, I know)? Also, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that men wouldn't allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the "power of action" and the "active power of mind," yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.<br />
<br />
Celia, let's remember that American women have only been allowed to vote since 1920. Is their patronizingly small role in medicine really that big of a stretch? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
After reading Scholten's essay, I found it very surprising that childbearing after the American Revolution and into the early 20th century became dominated by male physicians. Scholten argues in her essay that the replacement of female midwives were preferred by most women than male physicians. I also found it interesting and bizarre that American midwifery which had dominated childbearing before the American Revolution nearly disappeared at the advent of new discoveries in medical science. Wouldn't it make sense to allow women to enroll in early 20th century medical schools and participate in childbearing, when they previously were the dominant participants before the American Revolution. All the excuses by male doctors of women making them nervous in the room or their ability to be a distraction was extremely bizarre. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to say that I was incredibly excited about reading this essay because medicine and midwifery in the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth incredibly fascinating. (It probably doesn't help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.) So that brings me to Ashley's comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph's comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the "lying-in." Scholten doesn't mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn't until the end of the eighteenth century that obstetric forceps came into widespread use, nearly a century after their initial conception. Such instruments fell into the realm of the doctor rather than the midwife, and women were seen as less able to understand and facilitate the same things that men were, thus women were pushed out of the birthing room. Subsequently, women were made to lie on their backs to allow their male physician to use equipment to examine them, of which the forceps are an example. Personally, I think that such changes were nearly useless at the time, because other than extreme cases the physicians could only do a little more than the midwives. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this essay. It was rather interesting to read about the start of our customs regarding childbirth. I was amazed to find that males quickly took over this profession and women soon preferred to switch over to the more modern practices as medicine improved. It is strange that now many women turn to older practices and choose a midwife over conventional methods of childbirth. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was interesting to see the transformation childbirth customs through the years, and I have to say, I had no idea that midwives took such a backseat once the physician became a bigger part of childbirth. It almost seems as though they were viewed as superfluous or as an archaic, outdated custom. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
It was also interesting to read that the use of alcohol in birthing reached as far back as it did. My mom (a registered nurse) and I have discussed on multiple occasions that while she was taught the methods of dispensing intravenous alcohol in childbirth, it is a vastly outdated practice, and her delivery of my oldest brother in 1981 was probably one of the last times that IV alcohol was used in such a manner. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree that this was a very interesting article. While I agree that it is unfortunate that midwives and female relations were largely removed from the childbirth process, there were some positive aspects of the move to male physicians such as the belief that it should be made less painful, as Celia already mentioned. Scholten also notes this "implied a new social appreciation of women." I believe that the former practice of referring to pregnant women as "breeding" or "teeming" makes them sound more like cattle then human beings and while it is unfortunate that women were displaced in midwifery, women may have gained some greater appreciation from at least some of the male gender as a result. That said, it doesn't appear that women gained physically from the change, swapping potentially ill-informed midwives with doctors too socially conscious to treat them as proper medicine would dictate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with some of Sarah’s comments. I don’t think that the shift to doctors was a bad thing at all. At some point, a process as serious as childbirth would have come under scientific scrutiny. It is unfortunate, however, that the norms of the time excluded women from the practice. Their hands on experience and knowledge, coupled with scientific advances, could have served as a major catalyst for advancement in the field. Similarly, if society had been ready for male doctors to visually experience the process, advancement may have been more rapid. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
In response to Celia and Cash's comments: I think the essay stated that it was the early 1800s when attempts were made to make childbirth a less painful experience. This coincided with a religious movement and relieving women of suffering related to scripture. I also was surprised to know that women essentially were kicked out of the field. Considering how involved women ''have'' been in medicine, from early nurses through the postbellum era, it seems counterintuitive to exclude women from a field that pertains only to their gender. I agree with Andrew (and Sarah): the knowledge and training men were able to receive coupled with women's experience and acceptance by other women would have would have advanced the field.--Amanda<br />
<br />
== Paul Johnson ==<br />
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn't help but feel sorry for Abigail and the kids, I was actually happy to read that the daughters changed their names. In a sense this could be an example of women taking control of the household in the end and being a single-parent household (to show that divorces happened and that women still maintained custody of children in some cases). I know the reading said that the case was fairly unique, but I wonder how unique it really was, like... how much of this actually happened but just wasn't recorded anywhere? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I completely agree with you about Greenleaf. The whole time I was reading about it my particular dislike for him grew. I was curious, as well, about how many households were in similar situations. It is interesting to note that Abigal was, initially, very subordinate and wanted a good friend as a husband, something like a companion. But when Greenleaf cast aside his family duties, or responsibilities, she pretty much rolled up her sleeves and became more decisive and domineering. It doesn't seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn't. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M<br />
<br />
I agree, I really found myself not liking Greenleaf while reading this article. I think that many women might have been in similar situations, having to take control of their family when their husband failed to do so. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yet another agreement about Greenleaf. However, I have to say that it appears that Greenleaf didn't have much of an example to go upon to be able to become a useful, productive citizen. From what little we see of his father it seems that they were very similar in their inability to take care of their family. Would not such a dysfunctional family provide a poor role model for the children? It's no wonder that Abigail had to take up the duties that would normally have fallen to her partner. -Lacey<br />
<br />
While I agree with everyone that Greenleaf was far from a model citizen or husband, he was subject to several disadvantages. I think that this narrative illustrates the implications of social pressures and norms of the time period in New England. If you did not own your own land you were at a distinct disadvantage and being the youngest son of 10 children in a splintered family would not have allowed him many opportunities or positive examples, as Lacey mentioned. That said, I do not think that that justifies his actions and his treatment of his family. Also, was anyone else surprised by the statistic that 1 in 3 women were pregnant on their wedding day? I think a lot of people have a false image of very straitlaced, pious New England families, when in fact people were dealing with many of the same issues that are still relevant today. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I, too, agree with everyone about disliking Greenleaf. I think that the situation Abigail was in must have been somewhat common because it mentions in the article that during the late 18th and early 19th century there was a "decline of patriarchal authority". It sounds to me like women wanted to show their husbands they could survive without them by creating their own separate domestic sphere. I really enjoyed reading about how these women were able to adapt to these awful situations and growing from them to become independent. - Kari<br />
<br />
As the first male student in the class to post on this particular essay, I did not feel the same dislike for Greenleaf until after reading that Greenleaf Patch became a drunkard and stole money earned from his wife in children. I think a couple points have not been introduced in these blog entries that may alter one's opinion of Greenleaf. In the introduction Paul Johnson indicates that the story is reconstructed from distant impersonal and fragmentary sources, the majority being government documents. It's interesting that there was no indication of written diaries from either of the family members or local people about Greenleaf and Abigail Patch. Paul Johnson also indicates that increasing numbers of men owned no land in the New England area. Is it possible that the economic instability of Greenleaf's family may have shaped his personality and his future actions? -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
I think that Greenleaf was a loser. The significance of this lies in its parallels to modern society. Mintz & Kellog spoke of the model family, one with strong moral convictions and community ties. However, they failed to comment on unconventional families in NE. In today’s society, there are hundreds of family templates. Nuclear, single parent, extended live-in, etc. The same went for colonial NE. Although M&K forgot about unconventional family types, it does not mean they did not exist. NE, like modern society, was not a fairy-tale. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==<br />
<br />
He said that past generations have faced much difficulty and sacrificed things to ensure that future generations could live happily with more freedom. Specifically he mentioned the American Revolution, Civil War, westward expansion and immigrating to America. He also said that parents need to continue to nurture children and instill the values of honesty, loyalty and patriotism so that our country can become an even better place. Families are definitely a key part of correcting society's problems. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was definitely a speech using family as an allegory for the entire nation. Government was painted as a head of the family, willing to help and reach out to those it cares for, as long as those who need caring for are willing to work for what they receive. He mentioned the importance of ancestry and recognizing our immigrant heritage, as well as ensuring that our values are not lost. Most importantly, I thought, was his inclusion of both beliefs and NON-beliefs. I am not sure if Obama was the first President to overtly mention atheism, but I think it sent a great message that regardless of what you do or do not believe in, you will not be discriminated against. It was truly a powerful speech. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
He talked about the progression of American society through the lens of the family. He specifically discussed generational progression. In so many words, Obama said that the hard work and sacrifice of past generations have made possible the radical change our country is experiencing. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
President Obama's speech also reinforced Mintz and Kellogg's point that the American family, once a self-sufficient unit, is now dependent on social programs. For instance, in his speech, Obama mentioned the need to improve health care, better our schools and colleges, and provide for retirees, all things that were once responsibilities of families. He also, as others have previously mentioned, spoke of the importance our actions have on future generations. Lastly, he applauded the self-sacrifice of future generations of Americans which have allowed us, their descendants, to live in a great and free nation. His speech clearly made the case that the family is still very important to society. --Sarah Gardner</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-22T02:21:13Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Catherine Scholten */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Readings ==<br />
<br />
== Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
Wow, I never realized that was when they started making women lay down on their backs to give birth. That is like, the absolute worse way to give birth (Except perhaps trying to do it on your stomach...). So because men wanted to break into that field and take over it, midwives were kicked out the door for the most part. To be honest, this is something I've researched a little in the past (the hubby and I have been talking about pregnancies the past year), and lying on your back is the hard way to give birth because of the way your trying to push the baby out, however, with walking around and standing/squatting/sitting gravity works with the body and the baby goes straight out instead of having to do a bit of a curve. At least from what I have read and what my friend who is a doula has explained to me. Then, at that time (and I understand the whole humility/embarassment thing), making women lay down on their back and covered up just seems more dangerous because the person can't see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can't even see, thats just stupidity. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ok, maybe I missed it in the reading, but at what point did society have that epiphany and realize that women and their children were worth saving during childbirth and that women deserved to have the most pain-free birthing (an oxymoron, I know)? Also, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that men wouldn't allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the "power of action" and the "active power of mind," yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.<br />
<br />
Celia, let's remember that American women have only been allowed to vote since 1920. Is their patronizingly small role in medicine really that big of a stretch? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
After reading Scholten's essay, I found it very surprising that childbearing after the American Revolution and into the early 20th century became dominated by male physicians. Scholten argues in her essay that the replacement of female midwives were preferred by most women than male physicians. I also found it interesting and bizarre that American midwifery which had dominated childbearing before the American Revolution nearly disappeared at the advent of new discoveries in medical science. Wouldn't it make sense to allow women to enroll in early 20th century medical schools and participate in childbearing, when they previously were the dominant participants before the American Revolution. All the excuses by male doctors of women making them nervous in the room or their ability to be a distraction was extremely bizarre. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to say that I was incredibly excited about reading this essay because medicine and midwifery in the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth incredibly fascinating. (It probably doesn't help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.) So that brings me to Ashley's comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph's comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the "lying-in." Scholten doesn't mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn't until the end of the eighteenth century that obstetric forceps came into widespread use, nearly a century after their initial conception. Such instruments fell into the realm of the doctor rather than the midwife, and women were seen as less able to understand and facilitate the same things that men were, thus women were pushed out of the birthing room. Subsequently, women were made to lie on their backs to allow their male physician to use equipment to examine them, of which the forceps are an example. Personally, I think that such changes were nearly useless at the time, because other than extreme cases the physicians could only do a little more than the midwives. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this essay. It was rather interesting to read about the start of our customs regarding childbirth. I was amazed to find that males quickly took over this profession and women soon preferred to switch over to the more modern practices as medicine improved. It is strange that now many women turn to older practices and choose a midwife over conventional methods of childbirth. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was interesting to see the transformation childbirth customs through the years, and I have to say, I had no idea that midwives took such a backseat once the physician became a bigger part of childbirth. It almost seems as though they were viewed as superfluous or as an archaic, outdated custom. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
It was also interesting to read that the use of alcohol in birthing reached as far back as it did. My mom (a registered nurse) and I have discussed on multiple occasions that while she was taught the methods of dispensing intravenous alcohol in childbirth, it is a vastly outdated practice, and her delivery of my oldest brother in 1981 was probably one of the last times that IV alcohol was used in such a manner. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree that this was a very interesting article. While I agree that it is unfortunate that midwives and female relations were largely removed from the childbirth process, there were some positive aspects of the move to male physicians such as the belief that it should be made less painful, as Celia already mentioned. Scholten also notes this "implied a new social appreciation of women." I believe that the former practice of referring to pregnant women as "breeding" or "teeming" makes them sound more like cattle then human beings and while it is unfortunate that women were displaced in midwifery, women may have gained some greater appreciation from at least some of the male gender as a result. That said, it doesn't appear that women gained physically from the change, swapping potentially ill-informed midwives with doctors too socially conscious to treat them as proper medicine would dictate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with some of Sarah’s comments. I don’t think that the shift to doctors was a bad thing at all. At some point, a process as serious as childbirth would have come under scientific scrutiny. It is unfortunate, however, that the norms of the time excluded women from the practice. Their hands on experience and knowledge, coupled with scientific advances, could have served as a major catalyst for advancement in the field. Similarly, if society had been ready for male doctors to visually experience the process, advancement may have been more rapid. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Paul Johnson ==<br />
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn't help but feel sorry for Abigail and the kids, I was actually happy to read that the daughters changed their names. In a sense this could be an example of women taking control of the household in the end and being a single-parent household (to show that divorces happened and that women still maintained custody of children in some cases). I know the reading said that the case was fairly unique, but I wonder how unique it really was, like... how much of this actually happened but just wasn't recorded anywhere? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I completely agree with you about Greenleaf. The whole time I was reading about it my particular dislike for him grew. I was curious, as well, about how many households were in similar situations. It is interesting to note that Abigal was, initially, very subordinate and wanted a good friend as a husband, something like a companion. But when Greenleaf cast aside his family duties, or responsibilities, she pretty much rolled up her sleeves and became more decisive and domineering. It doesn't seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn't. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M<br />
<br />
I agree, I really found myself not liking Greenleaf while reading this article. I think that many women might have been in similar situations, having to take control of their family when their husband failed to do so. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yet another agreement about Greenleaf. However, I have to say that it appears that Greenleaf didn't have much of an example to go upon to be able to become a useful, productive citizen. From what little we see of his father it seems that they were very similar in their inability to take care of their family. Would not such a dysfunctional family provide a poor role model for the children? It's no wonder that Abigail had to take up the duties that would normally have fallen to her partner. -Lacey<br />
<br />
While I agree with everyone that Greenleaf was far from a model citizen or husband, he was subject to several disadvantages. I think that this narrative illustrates the implications of social pressures and norms of the time period in New England. If you did not own your own land you were at a distinct disadvantage and being the youngest son of 10 children in a splintered family would not have allowed him many opportunities or positive examples, as Lacey mentioned. That said, I do not think that that justifies his actions and his treatment of his family. Also, was anyone else surprised by the statistic that 1 in 3 women were pregnant on their wedding day? I think a lot of people have a false image of very straitlaced, pious New England families, when in fact people were dealing with many of the same issues that are still relevant today. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I, too, agree with everyone about disliking Greenleaf. I think that the situation Abigail was in must have been somewhat common because it mentions in the article that during the late 18th and early 19th century there was a "decline of patriarchal authority". It sounds to me like women wanted to show their husbands they could survive without them by creating their own separate domestic sphere. I really enjoyed reading about how these women were able to adapt to these awful situations and growing from them to become independent. - Kari <br />
<br />
== Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==<br />
<br />
He said that past generations have faced much difficulty and sacrificed things to ensure that future generations could live happily with more freedom. Specifically he mentioned the American Revolution, Civil War, westward expansion and immigrating to America. He also said that parents need to continue to nurture children and instill the values of honesty, loyalty and patriotism so that our country can become an even better place. Families are definitely a key part of correcting society's problems. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was definitely a speech using family as an allegory for the entire nation. Government was painted as a head of the family, willing to help and reach out to those it cares for, as long as those who need caring for are willing to work for what they receive. He mentioned the importance of ancestry and recognizing our immigrant heritage, as well as ensuring that our values are not lost. Most importantly, I thought, was his inclusion of both beliefs and NON-beliefs. I am not sure if Obama was the first President to overtly mention atheism, but I think it sent a great message that regardless of what you do or do not believe in, you will not be discriminated against. It was truly a powerful speech. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
He talked about the progression of American society through the lens of the family. He specifically discussed generational progression. In so many words, Obama said that the hard work and sacrifice of past generations have made possible the radical change our country is experiencing. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
President Obama's speech also reinforced Mintz and Kellogg's point that the American family, once a self-sufficient unit, is now dependent on social programs. For instance, in his speech, Obama mentioned the need to improve health care, better our schools and colleges, and provide for retirees, all things that were once responsibilities of families. He also, as others have previously mentioned, spoke of the importance our actions have on future generations. Lastly, he applauded the self-sacrifice of future generations of Americans which have allowed us, their descendants, to live in a great and free nation. His speech clearly made the case that the family is still very important to society. --Sarah Gardner</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-22T01:23:41Z<p>Abore5mq: /* Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Readings ==<br />
<br />
== Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
Wow, I never realized that was when they started making women lay down on their backs to give birth. That is like, the absolute worse way to give birth (Except perhaps trying to do it on your stomach...). So because men wanted to break into that field and take over it, midwives were kicked out the door for the most part. To be honest, this is something I've researched a little in the past (the hubby and I have been talking about pregnancies the past year), and lying on your back is the hard way to give birth because of the way your trying to push the baby out, however, with walking around and standing/squatting/sitting gravity works with the body and the baby goes straight out instead of having to do a bit of a curve. At least from what I have read and what my friend who is a doula has explained to me. Then, at that time (and I understand the whole humility/embarassment thing), making women lay down on their back and covered up just seems more dangerous because the person can't see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can't even see, thats just stupidity. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ok, maybe I missed it in the reading, but at what point did society have that epiphany and realize that women and their children were worth saving during childbirth and that women deserved to have the most pain-free birthing (an oxymoron, I know)? Also, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that men wouldn't allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the "power of action" and the "active power of mind," yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.<br />
<br />
Celia, let's remember that American women have only been allowed to vote since 1920. Is their patronizingly small role in medicine really that big of a stretch? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
After reading Scholten's essay, I found it very surprising that childbearing after the American Revolution and into the early 20th century became dominated by male physicians. Scholten argues in her essay that the replacement of female midwives were preferred by most women than male physicians. I also found it interesting and bizarre that American midwifery which had dominated childbearing before the American Revolution nearly disappeared at the advent of new discoveries in medical science. Wouldn't it make sense to allow women to enroll in early 20th century medical schools and participate in childbearing, when they previously were the dominant participants before the American Revolution. All the excuses by male doctors of women making them nervous in the room or their ability to be a distraction was extremely bizarre. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to say that I was incredibly excited about reading this essay because medicine and midwifery in the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth incredibly fascinating. (It probably doesn't help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.) So that brings me to Ashley's comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph's comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the "lying-in." Scholten doesn't mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn't until the end of the eighteenth century that obstetric forceps came into widespread use, nearly a century after their initial conception. Such instruments fell into the realm of the doctor rather than the midwife, and women were seen as less able to understand and facilitate the same things that men were, thus women were pushed out of the birthing room. Subsequently, women were made to lie on their backs to allow their male physician to use equipment to examine them, of which the forceps are an example. Personally, I think that such changes were nearly useless at the time, because other than extreme cases the physicians could only do a little more than the midwives. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this essay. It was rather interesting to read about the start of our customs regarding childbirth. I was amazed to find that males quickly took over this profession and women soon preferred to switch over to the more modern practices as medicine improved. It is strange that now many women turn to older practices and choose a midwife over conventional methods of childbirth. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was interesting to see the transformation childbirth customs through the years, and I have to say, I had no idea that midwives took such a backseat once the physician became a bigger part of childbirth. It almost seems as though they were viewed as superfluous or as an archaic, outdated custom. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
It was also interesting to read that the use of alcohol in birthing reached as far back as it did. My mom (a registered nurse) and I have discussed on multiple occasions that while she was taught the methods of dispensing intravenous alcohol in childbirth, it is a vastly outdated practice, and her delivery of my oldest brother in 1981 was probably one of the last times that IV alcohol was used in such a manner. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree that this was a very interesting article. While I agree that it is unfortunate that midwives and female relations were largely removed from the childbirth process, there were some positive aspects of the move to male physicians such as the belief that it should be made less painful, as Celia already mentioned. Scholten also notes this "implied a new social appreciation of women." I believe that the former practice of referring to pregnant women as "breeding" or "teeming" makes them sound more like cattle then human beings and while it is unfortunate that women were displaced in midwifery, women may have gained some greater appreciation from at least some of the male gender as a result. That said, it doesn't appear that women gained physically from the change, swapping potentially ill-informed midwives with doctors too socially conscious to treat them as proper medicine would dictate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Paul Johnson ==<br />
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn't help but feel sorry for Abigail and the kids, I was actually happy to read that the daughters changed their names. In a sense this could be an example of women taking control of the household in the end and being a single-parent household (to show that divorces happened and that women still maintained custody of children in some cases). I know the reading said that the case was fairly unique, but I wonder how unique it really was, like... how much of this actually happened but just wasn't recorded anywhere? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I completely agree with you about Greenleaf. The whole time I was reading about it my particular dislike for him grew. I was curious, as well, about how many households were in similar situations. It is interesting to note that Abigal was, initially, very subordinate and wanted a good friend as a husband, something like a companion. But when Greenleaf cast aside his family duties, or responsibilities, she pretty much rolled up her sleeves and became more decisive and domineering. It doesn't seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn't. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M<br />
<br />
I agree, I really found myself not liking Greenleaf while reading this article. I think that many women might have been in similar situations, having to take control of their family when their husband failed to do so. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yet another agreement about Greenleaf. However, I have to say that it appears that Greenleaf didn't have much of an example to go upon to be able to become a useful, productive citizen. From what little we see of his father it seems that they were very similar in their inability to take care of their family. Would not such a dysfunctional family provide a poor role model for the children? It's no wonder that Abigail had to take up the duties that would normally have fallen to her partner. -Lacey<br />
<br />
While I agree with everyone that Greenleaf was far from a model citizen or husband, he was subject to several disadvantages. I think that this narrative illustrates the implications of social pressures and norms of the time period in New England. If you did not own your own land you were at a distinct disadvantage and being the youngest son of 10 children in a splintered family would not have allowed him many opportunities or positive examples, as Lacey mentioned. That said, I do not think that that justifies his actions and his treatment of his family. Also, was anyone else surprised by the statistic that 1 in 3 women were pregnant on their wedding day? I think a lot of people have a false image of very straitlaced, pious New England families, when in fact people were dealing with many of the same issues that are still relevant today. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==<br />
<br />
He said that past generations have faced much difficulty and sacrificed things to ensure that future generations could live happily with more freedom. Specifically he mentioned the American Revolution, Civil War, westward expansion and immigrating to America. He also said that parents need to continue to nurture children and instill the values of honesty, loyalty and patriotism so that our country can become an even better place. Families are definitely a key part of correcting society's problems. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was definitely a speech using family as an allegory for the entire nation. Government was painted as a head of the family, willing to help and reach out to those it cares for, as long as those who need caring for are willing to work for what they receive. He mentioned the importance of ancestry and recognizing our immigrant heritage, as well as ensuring that our values are not lost. Most importantly, I thought, was his inclusion of both beliefs and NON-beliefs. I am not sure if Obama was the first President to overtly mention atheism, but I think it sent a great message that regardless of what you do or do not believe in, you will not be discriminated against. It was truly a powerful speech. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
He talked about the progression of American society through the lens of the family. He specifically discussed generational progression. In so many words, Obama said that the hard work and sacrifice of past generations have made possible the radical change our country is experiencing. –Andrew B</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-01-20T03:11:12Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Chapter One of ''Domestic Revolutions'', Mintz and Kellogg mentioned the changes in family between the colonial time period and the late 1980s. They wrote that now spousal ties are emotional, which for the most part I do agree with (some people do still marry for property and money though), and that obligation to kin is now voluntary and selective. While yes I do agree that it is voluntary, I have to argue that it was always voluntary, it is just now with technologies improvements on food/clothes production and distribution, overall health care, etc.. there is less of an incentive than before when people relied on their family and kin more for their food, clothes, health (being taken care of by kin when sick), pregnancy and baby stuff, etc. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to say that I didn't really care for Chapter two, it made too many generalities for my liking, but I guess it got the point across that there were at least 3 important groups in America that had different views of family and had unstable/rocky beginnings but seemed to get more stable and changed with time. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
We talked about the fact that Mintz and Kellogg give the impression that New England was the model for all of the American colonies in class the other day, and that fact came back to me while I was reading chapter one. It seems that they intentionally ignore the other colonies because they don't represent that "early American family" that they are describing. Families in other colonies, especially those on the Chesapeake, would largely have resembled the English model of the family at the time. I think this is an gross oversight on their part that leaves a number of questions about non-New England, colonial families unanswered. I find that to be very annoying. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I liked the essay entitled "Politicizing the Household," it was nice to see that there were women who made political and patriotic statements of themselves beyond the old standbys. It was also interesting to see that while women were not thought much of their responsibilities gave them ways to be just as much of a hero to people as the men getting shot on the battlefield. They also humanize the history, showing the reader that one does not necessarily have to be spectacular, like Deborah Sampson, to make a difference. -Lacey<br />
<br />
On a different note, this essay also brings to mind WWII, because the women are suddenly in charge of all of these tasks which are usually those in the domain of men. Interestingly enough it doesn't seem to cause as much of a ruckus when the men come back from the war. -Lacey<br />
<br />
If anything, Puritans did not have a "normal" family structure. Families in the other colonies had much more in common than the Puritans did with any other colony. Everyone in small New England towns were related by blood or marriage in someway, causing family and community ties to connect. In many small towns, today, these connections still exist. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It really bothered me that Mintz and Kellogg spent so much time looking at New England families and did not seem to devote anytime to those in other colonies. The New England colonies covered just a small portion of all the colonies and I feel that more should be dedicated to the other groups. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley that the material from Mintz and Kellogg, especially in Chapter 2, was very generalized. The three ethnic groups that they identify do not seem very cohesive in their family structure. There are several variations in the groups based on location, environment, and economic standing, among other factors. For instance, the discussion of the Native Americans seemed to briefly gloss over the 7 designated geographical areas and then focused on a few seemingly random groups, such as the Iroquois, which were not representative of all Native American families. In fact, did anyone else feel that their example of the Iroquois did not support their argument? They contend that the Iroquois were "largely able to maintain their culture, values, and rituals," and yet to reach this point of supposed stability they had to give up their practice of matrilineal descent and men had to learn the occupation of farming, resulting in a re-working of the traditional power structure and prescribed gender roles. It seems that obtaining a "stable" nuclear family resulted in the dissolution of the Iroquoian kinship network upon which their society had been based. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Mintz and Kellogg also use the "typical" New England family as a means of comparison for all other groups in the colonial period. I found this to be rather strange as they were, as Mintz and Kellogg point out, very different from the families of the Chesapeake as well as the other family groups they discuss. There were a few common themes though that transcended all of the different ethnicities, one of which was the use of names. I found it very interesting that naming children was one of the few consistent ways of maintaining traditions between generations and was used as a way to maintain family continuity. Even in the very volatile world of the slave families, as Mintz and Kellogg point out, children of African slaves were named "for a parent or other blood kin." The naming of one's children appears to be something that people could control despite their families level of stability. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I think it may be the general consensus that, as Dr. McClurken pointed out in class last week, the Puritan family structure is not the typical colonial American family. But, as Mintz and Kellogg point out in Chapter 2, the Puritan families in New England "had already become a society with roots" (36) while the European Immigrants in the Chesapeake area were initially settling in as pioneers who left families behind in the old country. While we all know that there were many families with diverse social, cultural and racial backgrounds living and working in other regions in America, maybe Mintz and Kellogg are trying to emphasize the fact that it was families that settled New England, for the most part, while other regions were occupied mostly by adventurers. So I can kind of see where they are coming from (ok, so I'm just trying to cut the authors a break. Oh well, just looking at it from a couple sides)- Celia M<br />
<br />
However, I completely agree with what Sarah said above about the Iroquois adapting a European culture and being able to successfully maintain their own culture. I almost scoffed at that passage as I read it. How could the Native Americans cast aside their traditions and lifestyle so drastically and adopt those aspects of European culture and still maintain their traditions and values? But it also made me think briefly about how I think our own culture today may be in a similar situation. Are we not casting aside our old traditions and values at what seems like a daily rate? Our world is ever changing and we along with it. It will not be long before we are completely devoid of our values and traditions. I guess we, like the Iroquois, according to Mintz and Kellogg, will just have to adapt- but hopefully not too much. Celia M<br />
<br />
Like everyone else, I believe that Mintz and Kellog focus too much on the New England family. The average New England family was not representative of the average family in other colonies. For one, the scheme of population distribution was not the same in New England as it was in other colonies. Mintz and Kellog touch on a ‘community family.’ Differences in population distribution make a ‘community family’ almost impossible in places dominated by agriculture. – Andrew B<br />
<br />
Kerber's essay on women and households in the American Revolution was very interesting. I had never really considered how it would be assumed that women and families of the time would have the same allegiances as their husbands and fathers. To me this really emphasizes the subordinate role women were seen to have in families of the time. I also found it interesting that women could take advantage of their roles as nurses and housekeepers to spy on their enemy and use the war as a means of political mobilization. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I found several interesting points in Mintz& Kellogg's first chapter. I noted that they wrote the "household" (instead of "family") "not the individual was the fundamental unit of society." I suppose that's a fair assessment though as they pointed out that sons often did not move further than 16 miles away from their parents. Still is household more appropriate than family? They mentioned how the male head-of-the-house voted for all, which is interesting because it's a recent trend that politicians have targeted individual voters, not the unit of a "household" or marriage. In the last election, when I was phonebanking and canvassing for a campaign, we were given strict orders to take note of who we spoke to, and would make efforts to call back for a spouse even if we had spoken to another member of that family. In other words, campaigns now value each vote and make an effort to talk to the individual, not head of house. The first chapter also dealt with discipline and Puritan religion. It's interesting to see today how the many "Nanny 911" shows are publicized today, and how the inner-workings of the once serious issue of discipline is now public entertainment (how many people really watch that for advice?).<br />
I agree with Sarah and Celia's comments about Chapter 2. Mintz& Kellogg spend lots of time explaining the geographic differences in tribes (like out of the Virginia SOL 2nd grade handbook), then lump all tribes together in the discussion of family units. They also failed to mention the valuable source of captivity narratives, from early colonists who spent time with certain tribes. Often as captives but sometimes choosing to stay, the authors provide insight about the link between colonial families and family structures of Native Americans.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Ashley W, the obligation to kin has always been voluntary. There are numerous historically significant instances of broken family ties. The voluntary aspect of family has just been accentuated by modern society. Not only b/c of technological advances, but also because of the transition to an individualistic society. Simply stated, people just care more about themselves and less about others (even family) than they did 200 years ago. –Andrew B</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-01-20T03:00:21Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Chapter One of ''Domestic Revolutions'', Mintz and Kellogg mentioned the changes in family between the colonial time period and the late 1980s. They wrote that now spousal ties are emotional, which for the most part I do agree with (some people do still marry for property and money though), and that obligation to kin is now voluntary and selective. While yes I do agree that it is voluntary, I have to argue that it was always voluntary, it is just now with technologies improvements on food/clothes production and distribution, overall health care, etc.. there is less of an incentive than before when people relied on their family and kin more for their food, clothes, health (being taken care of by kin when sick), pregnancy and baby stuff, etc. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to say that I didn't really care for Chapter two, it made too many generalities for my liking, but I guess it got the point across that there were at least 3 important groups in America that had different views of family and had unstable/rocky beginnings but seemed to get more stable and changed with time. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
We talked about the fact that Mintz and Kellogg give the impression that New England was the model for all of the American colonies in class the other day, and that fact came back to me while I was reading chapter one. It seems that they intentionally ignore the other colonies because they don't represent that "early American family" that they are describing. Families in other colonies, especially those on the Chesapeake, would largely have resembled the English model of the family at the time. I think this is an gross oversight on their part that leaves a number of questions about non-New England, colonial families unanswered. I find that to be very annoying. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I liked the essay entitled "Politicizing the Household," it was nice to see that there were women who made political and patriotic statements of themselves beyond the old standbys. It was also interesting to see that while women were not thought much of their responsibilities gave them ways to be just as much of a hero to people as the men getting shot on the battlefield. They also humanize the history, showing the reader that one does not necessarily have to be spectacular, like Deborah Sampson, to make a difference. -Lacey<br />
<br />
On a different note, this essay also brings to mind WWII, because the women are suddenly in charge of all of these tasks which are usually those in the domain of men. Interestingly enough it doesn't seem to cause as much of a ruckus when the men come back from the war. -Lacey<br />
<br />
If anything, Puritans did not have a "normal" family structure. Families in the other colonies had much more in common than the Puritans did with any other colony. Everyone in small New England towns were related by blood or marriage in someway, causing family and community ties to connect. In many small towns, today, these connections still exist. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It really bothered me that Mintz and Kellogg spent so much time looking at New England families and did not seem to devote anytime to those in other colonies. The New England colonies covered just a small portion of all the colonies and I feel that more should be dedicated to the other groups. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley that the material from Mintz and Kellogg, especially in Chapter 2, was very generalized. The three ethnic groups that they identify do not seem very cohesive in their family structure. There are several variations in the groups based on location, environment, and economic standing, among other factors. For instance, the discussion of the Native Americans seemed to briefly gloss over the 7 designated geographical areas and then focused on a few seemingly random groups, such as the Iroquois, which were not representative of all Native American families. In fact, did anyone else feel that their example of the Iroquois did not support their argument? They contend that the Iroquois were "largely able to maintain their culture, values, and rituals," and yet to reach this point of supposed stability they had to give up their practice of matrilineal descent and men had to learn the occupation of farming, resulting in a re-working of the traditional power structure and prescribed gender roles. It seems that obtaining a "stable" nuclear family resulted in the dissolution of the Iroquoian kinship network upon which their society had been based. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Mintz and Kellogg also use the "typical" New England family as a means of comparison for all other groups in the colonial period. I found this to be rather strange as they were, as Mintz and Kellogg point out, very different from the families of the Chesapeake as well as the other family groups they discuss. There were a few common themes though that transcended all of the different ethnicities, one of which was the use of names. I found it very interesting that naming children was one of the few consistent ways of maintaining traditions between generations and was used as a way to maintain family continuity. Even in the very volatile world of the slave families, as Mintz and Kellogg point out, children of African slaves were named "for a parent or other blood kin." The naming of one's children appears to be something that people could control despite their families level of stability. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I think it may be the general consensus that, as Dr. McClurken pointed out in class last week, the Puritan family structure is not the typical colonial American family. But, as Mintz and Kellogg point out in Chapter 2, the Puritan families in New England "had already become a society with roots" (36) while the European Immigrants in the Chesapeake area were initially settling in as pioneers who left families behind in the old country. While we all know that there were many families with diverse social, cultural and racial backgrounds living and working in other regions in America, maybe Mintz and Kellogg are trying to emphasize the fact that it was families that settled New England, for the most part, while other regions were occupied mostly by adventurers. So I can kind of see where they are coming from (ok, so I'm just trying to cut the authors a break. Oh well, just looking at it from a couple sides)- Celia M<br />
<br />
However, I completely agree with what Sarah said above about the Iroquois adapting a European culture and being able to successfully maintain their own culture. I almost scoffed at that passage as I read it. How could the Native Americans cast aside their traditions and lifestyle so drastically and adopt those aspects of European culture and still maintain their traditions and values? But it also made me think briefly about how I think our own culture today may be in a similar situation. Are we not casting aside our old traditions and values at what seems like a daily rate? Our world is ever changing and we along with it. It will not be long before we are completely devoid of our values and traditions. I guess we, like the Iroquois, according to Mintz and Kellogg, will just have to adapt- but hopefully not too much. Celia M<br />
<br />
Like everyone else, I believe that Mintz and Kellog focus too much on the New England family. The average New England family was not representative of the average family in other colonies. For one, the scheme of population distribution was not the same in New England as it was in other colonies. Mintz and Kellog touch on a ‘community family.’ Differences in population distribution make a ‘community family’ almost impossible in places dominated by agriculture. – Andrew B</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_1_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 1 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-15T05:26:44Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>Maybe it is just how I read the introduction, or the mood I was in when I read it, but it seemed like Mintz and Kellogg were almost cynical or upset at the changes in family from the husband and wife with some kids with the wife subservient to the husband type of stuff. I know some people are definitely like that, even if that wasn't how Mintz and Kellogg meant to come across, one of my grandma's is absolute in her belief that females are to stay home, constantly have babies, not go to school, cook, clean, and be practically a slave to her husband. Needless to say, she doesn't like the fact that I continue my education and have no babies, and she makes it known to everyone that she believes today's world is hell on earth and that if women don't go back to their place the world will end. Yes, she blames it mostly on women not being in the home. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
More of a discussion topic than a comment: The introduction lists Mintz and Kellogg's 3 main reasons for changes in the family: changes in the economy, demography, and changes in the roles of women. Does anyone think there is any other reasons for changes in family from the husband, wife, and kids outlook of family set up in the introduction of ''Domestic Revolutions''? About 21 years after the book was published, I think technology has changed family. For some families, I think there is more isolation, but with others I feel (so far) that since members of a family can/do move far away (be it because of military, job, or whatever) that technology has also created a type of 'glue' that can help families stay together, or connected, in the world we live in now. Even though the definition of family has changed, I think some families are staying in better contact not with just their immediate family (parents, siblings) but with extended family (relatives, and friends). --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree on the second point. While those three would constitute a large part of the changes in family life, I think that there are other factors. Technology is one of them. I think that the decline of religion, particularly the Christian denominations, and the separation of church and state are factors in the change of family structure and responsibility. Had the founding fathers not created that division between law and religion, families may have retained a lot more of that cohesive autonomy that marked the previous centuries. -Lacey<br />
<br />
From a personal standpoint, I have to agree with Kellogg and Mintz. My sense of family has never been that "proper" barefoot and pregnant archetype. My mother had been in the military for sixteen years before I was born, she retired when I was four and went back to work less than six months later. Even today she is still the bread-winner in my family, as my dad retired from civil service in 1999. Because of this I think that Kellogg and Mintz are all too right in their idea that the nuclear family is irrevocably altered from the ideal. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I definately agree that the idea of family has completely changed since the seventeenth century. Most of this change is for good, and I think that it is caused by new beliefs in gender roles. Technology has played a large part in this change as well. It has definately allowed families to stay more connected under difficult situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The change in the family structure is not all good. Because of the changes in roles and technology it has allowed the family to lose its previous close bond. Many families are not able to have dinner together due to different activities and in a world where text messaging and email are so popular at times that is the only contact family members have. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
We are so used to the modern social and familial norms that we often times forget that the family was a community in itself once upon a time. The institute of the family used to provide child and elderly care, education, and spiritual and economic growth and stability. After reading this introduction, I thought about how the family has changed so drastically, we almost (generally) never provide any of the above. And even though technology has brought us closer to a degree, at the same time we can say that it has also widened the gap. And not only was the family a community in itself, but it was molded, regulated and practically held together by the all seeing "eye" of the wider community in which the family belonged. It seems that families in our culture today rarely concern themselves with what the community at large think. - Celia<br />
<br />
After rambling on in the paragraph above, I realized that I was generalizing, as were Mintz and Kellogg in their intro. Though the authors bring up some good points on the pros and cons of the modern family, they only describe many but not all families. MAybe back in the 80's family life was crumbling as the baby-boomers started families of their own, but I know that many contemporary families, including my own, are very firmly rooted in traditional values. The authors also speak of a decrease in personal responsibilty and a rising wave of selfishness in our society, which I believe is true for the most part, but some families, and I am happy to say my own family as well, are given a bad and false rap in the generalizations of the authors.- Celia<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of Celia's point about families today still being grounded in tradition, it makes me wonder, are families sort of going full circle in how they act? Now, I'm not saying that we're going to revert back to churning butter in the family room, but the fundamental values within a family - are they really that easy to categorize by decade? Like, are they always evolving? Or have some of the basic family values stayed the same? -Kelly <br />
<br />
The opening quote of the book by Bronislaw Malinowski I think best introduces some of the ideas touched upon by Mintz and Kellogg. It reads, “Marriage and the family are undergoing a change, nay, passing through a crisis. To close your eyes to it, to say that all is for the best in the best of matrimonial worlds, would be as shallow and as unscientific as to prophesy the downfall of the family. Some changes are necessary, but these will not affect the essential constitution of the family.” I think Mintz and Kellogg would agree that the families of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s as well as present-day families and families as far back as the 17th century have suffered a crisis. The family described as the “accepted family” which they establish as their norm is certainly not the “accepted family” of the 21st century. As described by Kellogg and Mintz the family is not a static structure, but a “fragile institution.” Yet, the idea of family still exists and while continuously changing has been and will arguably always be a component of society, particularly American society. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
It appears that one of Mintz and Kellogg’s goals in this work is to find consistent patterns in families over time. Before reading their book and ascertaining what patterns they note, what can we come up with as consistencies about families, and consistent changes in family structures over time? What I mean is that Mintz and Kellogg certainly make it clear that the idea and concept of family had developed and changed, my discussion question is designed for us to hypothesize why and how. Past that, are their things that are the same about families? How do our families resemble those in the 19th century? -Stephen<br />
<br />
What exactly is a family? I am looking for a good working definition. Does that definition change across cultures/history? What remains the same? - Stephen<br />
<br />
Mintz & Kellogg note that families rely on mutual interest. Is this always the case? Are there not examples of family ties and relations not based on interest, for example the Civil War? -Stephen<br />
<br />
To me it's weird to realize how much the family has changed since the 17th century ideal. Even today people consider the home to be some sort of a refuge or escape, just like "it always has been" when in actuality things have changed a great deal about how families interact amongst themselves and function in society. -Kelly<br />
<br />
While I agree with Mintz and Kellogg that the economy, demography, and women's roles have all impacted the nature of American families, as well as Ashley's point concerning technology, I also believe that women's increased access to education has had a large impact on the nature of families. While Mintz and Kellogg frequently refer to an increase in the number of career women, they do not mention the advancements in education over the past 300 years. I believe that as women were permitted to seek higher education they become more self-sufficient and less reliant on their male counterparts. As a senior in college, I can appreciate the advancements that have been made in women's education and do not view it as having had a negative impact on the family. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
When I read the list of "norms" in the introduction, I immediately thought of 1950's TV sitcoms. Although these ideals may not have been the norm, they were portrayed in the media as such. Those same ideals portrayed in the 50's were the same ones practiced in the 17th century. It is amazing how those ideals which lasted so long, could change so dramatically in such little time. - Kari <br />
<br />
I agree with Mintz and Kellogg that the need and want for independence was one of the leading causes for the change in the family unit. People wanted to advance themselves personally in society and because of that, public institutions were created. These institutions took away power from the family unit and I feel is one of the main reasons for it's decline from the typical "norms". - Kari<br />
<br />
Mintz and Kellogg also discuss how many functions of the family have been taken over by government and other public entities, such as insurance and childcare. While it is true that the family has become less of a self-sustaining unit, these changes have led to a a society that is much more interdependent and connected. I disagree that these changes have left the family responsible only for "the socialization of children and the provision of emotional support and affection." I believe and have seen in many families that parents still seek to educate their children and care for their parents inside the home. Many families view these public entities as a means of additional support and not as a replacement for family functions. I also find it hard to believe that every family was historically self-sufficient. From the time of the Puritans, families had to rely on their neighbors for religious worship, protection, and medical care and advice among other things. Perhaps such institutions as "banks, public charities...and schools" are merely a more visible manifestation of the interdependence of families on one another and the greater community. -- Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I'm glad that we've identified technology (Ashley) and women's access to education (Sarah) as other reasons families have changed. In the Pop Culture class I took two years ago we studied families through television. I couldn't help but think of this when I was reading the intro. Ozzie& Harriet was the first example, symbolizing the family that Mintz and Kellogg seem to revere. The next was the Cosby Show from the 80s. Here is one of the first examples of a working mother and non-traditional family. The final show we covered was Gilmore Girls, with the divorced, now-single, young mother raising her daughter and sharing with her all the details of her personal life. This transition in a roughly 50 year period epitomizes what could be viewed as the "deterioration" of the family. What I wonder is how much has the media contributed to the divorce rate? How much is society affected by what they watch on tv and what is the correlation of real families to the stamp of approval given by the media to the divorced and non-nuclear families we see in every tv show today? I believe the trends Mintz and Kellogg identified are correct, but their reasons are lacking. -Amanda<br />
<br />
I disagree with Mintz and Kellogg that today the United States "is a society without a clear unitary set of family ideals and values." While I agree that many aspects of family life have changed over the decades, some of the most inherent aspects of family have remained. Most especially, the idea of love and loyalty to ones family members. To be a family, is to have a group of people to rely on and care about, especially in rough times. Thus while the nature of families has changed to include single parents and step-parents, all families value love and loyalty. -- Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also agree with the first comment made that Mintz and Kellogg seem to have a pessimistic view of a modern family structure. I don't agree with them and think change is not necessarily a bad thing, and in this context families have conformed to the ever-changing society, government, religion, etc. Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that today's society is "permissive" in accepting responsibility for societal problems, but I disagree. Yes, the programs like No Child Left Behind, Welfare, and Planned Parenthood aren't perfect but they are answers and attempts at fixing those problems. Also, I believe the authors missed the mark on a simple explanation of why society can't agree on successful social programs and that is because each has different stakeholders. The single father raising two children will have a different opinion and stake in what a "family" is compared to the "typical" nuclear family. -Joyce Metzler<br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah. I think the statement that America "is a society without a clear unitary set of family ideals and values" was used by Mintz and Kellogg as a way to lend more relevancy to their work. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
<p>On page xiii Mintz and Kellogg say that the expectation that "sex should be confined to marriage" used to be one of the givens for proper family life.</p><br />
<br />
<p>I wonder if they are claiming that the expectation has changed over the course of American history. Do people today really look differently on matters of extra-marital sex than people did hundreds of years ago? </p><br />
<br />
<p>I would guess that attitudes about pre-marital sex have not changed very much. (ie: everyone knows it happens a lot, parents are not happy about it, and the behavior is officially frowned upon). </p><br />
<br />
<p>I think attitudes about adultery have not changed very much either. (ie: everyone knows it happens a lot, people don't like being cheated on, and there is some legal recourse to punish an unfaithful spouse.)</p><br />
<br />
<p>The only real change that I can think of now is that there might be more laws in place concerning parental rights and responsibilities for children who were born outside of marriage. </p> -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Another thing that jumped out at me was this line from page xx:<br />
<br />
"Shorn of traditional educational and productive functions, the stability of today's families rests on the tenuous basis of affection, compatibility, and mutual interest."<br />
<br />
This made me laugh because I totally take for granted that affection, compatibility, and mutual interest form a GREAT basis for a family unit. Certainly more so than being completely trapped in a marriage because you have a bunch of young children and no way to care for them without your spouse's help. I think that on this last page Mintz and Kellogg are assuming that stable=happy and unstable=unhappy. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I’m just adding to the comments left by Ashley and Joyce. The authors do seem to highlight the negatives of transition. They touch on a ‘give and take’ relationship between progression and deterioration. On page xx the authors cite a decline in premature death, but a rise in divorce rates. Is every positive balanced by a negative? --Andrew<br />
<br />
I respectfully disagree with Rebecca. I think that views on sex have changed. Of course parents frown upon premarital sex, but the media embraces it. It is part of our culture. Sex is everywhere. On T.V., in movies, books, and even on the radio (listen to any popular rap song). Sex is also in schools. Children are exposed to it in ‘sex ed.’ More people are o.k. with the notion of underage sex today than they were 300 years ago, or even 50 years ago. --Andrew</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_1_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 1 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-15T05:16:45Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>Maybe it is just how I read the introduction, or the mood I was in when I read it, but it seemed like Mintz and Kellogg were almost cynical or upset at the changes in family from the husband and wife with some kids with the wife subservient to the husband type of stuff. I know some people are definitely like that, even if that wasn't how Mintz and Kellogg meant to come across, one of my grandma's is absolute in her belief that females are to stay home, constantly have babies, not go to school, cook, clean, and be practically a slave to her husband. Needless to say, she doesn't like the fact that I continue my education and have no babies, and she makes it known to everyone that she believes today's world is hell on earth and that if women don't go back to their place the world will end. Yes, she blames it mostly on women not being in the home. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
More of a discussion topic than a comment: The introduction lists Mintz and Kellogg's 3 main reasons for changes in the family: changes in the economy, demography, and changes in the roles of women. Does anyone think there is any other reasons for changes in family from the husband, wife, and kids outlook of family set up in the introduction of ''Domestic Revolutions''? About 21 years after the book was published, I think technology has changed family. For some families, I think there is more isolation, but with others I feel (so far) that since members of a family can/do move far away (be it because of military, job, or whatever) that technology has also created a type of 'glue' that can help families stay together, or connected, in the world we live in now. Even though the definition of family has changed, I think some families are staying in better contact not with just their immediate family (parents, siblings) but with extended family (relatives, and friends). --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree on the second point. While those three would constitute a large part of the changes in family life, I think that there are other factors. Technology is one of them. I think that the decline of religion, particularly the Christian denominations, and the separation of church and state are factors in the change of family structure and responsibility. Had the founding fathers not created that division between law and religion, families may have retained a lot more of that cohesive autonomy that marked the previous centuries. -Lacey<br />
<br />
From a personal standpoint, I have to agree with Kellogg and Mintz. My sense of family has never been that "proper" barefoot and pregnant archetype. My mother had been in the military for sixteen years before I was born, she retired when I was four and went back to work less than six months later. Even today she is still the bread-winner in my family, as my dad retired from civil service in 1999. Because of this I think that Kellogg and Mintz are all too right in their idea that the nuclear family is irrevocably altered from the ideal. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I definately agree that the idea of family has completely changed since the seventeenth century. Most of this change is for good, and I think that it is caused by new beliefs in gender roles. Technology has played a large part in this change as well. It has definately allowed families to stay more connected under difficult situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The change in the family structure is not all good. Because of the changes in roles and technology it has allowed the family to lose its previous close bond. Many families are not able to have dinner together due to different activities and in a world where text messaging and email are so popular at times that is the only contact family members have. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
We are so used to the modern social and familial norms that we often times forget that the family was a community in itself once upon a time. The institute of the family used to provide child and elderly care, education, and spiritual and economic growth and stability. After reading this introduction, I thought about how the family has changed so drastically, we almost (generally) never provide any of the above. And even though technology has brought us closer to a degree, at the same time we can say that it has also widened the gap. And not only was the family a community in itself, but it was molded, regulated and practically held together by the all seeing "eye" of the wider community in which the family belonged. It seems that families in our culture today rarely concern themselves with what the community at large think. - Celia<br />
<br />
After rambling on in the paragraph above, I realized that I was generalizing, as were Mintz and Kellogg in their intro. Though the authors bring up some good points on the pros and cons of the modern family, they only describe many but not all families. MAybe back in the 80's family life was crumbling as the baby-boomers started families of their own, but I know that many contemporary families, including my own, are very firmly rooted in traditional values. The authors also speak of a decrease in personal responsibilty and a rising wave of selfishness in our society, which I believe is true for the most part, but some families, and I am happy to say my own family as well, are given a bad and false rap in the generalizations of the authors.- Celia<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of Celia's point about families today still being grounded in tradition, it makes me wonder, are families sort of going full circle in how they act? Now, I'm not saying that we're going to revert back to churning butter in the family room, but the fundamental values within a family - are they really that easy to categorize by decade? Like, are they always evolving? Or have some of the basic family values stayed the same? -Kelly <br />
<br />
The opening quote of the book by Bronislaw Malinowski I think best introduces some of the ideas touched upon by Mintz and Kellogg. It reads, “Marriage and the family are undergoing a change, nay, passing through a crisis. To close your eyes to it, to say that all is for the best in the best of matrimonial worlds, would be as shallow and as unscientific as to prophesy the downfall of the family. Some changes are necessary, but these will not affect the essential constitution of the family.” I think Mintz and Kellogg would agree that the families of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s as well as present-day families and families as far back as the 17th century have suffered a crisis. The family described as the “accepted family” which they establish as their norm is certainly not the “accepted family” of the 21st century. As described by Kellogg and Mintz the family is not a static structure, but a “fragile institution.” Yet, the idea of family still exists and while continuously changing has been and will arguably always be a component of society, particularly American society. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
It appears that one of Mintz and Kellogg’s goals in this work is to find consistent patterns in families over time. Before reading their book and ascertaining what patterns they note, what can we come up with as consistencies about families, and consistent changes in family structures over time? What I mean is that Mintz and Kellogg certainly make it clear that the idea and concept of family had developed and changed, my discussion question is designed for us to hypothesize why and how. Past that, are their things that are the same about families? How do our families resemble those in the 19th century? -Stephen<br />
<br />
What exactly is a family? I am looking for a good working definition. Does that definition change across cultures/history? What remains the same? - Stephen<br />
<br />
Mintz & Kellogg note that families rely on mutual interest. Is this always the case? Are there not examples of family ties and relations not based on interest, for example the Civil War? -Stephen<br />
<br />
To me it's weird to realize how much the family has changed since the 17th century ideal. Even today people consider the home to be some sort of a refuge or escape, just like "it always has been" when in actuality things have changed a great deal about how families interact amongst themselves and function in society. -Kelly<br />
<br />
While I agree with Mintz and Kellogg that the economy, demography, and women's roles have all impacted the nature of American families, as well as Ashley's point concerning technology, I also believe that women's increased access to education has had a large impact on the nature of families. While Mintz and Kellogg frequently refer to an increase in the number of career women, they do not mention the advancements in education over the past 300 years. I believe that as women were permitted to seek higher education they become more self-sufficient and less reliant on their male counterparts. As a senior in college, I can appreciate the advancements that have been made in women's education and do not view it as having had a negative impact on the family. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
When I read the list of "norms" in the introduction, I immediately thought of 1950's TV sitcoms. Although these ideals may not have been the norm, they were portrayed in the media as such. Those same ideals portrayed in the 50's were the same ones practiced in the 17th century. It is amazing how those ideals which lasted so long, could change so dramatically in such little time. - Kari <br />
<br />
I agree with Mintz and Kellogg that the need and want for independence was one of the leading causes for the change in the family unit. People wanted to advance themselves personally in society and because of that, public institutions were created. These institutions took away power from the family unit and I feel is one of the main reasons for it's decline from the typical "norms". - Kari<br />
<br />
Mintz and Kellogg also discuss how many functions of the family have been taken over by government and other public entities, such as insurance and childcare. While it is true that the family has become less of a self-sustaining unit, these changes have led to a a society that is much more interdependent and connected. I disagree that these changes have left the family responsible only for "the socialization of children and the provision of emotional support and affection." I believe and have seen in many families that parents still seek to educate their children and care for their parents inside the home. Many families view these public entities as a means of additional support and not as a replacement for family functions. I also find it hard to believe that every family was historically self-sufficient. From the time of the Puritans, families had to rely on their neighbors for religious worship, protection, and medical care and advice among other things. Perhaps such institutions as "banks, public charities...and schools" are merely a more visible manifestation of the interdependence of families on one another and the greater community. -- Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I'm glad that we've identified technology (Ashley) and women's access to education (Sarah) as other reasons families have changed. In the Pop Culture class I took two years ago we studied families through television. I couldn't help but think of this when I was reading the intro. Ozzie& Harriet was the first example, symbolizing the family that Mintz and Kellogg seem to revere. The next was the Cosby Show from the 80s. Here is one of the first examples of a working mother and non-traditional family. The final show we covered was Gilmore Girls, with the divorced, now-single, young mother raising her daughter and sharing with her all the details of her personal life. This transition in a roughly 50 year period epitomizes what could be viewed as the "deterioration" of the family. What I wonder is how much has the media contributed to the divorce rate? How much is society affected by what they watch on tv and what is the correlation of real families to the stamp of approval given by the media to the divorced and non-nuclear families we see in every tv show today? I believe the trends Mintz and Kellogg identified are correct, but their reasons are lacking. -Amanda<br />
<br />
I disagree with Mintz and Kellogg that today the United States "is a society without a clear unitary set of family ideals and values." While I agree that many aspects of family life have changed over the decades, some of the most inherent aspects of family have remained. Most especially, the idea of love and loyalty to ones family members. To be a family, is to have a group of people to rely on and care about, especially in rough times. Thus while the nature of families has changed to include single parents and step-parents, all families value love and loyalty. -- Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also agree with the first comment made that Mintz and Kellogg seem to have a pessimistic view of a modern family structure. I don't agree with them and think change is not necessarily a bad thing, and in this context families have conformed to the ever-changing society, government, religion, etc. Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that today's society is "permissive" in accepting responsibility for societal problems, but I disagree. Yes, the programs like No Child Left Behind, Welfare, and Planned Parenthood aren't perfect but they are answers and attempts at fixing those problems. Also, I believe the authors missed the mark on a simple explanation of why society can't agree on successful social programs and that is because each has different stakeholders. The single father raising two children will have a different opinion and stake in what a "family" is compared to the "typical" nuclear family. -Joyce Metzler<br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah. I think the statement that America "is a society without a clear unitary set of family ideals and values" was used by Mintz and Kellogg as a way to lend more relevancy to their work. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
<p>On page xiii Mintz and Kellogg say that the expectation that "sex should be confined to marriage" used to be one of the givens for proper family life.</p><br />
<br />
<p>I wonder if they are claiming that the expectation has changed over the course of American history. Do people today really look differently on matters of extra-marital sex than people did hundreds of years ago? </p><br />
<br />
<p>I would guess that attitudes about pre-marital sex have not changed very much. (ie: everyone knows it happens a lot, parents are not happy about it, and the behavior is officially frowned upon). </p><br />
<br />
<p>I think attitudes about adultery have not changed very much either. (ie: everyone knows it happens a lot, people don't like being cheated on, and there is some legal recourse to punish an unfaithful spouse.)</p><br />
<br />
<p>The only real change that I can think of now is that there might be more laws in place concerning parental rights and responsibilities for children who were born outside of marriage. </p> -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Another thing that jumped out at me was this line from page xx:<br />
<br />
"Shorn of traditional educational and productive functions, the stability of today's families rests on the tenuous basis of affection, compatibility, and mutual interest."<br />
<br />
This made me laugh because I totally take for granted that affection, compatibility, and mutual interest form a GREAT basis for a family unit. Certainly more so than being completely trapped in a marriage because you have a bunch of young children and no way to care for them without your spouse's help. I think that on this last page Mintz and Kellogg are assuming that stable=happy and unstable=unhappy. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I’m just adding to the comments left by Ashley and Joyce. The authors do seem to highlight the negatives of transition. They touch on a ‘give and take’ relationship between progression and deterioration. On page xx the authors cite a decline in premature death, but a rise in divorce rates. Is every positive balanced by a negative? --Andrew<br />
<br />
I respectfully disagree with Rebecca. I think that views on sex have changed. Of course parents frown upon premarital sex, but the media embraces it. It is part of our culture. Sex is everywhere. On T.V., in movies, books, and even on the radio (listen to any popular rap song). Sex is also in schools. Children are exposed to it in ‘sex ed.’ More people are o.k. with the notion of underage sex today than they were 300 years ago, or even 50 years ago.</div>Abore5mqhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_1_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 1 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-15T05:00:04Z<p>Abore5mq: </p>
<hr />
<div>Maybe it is just how I read the introduction, or the mood I was in when I read it, but it seemed like Mintz and Kellogg were almost cynical or upset at the changes in family from the husband and wife with some kids with the wife subservient to the husband type of stuff. I know some people are definitely like that, even if that wasn't how Mintz and Kellogg meant to come across, one of my grandma's is absolute in her belief that females are to stay home, constantly have babies, not go to school, cook, clean, and be practically a slave to her husband. Needless to say, she doesn't like the fact that I continue my education and have no babies, and she makes it known to everyone that she believes today's world is hell on earth and that if women don't go back to their place the world will end. Yes, she blames it mostly on women not being in the home. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
More of a discussion topic than a comment: The introduction lists Mintz and Kellogg's 3 main reasons for changes in the family: changes in the economy, demography, and changes in the roles of women. Does anyone think there is any other reasons for changes in family from the husband, wife, and kids outlook of family set up in the introduction of ''Domestic Revolutions''? About 21 years after the book was published, I think technology has changed family. For some families, I think there is more isolation, but with others I feel (so far) that since members of a family can/do move far away (be it because of military, job, or whatever) that technology has also created a type of 'glue' that can help families stay together, or connected, in the world we live in now. Even though the definition of family has changed, I think some families are staying in better contact not with just their immediate family (parents, siblings) but with extended family (relatives, and friends). --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree on the second point. While those three would constitute a large part of the changes in family life, I think that there are other factors. Technology is one of them. I think that the decline of religion, particularly the Christian denominations, and the separation of church and state are factors in the change of family structure and responsibility. Had the founding fathers not created that division between law and religion, families may have retained a lot more of that cohesive autonomy that marked the previous centuries. -Lacey<br />
<br />
From a personal standpoint, I have to agree with Kellogg and Mintz. My sense of family has never been that "proper" barefoot and pregnant archetype. My mother had been in the military for sixteen years before I was born, she retired when I was four and went back to work less than six months later. Even today she is still the bread-winner in my family, as my dad retired from civil service in 1999. Because of this I think that Kellogg and Mintz are all too right in their idea that the nuclear family is irrevocably altered from the ideal. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I definately agree that the idea of family has completely changed since the seventeenth century. Most of this change is for good, and I think that it is caused by new beliefs in gender roles. Technology has played a large part in this change as well. It has definately allowed families to stay more connected under difficult situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The change in the family structure is not all good. Because of the changes in roles and technology it has allowed the family to lose its previous close bond. Many families are not able to have dinner together due to different activities and in a world where text messaging and email are so popular at times that is the only contact family members have. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
We are so used to the modern social and familial norms that we often times forget that the family was a community in itself once upon a time. The institute of the family used to provide child and elderly care, education, and spiritual and economic growth and stability. After reading this introduction, I thought about how the family has changed so drastically, we almost (generally) never provide any of the above. And even though technology has brought us closer to a degree, at the same time we can say that it has also widened the gap. And not only was the family a community in itself, but it was molded, regulated and practically held together by the all seeing "eye" of the wider community in which the family belonged. It seems that families in our culture today rarely concern themselves with what the community at large think. - Celia<br />
<br />
After rambling on in the paragraph above, I realized that I was generalizing, as were Mintz and Kellogg in their intro. Though the authors bring up some good points on the pros and cons of the modern family, they only describe many but not all families. MAybe back in the 80's family life was crumbling as the baby-boomers started families of their own, but I know that many contemporary families, including my own, are very firmly rooted in traditional values. The authors also speak of a decrease in personal responsibilty and a rising wave of selfishness in our society, which I believe is true for the most part, but some families, and I am happy to say my own family as well, are given a bad and false rap in the generalizations of the authors.- Celia<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of Celia's point about families today still being grounded in tradition, it makes me wonder, are families sort of going full circle in how they act? Now, I'm not saying that we're going to revert back to churning butter in the family room, but the fundamental values within a family - are they really that easy to categorize by decade? Like, are they always evolving? Or have some of the basic family values stayed the same? -Kelly <br />
<br />
The opening quote of the book by Bronislaw Malinowski I think best introduces some of the ideas touched upon by Mintz and Kellogg. It reads, “Marriage and the family are undergoing a change, nay, passing through a crisis. To close your eyes to it, to say that all is for the best in the best of matrimonial worlds, would be as shallow and as unscientific as to prophesy the downfall of the family. Some changes are necessary, but these will not affect the essential constitution of the family.” I think Mintz and Kellogg would agree that the families of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s as well as present-day families and families as far back as the 17th century have suffered a crisis. The family described as the “accepted family” which they establish as their norm is certainly not the “accepted family” of the 21st century. As described by Kellogg and Mintz the family is not a static structure, but a “fragile institution.” Yet, the idea of family still exists and while continuously changing has been and will arguably always be a component of society, particularly American society. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
It appears that one of Mintz and Kellogg’s goals in this work is to find consistent patterns in families over time. Before reading their book and ascertaining what patterns they note, what can we come up with as consistencies about families, and consistent changes in family structures over time? What I mean is that Mintz and Kellogg certainly make it clear that the idea and concept of family had developed and changed, my discussion question is designed for us to hypothesize why and how. Past that, are their things that are the same about families? How do our families resemble those in the 19th century? -Stephen<br />
<br />
What exactly is a family? I am looking for a good working definition. Does that definition change across cultures/history? What remains the same? - Stephen<br />
<br />
Mintz & Kellogg note that families rely on mutual interest. Is this always the case? Are there not examples of family ties and relations not based on interest, for example the Civil War? -Stephen<br />
<br />
To me it's weird to realize how much the family has changed since the 17th century ideal. Even today people consider the home to be some sort of a refuge or escape, just like "it always has been" when in actuality things have changed a great deal about how families interact amongst themselves and function in society. -Kelly<br />
<br />
While I agree with Mintz and Kellogg that the economy, demography, and women's roles have all impacted the nature of American families, as well as Ashley's point concerning technology, I also believe that women's increased access to education has had a large impact on the nature of families. While Mintz and Kellogg frequently refer to an increase in the number of career women, they do not mention the advancements in education over the past 300 years. I believe that as women were permitted to seek higher education they become more self-sufficient and less reliant on their male counterparts. As a senior in college, I can appreciate the advancements that have been made in women's education and do not view it as having had a negative impact on the family. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
When I read the list of "norms" in the introduction, I immediately thought of 1950's TV sitcoms. Although these ideals may not have been the norm, they were portrayed in the media as such. Those same ideals portrayed in the 50's were the same ones practiced in the 17th century. It is amazing how those ideals which lasted so long, could change so dramatically in such little time. - Kari <br />
<br />
I agree with Mintz and Kellogg that the need and want for independence was one of the leading causes for the change in the family unit. People wanted to advance themselves personally in society and because of that, public institutions were created. These institutions took away power from the family unit and I feel is one of the main reasons for it's decline from the typical "norms". - Kari<br />
<br />
Mintz and Kellogg also discuss how many functions of the family have been taken over by government and other public entities, such as insurance and childcare. While it is true that the family has become less of a self-sustaining unit, these changes have led to a a society that is much more interdependent and connected. I disagree that these changes have left the family responsible only for "the socialization of children and the provision of emotional support and affection." I believe and have seen in many families that parents still seek to educate their children and care for their parents inside the home. Many families view these public entities as a means of additional support and not as a replacement for family functions. I also find it hard to believe that every family was historically self-sufficient. From the time of the Puritans, families had to rely on their neighbors for religious worship, protection, and medical care and advice among other things. Perhaps such institutions as "banks, public charities...and schools" are merely a more visible manifestation of the interdependence of families on one another and the greater community. -- Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I'm glad that we've identified technology (Ashley) and women's access to education (Sarah) as other reasons families have changed. In the Pop Culture class I took two years ago we studied families through television. I couldn't help but think of this when I was reading the intro. Ozzie& Harriet was the first example, symbolizing the family that Mintz and Kellogg seem to revere. The next was the Cosby Show from the 80s. Here is one of the first examples of a working mother and non-traditional family. The final show we covered was Gilmore Girls, with the divorced, now-single, young mother raising her daughter and sharing with her all the details of her personal life. This transition in a roughly 50 year period epitomizes what could be viewed as the "deterioration" of the family. What I wonder is how much has the media contributed to the divorce rate? How much is society affected by what they watch on tv and what is the correlation of real families to the stamp of approval given by the media to the divorced and non-nuclear families we see in every tv show today? I believe the trends Mintz and Kellogg identified are correct, but their reasons are lacking. -Amanda<br />
<br />
I disagree with Mintz and Kellogg that today the United States "is a society without a clear unitary set of family ideals and values." While I agree that many aspects of family life have changed over the decades, some of the most inherent aspects of family have remained. Most especially, the idea of love and loyalty to ones family members. To be a family, is to have a group of people to rely on and care about, especially in rough times. Thus while the nature of families has changed to include single parents and step-parents, all families value love and loyalty. -- Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also agree with the first comment made that Mintz and Kellogg seem to have a pessimistic view of a modern family structure. I don't agree with them and think change is not necessarily a bad thing, and in this context families have conformed to the ever-changing society, government, religion, etc. Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that today's society is "permissive" in accepting responsibility for societal problems, but I disagree. Yes, the programs like No Child Left Behind, Welfare, and Planned Parenthood aren't perfect but they are answers and attempts at fixing those problems. Also, I believe the authors missed the mark on a simple explanation of why society can't agree on successful social programs and that is because each has different stakeholders. The single father raising two children will have a different opinion and stake in what a "family" is compared to the "typical" nuclear family. -Joyce Metzler<br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah. I think the statement that America "is a society without a clear unitary set of family ideals and values" was used by Mintz and Kellogg as a way to lend more relevancy to their work. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
<p>On page xiii Mintz and Kellogg say that the expectation that "sex should be confined to marriage" used to be one of the givens for proper family life.</p><br />
<br />
<p>I wonder if they are claiming that the expectation has changed over the course of American history. Do people today really look differently on matters of extra-marital sex than people did hundreds of years ago? </p><br />
<br />
<p>I would guess that attitudes about pre-marital sex have not changed very much. (ie: everyone knows it happens a lot, parents are not happy about it, and the behavior is officially frowned upon). </p><br />
<br />
<p>I think attitudes about adultery have not changed very much either. (ie: everyone knows it happens a lot, people don't like being cheated on, and there is some legal recourse to punish an unfaithful spouse.)</p><br />
<br />
<p>The only real change that I can think of now is that there might be more laws in place concerning parental rights and responsibilities for children who were born outside of marriage. </p> -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Another thing that jumped out at me was this line from page xx:<br />
<br />
"Shorn of traditional educational and productive functions, the stability of today's families rests on the tenuous basis of affection, compatibility, and mutual interest."<br />
<br />
This made me laugh because I totally take for granted that affection, compatibility, and mutual interest form a GREAT basis for a family unit. Certainly more so than being completely trapped in a marriage because you have a bunch of young children and no way to care for them without your spouse's help. I think that on this last page Mintz and Kellogg are assuming that stable=happy and unstable=unhappy. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I’m just adding to the comments left by Ashley and Joyce. The authors do seem to highlight the negatives of transition. They touch on a ‘give and take’ relationship between progression and deterioration. On page xx the authors cite a decline in premature death, but a rise in divorce rates. Is every positive balanced by a negative? --Andrew</div>Abore5mq 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