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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=AngelaMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T19:11:09ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_10_Questions/Comments328--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-27T11:36:20Z<p>Angela: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
I noticed in the movie in class and in the pictures, that the women were wearing pants. I think it is mentioned in a caption on page 179 in MAW, and several other times throughout the reading. This is quite a change from the ridiculous bicyling outfits we studied earlier. Was this a case of desperate times call for desperate measures or was it more acceptable during this time period for women to dress comfortably and efficiently at work/home while doing work? ---Landon Davis<br />
<br />
One thing i noticed throughout the MAW reading was a lack of overt patriotism. The oral history "Rosie the Riveter" by Hill focuses solely on the monetary aspects she gains by working. In "Women in the Armed Forces" the letters written by Stagemen only talk of how exciting it is, and allows her to stroke her ego as she talks about getting out of the plane and surprising all the men. I am not saying what they were doing was not patriotic because it was. But it does not sound like patriotism was the first reason alot of these women chose to work. Again in MP Bethune urges FDR to let African American women work. Bethune uses the term "united patriotism" but it seems more like a means to an end (equality) rather than the end in itself. Yerger expresses my skepticism on page 373 saying something like "women use the patriotic cause of their work as a front for the financial cause." ---- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
<br />
== Debate Topics ==<br />
Debate topic: did the war economically elevate families during its duration or impoverish them? -- Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Debate Topic: In the preview to the Rosie the Riveter Articles in MAW, some historians argue that World War II was not a huge advance or watershed moment for women, because social and cultural expectations (women would go back into the home after the war, they were "temporary help") did not change significantly. Do you agree or disagree? <br />
Phil N.<br />
<br />
== Fanny Christina Hill, “Rosie the Riveter” ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article. It was interesting how they went to the school to train and recruit women for jobs. I found it interesting how these women went through several checks upon entering the building to work each day. I can understand the ID badge checks but why would they want to check their lunch? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I also found this article interesting especially because Fanny Hill talks about if she didn't like the job, she left it, and she wouldn't put up with a job that she didn't like. I really enjoyed reading that about her because I think that above all else show what kind of woman she was, a strong woman who knew what she wanted. Although, I was also confused as to why they would check their lunches, did they check them on the way out as well? Was it a fear of spying that made them do that?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In this article, she talks about the hiring process and how there were so many more women than men. She says "Most of the men was gone, and they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse." This seems like the reverse of the pattern during the Depression. During that time, women were not hired unless they had serious economic need. Now that it is wartime, it seems as though the encouragement is for men to fight in the war, so they will not be hired unless they have an excuse to not go into war. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
Great article. Leading up to World War II, women of color were arguably the most discriminated against people because of race and gender. Yet this woman found opportunity, and an overall positive experience from the War. Love the quote at the end about "Hitler getting them out of the white folks' kitchens." Sad, but definitely some grains of truth to be found in that statement. Phil N.<br />
<br />
== Marion Stegeman, “Women in the Armed Forces” ==<br />
Marion Stegeman's letters in "Women in the Armed Forces" are interesting when she talks about the time she landed at Ballinger Air Field in order to get her bearings. Didn't the Squn. Commander have anything more pressing to do? It all seems a little strange to me considering the fact that we are now living in the middle of a gas crisis. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
<br />
At the end of Marion Stegman's letters she expresses her concern to her mother about her "love" Ned and how she wants to marry him but also how she will work indefinitely. During this time when the number of women working rapidly increased, were long distance relationships even possible? Or were couples forced to go their own way for survival purposes and hope to reconnect safely at a later time? --- Rose Feguson<br />
<br />
Marion Stegeman’s letters to her mother about being a WASP really highlight both the excitement and dangers of being in the AirForce. I am sure Marion’s mother worried about her, and I would like to have read her responses… but I was wondering if the mother ever read the letters and regretted never having those types of opportunities in her lifetime? – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I LOVED Marion's letters! The way she changed her signature to sum up the mood of the letter and just the overall love she seemed to have for being a WASP was amazing. She seems to be a perfect example of why women wanted to get involved with the military in some fashion -- they were doing the jobs men used to do and were getting excellent credit for their accomplishments and being commended for their attitudes and hard work as women in the military. I think the letter about some of her friends being shot down and her other friend breaking down and leaving are both important points as well, though. Both of those reinforce the fact that these jobs weren't meant to be romanticized. They may have been women doing these jobs, but they were just as dangerous and women did die like men would have. Just because it was a woman doing the job did not mean that they were safe from harm. But my favorite letter had to be the one where she was blown off course and had to land on a different base. The statement, "The Army cadets and instructors nearly fell out of their plane when they saw a ''girl'' taxiing by in a B.T.!" I think is a perfect summation of some of how impressive some of these women truly were. Rosie the Riveter should be proud. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed Marion Stegeman's letters in MAW. I particularly enjoyed the last letter when she discusses her relationship with Ned and also her decisions to be a WASP. I love the line "I can do what I'm told gracefully now only because -- underneath it all-- I know i don't have to." I think that this highlights the role of choice and freedom in the wartime effort. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I really Loved Marion Stegeman's letters. Especially since I had done my interview last week with my grandmother and I found out that she was part of the armed forces, not during WWII but after. But its cool to read these letters and know that a person in your family was part of it. I enjoyed reading the letters because they were full of so much emotion. There is such a difference between reading a male soldiers letters and a womans. The women show excitement and fear and sadness, they are great examples to know what these women were feeling at the time. I agree with Kelly, just her signature or her Dear Mother, or Mom, just showed what mood she was in. It also was surprising to me how accepting the men were with Stegeman and how much respect they gave her because of the talent she had. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I also thought Marion Stegeman's letters were really fun to read. It was interesting how light-hearted and fun the letters were about flying the airplanes, as though it was no big deal that Marion was flying them when her mother could have never even dreamed of having the opportunity. These letters were great in highlighting how much women's roles progressed. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
Enjoyed the letters here as well. Despite the fact that at the end, she didn't have the best choice in the world, to be a puppet in the Army chained to a typewriter, the fact that she had a choice to do that, marry her boyfriend, or perhaps do something else displays how significantly the world of opportunity seemed to open up for women during the War. - Phil N.<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading the letters. I think it is fascinating to see how her attitude changes from the first letter where she is so happy to be flying to the last letter where she realizes that she does not have a real future flying. It is interesting the way she talks about her friends being killed in a crash in 1943. I can just imagine the conversations she must have had with her mother about the dangers of flying by the way she ends the letter, like she is justifying the risk she is taking by flying. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
== Hariette Arnow, “Wartime Migration” – ==<br />
<br />
Harriette Arnow’s excerpt on wartime migration discusses the confusion many women felt moving during WWII. It is clear from this article that wartime for women definitely wasn’t all opportunity and smiles, women also struggled to adapt and lived lives they probably never expected to. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
This is one of those pieces that exhibits the silent burden of the woman. Gertie will not realize her dream of owning a farm because her dream is shadowed by Clovis's amibition to live in the big city and earn a higher wage. The ability to remain in Kentucky is probably not an option; she is burdened with the inability to sufficiently support her family, and she carries the guilt of a mother. "In was in truth like her mother said: the children had a right to live with their father." She is in charge of putting a meal together that is supposed to please her husband, she waits on the family, and worries about money. Her husband's attitude seems irresponsible and insensitive to the situation he has placed his family. They can't afford meat on the table, but he owns a car. He puts his head down on the pillow and falls asleep while Gertie remains awake. Gertie is trapped in a world that is dictated to her.--LisaM<br />
<br />
I agree with Lisa, this is one of the sad realities of many of the women that we have studied. I think we have to ask ourselves how far we have really come in this regard. Are there still women who give up their dreams in order to live for the dreams and ambitions of their husbands or other men in their lives? I think that if we investigated, we would find that there are many women like Gertie still out there today. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
== Monica Sone, “Japanese Relocation” – ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this one because it actually suprised me. I expected it to be a far more depressing story and while it was very sad that these families had to deal with this I also felt like it was not nearly as sad as it could have been. I found Monica Sone's mother inspiring because she seemed to look for the good in everything. Although the tent/cabin/apartment wasn't well built, she was happy that there were dandelions, because it brought happiness into the room. As well as how she reacted to the latrine being close, she didn't say oh this is gonna smell she said oh look! we won't have to walk a long ways. I found that aspect of the story very very inspiring. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth. When I began reading the introduction for this account and the autobiography itself, I was prepared for something much more depressing. Not to say this wasn't at all upsetting or hard to read, it's just that having the mother in the story and reading about how lighthearted she seemed to be made it seem like she made the stay more bearable. You could definitely see tensions between first generation immigrants and families that had been in the states longer because the older the men and women were, the more disgruntled they seemed to be. When Monica discussed her meal at the dining hall, the description of the Issei man she was next to compared to the description of the messy little girl next to her made that tension apparent. The last paragraph really got to me, though, when she brought up the wire fence. "What was I doing behind a fence like a criminal?" It wasn't fair the way these people were treated and I'm just grateful Monica was lucky enough to leave and go off to school. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I feel bad for how Monica Sone feels with not knowing where she belongs. She is not considered a U.S. citizen anymore nor is she a citizen from Japan such as her mother and father. Sone feels more like a criminal. She and her family have followed all the American government rules such as paying taxes and are still discriminated against because of her Japanese ancestry. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I thought this part of the autobiography was both inspiring and moving and did a lot to emphasize the feeling of entering a Japanese internment camp. I liked that the family tried to make the best of it at the camp, though they had no idea what they were supposed to do. There was definitely a feeling of total bewilderment at being taken to some remote area and told to live in an "oversized chicken house." The final part, where Monica discusses her confusion, was the part that showed how confused the Japanese were. "I remembered the wire fence encircling us, and a knot of anger tightened in my breast. What was I doing behind a fence like a criminal? If there were accusations to be made, why hadn't I been given a fair trial?" She expresses how much anger and confusion these people felt as their own country put them in a prison. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
An interesting diary. I would love to have access to more of Monica's diary. Good 485 topic here for somebody. The Japanese Internment during the Second World War is one of the most shameful government policies of the 20th Century. The scars of many Japanese-Americans probably never healed. Has the government ever officially apologized for the internment? - Phil N.<br />
<br />
I found this one fascinating. I too was expecting something depressing about how the relocations were awful for the Japanese Americans. I was really surprised at Sone's mother and the way she found something positive in everything, like the dandelions growing thru the floor. That must have been such an awful thing to have been here for 25 years and then be locked in a camp just because of your heritage even if you were born here. It was interesting to read about how crowded it was when they ate. How did our government justify putting the Japanese Americans in these camps when part of what we were fighting for in Europe was to liberate the Jews from the concentration camps? I know the American camps weren't exterminating people but stil they were holding them indefinately in cramped quarters and there were never any charges brought against them other than the fact that they were Japanese descendants. It just amazes me that this could take place in the United States! ~~ Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Everyone should read the novel, Snow Falling on Cedars, by David Guterson. It is about a lot of things, but largely focuses around a nisei girl's experience from the 1930s to the 1950s, including internment. It is also just a darned good book! But as far as the reading goes, what I really found interesting was the author's assertion that in spite of the emotional trauma suffered by all the interned Japanese people in the American west, young, second generation Japanese women gained many opportunities, especially in terms of careers, as a result of the war and internment. Whether the general westernization of these women is looked as a good thing, it is clear that the second generation's ideals, goals, and roles hugely contrasted with those of their mothers'. ~~ Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
Phil, the government did apologize for the internment, and i believe reparations were paid to each family, but I can't remember how much. The text of the Civil Liberty Act of 1988 can be found here, http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/civilact1988.html. What I find interesting is that there seems to be such a long time between the internment and any action towards apologizing. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
== Ruth Marshak, “Women of Wartime Los Alamos” ==<br />
<br />
The contrast between the concluding sentence of Ruth Marshak's "Women of Wartime Los Alamos" and the rest of the reading is interesting. She describes life as being so dreary and containing so many hardships and then ends by saying it was a great experience. Is that due to the fact that certain portions of her account were left out by the editors of the book in which her account is located? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I had the same question that Justin remarks on above. She started off with describing the place as this horrible entity, but ends it with Los Alamos being an educational experience and that they'll never feel that connected to a town again. Are there parts left out? or does she write this article in this way so that she could throw the bit of twist at the end? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read "Women of Wartime Los Alamos" by Ruth Marshak, because it showed a less common war time experience. It sounds like the woman who was describing her experience in this selection didn’t have a family with children, were there other families that moved there with children as well. If so, were these communities complete with some kind of education system as well? She describes the social aspects but not much further. What were the women’s roles in Los Alamos if they didn’t have children and while the husbands were working in the lab? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
To me at least, my first impression of her recollections are that they seem like those of a spoiled and indulged child. Anyone else get the same vibe? - Phil N.<br />
<br />
== Valerie Matsumoto, “Japanese American Women during WWII” ==<br />
Matsumoto discusses “Japanese American Women during World War II” in Unequal Sisters. Part of it deals with the resettlement of some of the women from the Japanese internment camps, most of them being younger women attending college. Today, people tend to associate college educated people, and students of college age, with more liberal ideals. Was that true during this time as well? Was it easier for younger women of Japanese decent to be accepted in a college or university setting than if they were older and returning to a workforce with people of older generations? And did geography also play a role in how well or readily they were accepted? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading Matsumoto's "Japanese American Women during World War II" reminded me of a story I had to read in English class during high school. The other story said that people would destroy the houses of Japanese-Americans and take what they wanted, destroying the rest. Did this happen often? How did women deal with a destroyed home when they returned? Did families return to the homes and properties they had before the internments? Were they able to? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
OMG Ashley was it "Farewell to Manzanar"???? Because these stories reminded me of that book too! - Emely.<br />
<br />
The article in US on the Japanese women I thought was interesting because right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor all of the Japanese were put in camps, and the Americans saw them as a threat, therefore putting them into these camps as a way to keep a watchfull eye on them as if they were to do something or had some part in why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. This sounds all to familiar. When 9-11 happened Americans suddenly saw all middle easterners as a threat that were in the US. Although we did not throw them into camps, I remember watching the news and how they interviewed some immagrant middle easterners and how now they were treated differently.I've often wondered if the role was reveresed and an American white or black did something horrific in another country if other races would change the way the think of us, but by saying that what do other races, ethnicities think of us? I also thought how amazing it was that the Japanese found something good out of being kept in these camps, and utilized new skills they formed once they were out and used it to their advantage.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Although I thought Matsumoto's point of view was interesting, I was not expecting to be persuaded that internment had benefits. I was upset that she went into little detail and provided few primary sources documenting the overall damage this event caused. Each time she mentioned the cultural "education" and opportunities these women were experiencing I was waiting for an explanation about the lack of hope and psychological damage that went along with it. I was suprised that there was not a sense of resentment towards American ideals by the Nisei after this experience. I felt like some piece of the story of Japanese American women during internment was missing. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
== Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s ==<br />
<br />
In MP, I found it interesting to read about Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston whose father would not allow her to be confirmed in the Catholic church. He felt strongly that if she were confirmed she would never marry, especially a nice Japanese boy which is what he wanted. Was this the case with most girls around her age, with all religions? -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I don't think that the Japanese are unique in wanting a daughter to marry a man from the same ethnic background. I think that this has been a trait exhibited by other nationalities as well. What did strike me in this piece was a sense of creating an existence that seemed normal. Jeanne talked about school and after school activities like any other child. She doesn't project a sense of hopelessness. Instead she continues to study and develops interests in activities that she will continue once she leaves the internment camp.--LisaM<br />
<br />
<br />
Jeanne Wakatsuki is being raised in America and therefore has American dreams and ideas, however her family has traditional Japanese ideas for her. It must have been difficult for young immigrants. Really, what were they supposed to do? There families came to America for a better life for there family but wanted to keep there traditions. It does not work that way. The kids are being pulled in both directions. --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
While reading this thing I'm thinking "this girl has been fixated by something that she doesn't even really know about ( the Confirmation) but wants it because it's a lot more appealing or 'American'". When I was younger I was guilty of wanting to do more "American" things to fit in better with the kids at school, denied that I knew how to speak Spanish along with other silly things, so I can see where she is coming from but it still annoyed me. A bigger issue with her, however, I think is that she has that added burden that her people are being ostrasized by the country they live in and part of her, as an American, doesn't want to be part of it. - Emely.<br />
<br />
I found the part of this article about confirmation interesting. It reminded me of one of my really good friends from high school, who was raised in a really strongly catholic family. When it was time for her to decide to get confirmed, she really did not want to, because she thought it was old fashioned, and not really for her. Her families reaction was much like the reaction of the Japanese family. She was told that she would never marry a nice Catholic boy, and that the shock of it would literally kill her Grandmother, and so on. In the end, she ended up getting confirmed. It is not so far away from what was happening in this Japanese family. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
== Photograph collections at Library of Congress ==<br />
<br />
I thought the photos of women during WWII were extremely interesting and mostly promote the stereotypical female experience on the home front. Are there any images that reflect the struggles that women faced at this time? How tired they were? The moving, long hours, and household duties? – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I too found the photos very interesting. I was curious as to accurate they are for the overall population. Most seemed to show happy women who were excited to be doing their part but what about those that struggled? None of the picture really showed any kind of real hardship. I would have liked to see a larger variety of photos. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I liked how the photos strived to capture average people in their daily activies rather than workers in action. I don't think that Bubley was trying persuade any ideal or stereotype but rather was quickly capturing groups of people and showing how different the work force had become during WWII. I thought that the photo of the women on the stairs waiting for the boarding house bathroom did show the hours of work the women had put in and the exhaustion they were facing. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
The picture of Esther Bubley is hot. It's VERY different from the photographs of women we've seen so far. First of all, she's wearing pants, second of all just the way she's posing and the clothes she's wearing and just her whole demeanor screams "I can do anything a man can!" I'm also glad that the women who took over the industries were able to wear pants, made work a lot safer but of course it took other women to realize this. - Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
I have always been fascinated with older photography. You can read so much into the lives of women back then by their clothing, there mannerisms, and what they are doing.--Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
== Mary McLeod Bethune on black women and the war effort, 1940 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked this letter to the president. I was impressed that a black women would write to the president to encourage him to allow black women to work for the war effort. Bethune really seems to show how sincere her desire is to serve her country and wants to be given an equal shot. Did other black women write similar letters? What other ways did theses women try to find a way to serve?-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I also think it is great that African American women wrote to the president urging him to allow colored women job opportunities during the war. Did Roosevelt really make much of an effort to help African American women with decent jobs? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== Norma Yerger Queen, daycare worker in 1944 ==<br />
<br />
The second article (Mrs. Norma Yerger) she makes the statement that "Many women thoroughly enjoy working & getting away from the home."(373) I'm sure many did enjoy their jobs since some working conditions had improved but probably there were just as many who didn't like their jobs, for whatever reason. Also relating that statement to the movie we watched in class; there was one part were the women were ok with giving their job back to the man who once had the position before going off to war. How true is that? Were many simply ok with going back to being house wife and home maker, or did they really enjoy their job enough like the article says, therefore not wanting to give up their job.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I found this article slightly amusing.I strongly agree with how she only would work 4 days a week so she could keep up with the house work. She shouldn't have to work all week and come home and do everything then go to bed and start all over again. What amuses me was that she talks about how her and her husband would try to split the house work but it just never worked out. He always had something to do, but so did Queen, its just because she was a woman domestic work was always on her list of things to do. I just really liked when she said when we did the house work it just didn't "click," and the fact that she is ok with this is even more amusing. I know as a girl in today's society if I were her I would not allow my husband to read the paper while I bust my butt cleaning everything in the house. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
Women still continue to struggle with the "double duty" of working outside of the home and housework. Norma Yerger's expectations of a clean house were too high. She said she spends two hours each evening cleaning, if she did not try to meet the middle class standards of a clean house she could have spent that time with her family. Amanda's postings always make me smile--Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
== Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean, 1953 ==<br />
Did the WACs's performance in the 5th Army have any influence on how they were treated as military personnel after World War II? --Justin Mattos</div>Angelahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_3_Questions/Comments328--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T00:52:08Z<p>Angela: </p>
<hr />
<div>The one thing that immediately struck me while I began reading the Castaneda piece was the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how, to me, that distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. Castaneda points out how Spanish women were always purer and more mysterious; romanticized in a sense. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure on pretty much every count. Does anyone else feel that this stereotype between the two ethnicities still holds up today or is that just me? Based on general opinion, I feel as though this major difference still sticks out in people's minds (not saying that this distinction is right in any sense.) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was extremely impressed by the scale of the Cherokee Seminary school. For it's time, it seemed like an impressive operation for a people so tremendously discriminated against in America, excepting the multiple burnings down of the building! I was, however, struck by the authors constant use of the word "progressive", which to me is usually a positive word, meaning moving toward improved living/way of life and education for the public. The author used it so negatively though, as a way to describe the discriminating, racially-mixed Cherokee girls and their families usually. Looking at her writings from a historians perspective I see how the word might have been used by the people themselves as a justifier of their own belief of superiority, but the author should not have used it herself because it makes it seem as though she is drawing the line herself between the status of tradition verse progression and pure-blood verse mixed-blood.~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
The readings this week largely had to do with how historians have struggled to characterize women by race and gender. Women of other races were frequently overlooked. As Castaneda points out in chapter four, when women were studied, it was either because of their significance in relation to someone important, such as a governor. The experiences of any other women would be generalized to stereotype women of that particular race overall. This is interesting to keep in mind when reading “The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barceló in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe” by Gonzalez, in which he discusses how the life of one woman (Dona Gertrudis Barceló) impacted the image that people held of Spanish-Mexican women. Why is it that the lives and experiences of minority women could see easily and readily be generalized? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Mihesuah. The article described the all female seminary for Cherokee girls. When examining the experiences of Cherokee women in an all female setting, it easier to see the impact that race and economics played in their lives. You no longer have the issue of breaking down the study by gender and race, nor do you have the question of which plays a more significant role. In looking at the experiences of the Cherokee women in this school, it is easy to see that segregation occurred even when the playing field seemed to be leveled. The more white blood the females had, the more accepted they were by others. Additionally, it would be more likely that they would be able to marry and be economically and culturally successful. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading about the female seminary for the Cherokee girls was very interesting. It seems odd to me that there was such an emphasis placed on the percentage of cherokee vs white blood you had. It was an Indian school but it seems that to be accepted or what the girls felt was preferred was to be as "white" as possible, but yet they still talked about the percent, however small, of Cherokee blood they had. Most of the girls in the pictures to me did not "look" like a typical Cherokee and if the emphasis was on being as "white" as possible why did they even attend the seminary, why not go to a white school. Were they that segregated that even a small amount of Cherokee blood would prevent them from going to a white school, and who would know if you didn't say anything about what percent white you were? ~~Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
While reading "Gender, Race, and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" and "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" by Antonia I. Castaneda, I wondered whether it were true that only Westerners studied the history of Hispanic women until the 1970s or 1980s. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe" by Deena J. Gonzalez, I found it interesting that during that time it was so easy to step outside the boundaries of the perceptions of the general populace. The case of interesting women like Barcelo is very similar to the inability of the Native Americans to see the ships of Cortez until Cortez's men pointed them out to them.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It is strange that in the "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876" "stone-woman" was considered a problem/disease. From what I understand, having sex through prostitution is not an enjoyable experience.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
My favorite reading out of all of these essays was "To Dark to Be Angels" by Devon Mihesuah, because my great grandmother was apparently 1/4 cherokee, so it was like reading apart of her history. But what I found so interesting about this essay was how these cherokee women were trying to live up to a white persons society, or "adapting to society's 'whiteness'."(187) For so many years the European society in America had tried to civilize Indians, and get them out of farming and hunting, and in this reading it was like they gave up their fight of keeping their heritage and decided to try and fit in to white society. Why? There was all of the sudden the whiter you looked the better off you were, and this often left the full blooded cherokee women feeling inferior to white yet still.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Deena Gonzalez's essay on Gertrudis Barcelo describes a very interesting women. She basically went against what all the other women in society were expected to be like. She was rich and most interesting was that she made her saloon the center of the town's social and economic life, as well as military and political people coming to her for advise (255). Wasn't that unheard of in those days? How was it that she was able to lead this life and other women didn't, or did they try? --Michelle Marduesz<br />
<br />
Castaneda's article caused me to think on how the problem with the history of CA and its residents before Anglos is a problem with many areas. What I mean by that is a history that does integrate race, gender, and culture or class as categories of historical analysis (page 71) is a problem are for many places. It just really strikes a bit harder when you read a little of the historiography on some of the problems of the already published and out there history. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was impressed and slightly confused on the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary. I was impressed because even though the school burned down they rebuilt it and it still exists (at least the ending made it sound that way). I was confused because if the whiter you were the better, why did full-blooded traditionalist Cherokees send their daughters there? Were they trying to get an upperhand on the white man? Even if it meant learning to write and read the language in order to better fight the white man? It had me confused. Also, if it was a Cherokee school, why girls go who were barely even Cherokee?, like the one mentioned on page 186 who was only 1/32 Cherokee. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The essay "Too Dark to be Angels" concludes by stating that the seminary was a progressive success. I can not help but question this outcome based on what I read. I have no doubts that the seminary provided short term advantages to its attendees as it related to social and economic status however, it appears also that the women let petty matters of snobbery and ego undermine the overall mission of the seminary (which I imagine was to uplift the Cherokee nation through education). It seems that by attending this seminary Cherokees were destroying themselves from the inside out. The women learned to feel either superior or inferior and therefore they could not remain united as an ethnic group. Also, the fact that whites were put on such a high pedestal made the Cherokees vulnerable to manipulation in the future. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Bancroft's qoute "a race halfway between the proud Castillian and the lowly root digger." existing "halfway between savage and civilization." on page 59 of Casteneda's essay is reprehensible. It caused me to quesiton the root cause of such racism, and prejudice. What makes someone racist? Is it truly just because the other person looks different? Is it about pre-conceived notions or hearsay, turned hateful stereotypes? Could it be a morally corrupt individual looking for a way to dehumanize a group, in order to justify poor treatment (i.e. stealing Indian land or slavery)? It seems there has to be some underlying motive for racism, besides just the color of one's skin vs. antohers'. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
After doing the readings, "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862" attracted my attention the most, and I struggled to figure out why. I think this document raises a lot of questions about gender norms during the time period, in a substantially different way than the other documents in Major Problems. It's clear from the other readings that rape and domination of Native Americans was not uncommon. "A Citizen Protests" raises the questions about the response to these acts by average citizens. The author of the letter labels the rapists brutes, who should be punished "in justice to decency, humanity, and civilization." However, its clear the author's morals aren't widely shared, why else would his or her letter to the editor be anonymous? ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly and her thoughts on the Castaneda piece and how it described the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how the distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. It is pointed out that Spanish women were always purer held higher up in societies eyes. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure in every way. Basically no matter how corny this sounds, Spanish women are classy and Mexican women are trashy. This is still seen today, even in my mind sometimes you think of Mexican you think lower class. However, when you think Spanish, you see a women wearing bright colors beautiful clothes.I wonder do we think this way because Spain is located in Europe and when Eurpoe comes to mind you think of places like Milan or Paris? --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I had the same questions about the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary as Ashley. What I didn't understand was why whiter was better? I found it interesting that full-blood Cherokees were sending their children to this extremely expensive school to become whiter. Is it to try to become equals with white people or is it to pull ahead of them? What I really don't understand is why are the Cherokees trying to wipe out their culture. That is what happened when we first settled the Indians became "whiter" and look at where they are now, language has been lost, traditions stories the list goes on. To me it seems like this school was good for the purpose of education but I felt as if it took away culture. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Antonia Castaneda's essay makes some far-reaching claims that are not completely warranted. Castaneda credits the biased work of Bancroft with informing all later popular and scholarly works with specific stereotypes of Spanish women (pg 59). While perhaps not central to Castaneda's essay I don't understand how one, or even a few historical scholars could be solely responsible for passing on biased perceptions. I think Castaneda ignores other ways that negative stereotypes get passed on. The fact that these negative stereotypes persist in persons who are not scholars of history indicates that later scholars might not have adopted the same stereotypes that Bancroft did solely because he did, but because they embraced these stereotypes in their daily lives. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I found the documents about women in the Trans-Mississippi Frontier West incredibly interesting and shocking at the same time. The Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes were the most shocking of the collection. Was this a common phenomenon at this time? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda's points about the female Cherokee seminary. I feel that the Cherokees were attending this school in hopes of becoming 'whiter', which did result in a dilution of their culture. One must wonder if they saw this as a negative thing, however. They saw that whites had the money, the land, and the privilege. Is it possible that they willingly sacrificed their unique culture in hopes of attaining these things that whites had and they did not? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I think Matt brings up an interesting point about "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862," in mentioning that the letter was anonymous. To our minds, the opinions shared seem to be the norm, but the simple fact that the writer of this letter felt the need to keep their opinions anonymous definitely demonstrates that these opinions were not the norm. This reflects a sad fact of race and gender norms of the time. --Angela Scott</div>Angelahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_3_Questions/Comments328--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T00:51:43Z<p>Angela: </p>
<hr />
<div>The one thing that immediately struck me while I began reading the Castaneda piece was the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how, to me, that distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. Castaneda points out how Spanish women were always purer and more mysterious; romanticized in a sense. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure on pretty much every count. Does anyone else feel that this stereotype between the two ethnicities still holds up today or is that just me? Based on general opinion, I feel as though this major difference still sticks out in people's minds (not saying that this distinction is right in any sense.) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was extremely impressed by the scale of the Cherokee Seminary school. For it's time, it seemed like an impressive operation for a people so tremendously discriminated against in America, excepting the multiple burnings down of the building! I was, however, struck by the authors constant use of the word "progressive", which to me is usually a positive word, meaning moving toward improved living/way of life and education for the public. The author used it so negatively though, as a way to describe the discriminating, racially-mixed Cherokee girls and their families usually. Looking at her writings from a historians perspective I see how the word might have been used by the people themselves as a justifier of their own belief of superiority, but the author should not have used it herself because it makes it seem as though she is drawing the line herself between the status of tradition verse progression and pure-blood verse mixed-blood.~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
The readings this week largely had to do with how historians have struggled to characterize women by race and gender. Women of other races were frequently overlooked. As Castaneda points out in chapter four, when women were studied, it was either because of their significance in relation to someone important, such as a governor. The experiences of any other women would be generalized to stereotype women of that particular race overall. This is interesting to keep in mind when reading “The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barceló in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe” by Gonzalez, in which he discusses how the life of one woman (Dona Gertrudis Barceló) impacted the image that people held of Spanish-Mexican women. Why is it that the lives and experiences of minority women could see easily and readily be generalized? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Mihesuah. The article described the all female seminary for Cherokee girls. When examining the experiences of Cherokee women in an all female setting, it easier to see the impact that race and economics played in their lives. You no longer have the issue of breaking down the study by gender and race, nor do you have the question of which plays a more significant role. In looking at the experiences of the Cherokee women in this school, it is easy to see that segregation occurred even when the playing field seemed to be leveled. The more white blood the females had, the more accepted they were by others. Additionally, it would be more likely that they would be able to marry and be economically and culturally successful. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading about the female seminary for the Cherokee girls was very interesting. It seems odd to me that there was such an emphasis placed on the percentage of cherokee vs white blood you had. It was an Indian school but it seems that to be accepted or what the girls felt was preferred was to be as "white" as possible, but yet they still talked about the percent, however small, of Cherokee blood they had. Most of the girls in the pictures to me did not "look" like a typical Cherokee and if the emphasis was on being as "white" as possible why did they even attend the seminary, why not go to a white school. Were they that segregated that even a small amount of Cherokee blood would prevent them from going to a white school, and who would know if you didn't say anything about what percent white you were? ~~Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
While reading "Gender, Race, and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" and "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" by Antonia I. Castaneda, I wondered whether it were true that only Westerners studied the history of Hispanic women until the 1970s or 1980s. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe" by Deena J. Gonzalez, I found it interesting that during that time it was so easy to step outside the boundaries of the perceptions of the general populace. The case of interesting women like Barcelo is very similar to the inability of the Native Americans to see the ships of Cortez until Cortez's men pointed them out to them.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It is strange that in the "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876" "stone-woman" was considered a problem/disease. From what I understand, having sex through prostitution is not an enjoyable experience.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
My favorite reading out of all of these essays was "To Dark to Be Angels" by Devon Mihesuah, because my great grandmother was apparently 1/4 cherokee, so it was like reading apart of her history. But what I found so interesting about this essay was how these cherokee women were trying to live up to a white persons society, or "adapting to society's 'whiteness'."(187) For so many years the European society in America had tried to civilize Indians, and get them out of farming and hunting, and in this reading it was like they gave up their fight of keeping their heritage and decided to try and fit in to white society. Why? There was all of the sudden the whiter you looked the better off you were, and this often left the full blooded cherokee women feeling inferior to white yet still.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Deena Gonzalez's essay on Gertrudis Barcelo describes a very interesting women. She basically went against what all the other women in society were expected to be like. She was rich and most interesting was that she made her saloon the center of the town's social and economic life, as well as military and political people coming to her for advise (255). Wasn't that unheard of in those days? How was it that she was able to lead this life and other women didn't, or did they try? --Michelle Marduesz<br />
<br />
Castaneda's article caused me to think on how the problem with the history of CA and its residents before Anglos is a problem with many areas. What I mean by that is a history that does integrate race, gender, and culture or class as categories of historical analysis (page 71) is a problem are for many places. It just really strikes a bit harder when you read a little of the historiography on some of the problems of the already published and out there history. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was impressed and slightly confused on the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary. I was impressed because even though the school burned down they rebuilt it and it still exists (at least the ending made it sound that way). I was confused because if the whiter you were the better, why did full-blooded traditionalist Cherokees send their daughters there? Were they trying to get an upperhand on the white man? Even if it meant learning to write and read the language in order to better fight the white man? It had me confused. Also, if it was a Cherokee school, why girls go who were barely even Cherokee?, like the one mentioned on page 186 who was only 1/32 Cherokee. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The essay "Too Dark to be Angels" concludes by stating that the seminary was a progressive success. I can not help but question this outcome based on what I read. I have no doubts that the seminary provided short term advantages to its attendees as it related to social and economic status however, it appears also that the women let petty matters of snobbery and ego undermine the overall mission of the seminary (which I imagine was to uplift the Cherokee nation through education). It seems that by attending this seminary Cherokees were destroying themselves from the inside out. The women learned to feel either superior or inferior and therefore they could not remain united as an ethnic group. Also, the fact that whites were put on such a high pedestal made the Cherokees vulnerable to manipulation in the future. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Bancroft's qoute "a race halfway between the proud Castillian and the lowly root digger." existing "halfway between savage and civilization." on page 59 of Casteneda's essay is reprehensible. It caused me to quesiton the root cause of such racism, and prejudice. What makes someone racist? Is it truly just because the other person looks different? Is it about pre-conceived notions or hearsay, turned hateful stereotypes? Could it be a morally corrupt individual looking for a way to dehumanize a group, in order to justify poor treatment (i.e. stealing Indian land or slavery)? It seems there has to be some underlying motive for racism, besides just the color of one's skin vs. antohers'. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
After doing the readings, "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862" attracted my attention the most, and I struggled to figure out why. I think this document raises a lot of questions about gender norms during the time period, in a substantially different way than the other documents in Major Problems. It's clear from the other readings that rape and domination of Native Americans was not uncommon. "A Citizen Protests" raises the questions about the response to these acts by average citizens. The author of the letter labels the rapists brutes, who should be punished "in justice to decency, humanity, and civilization." However, its clear the author's morals aren't widely shared, why else would his or her letter to the editor be anonymous? ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly and her thoughts on the Castaneda piece and how it described the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how the distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. It is pointed out that Spanish women were always purer held higher up in societies eyes. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure in every way. Basically no matter how corny this sounds, Spanish women are classy and Mexican women are trashy. This is still seen today, even in my mind sometimes you think of Mexican you think lower class. However, when you think Spanish, you see a women wearing bright colors beautiful clothes.I wonder do we think this way because Spain is located in Europe and when Eurpoe comes to mind you think of places like Milan or Paris? --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I had the same questions about the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary as Ashley. What I didn't understand was why whiter was better? I found it interesting that full-blood Cherokees were sending their children to this extremely expensive school to become whiter. Is it to try to become equals with white people or is it to pull ahead of them? What I really don't understand is why are the Cherokees trying to wipe out their culture. That is what happened when we first settled the Indians became "whiter" and look at where they are now, language has been lost, traditions stories the list goes on. To me it seems like this school was good for the purpose of education but I felt as if it took away culture. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Antonia Castaneda's essay makes some far-reaching claims that are not completely warranted. Castaneda credits the biased work of Bancroft with informing all later popular and scholarly works with specific stereotypes of Spanish women (pg 59). While perhaps not central to Castaneda's essay I don't understand how one, or even a few historical scholars could be solely responsible for passing on biased perceptions. I think Castaneda ignores other ways that negative stereotypes get passed on. The fact that these negative stereotypes persist in persons who are not scholars of history indicates that later scholars might not have adopted the same stereotypes that Bancroft did solely because he did, but because they embraced these stereotypes in their daily lives. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I found the documents about women in the Trans-Mississippi Frontier West incredibly interesting and shocking at the same time. The Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes were the most shocking of the collection. Was this a common phenomenon at this time? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda's points about the female Cherokee seminary. I feel that the Cherokees were attending this school in hopes of becoming 'whiter', which did result in a dilution of their culture. One must wonder if they saw this as a negative thing, however. They saw that whites had the money, the land, and the privilege. Is it possible that they willingly sacrificed their unique culture in hopes of attaining these things that whites had and they did not? --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I think Matt brings up an interesting point about "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862," in mentioning that the letter was anonymous. To our minds, the opinions shared seem to be the norm, but the simple fact that the writer of this letter felt the need to keep their opinions anonymous definitely demonstrates that these opinions were not the norm. This reflects a sad fact of race and gender norms of the time.</div>Angelahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_2_Questions/Comments328--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-24T04:04:35Z<p>Angela: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting that the concept of a separation between freedom and suffrage that existed during the Post-Civil War period is very well upheld assumption today. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
The gradual disenfranchisement and barring from political participation of black women seems to be an interesting example of white society's influence on black culture. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
What were the similarities between the political participation of black women and political participation of the women of immigrant groups and other minorities? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting in the reading where the author discussed the concept of family being the "unifying thread" that bound African Americans together. She says that "the notion of family members as having a mutual and continuing responsibility to help each other and to prepare for hard times" (pg 125). Wouldn't that have been true of any family during the reconstruction period, black or white? ~~Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
I agree with Justin that it is interesting to see how the African American women were gradually pushed out of the political arena after having been so active and vocal. I think it is funny how the women would "take sactions" (pg 135),such as abstaining from sexual relations, against men that voted for the Democratic party! ~~ Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
The concept that I found most intriguing overall in the reading was the conflicting views of freedom and suffrage being an individual possession versus communal. This led to the different treatment of people who voted against the popular view. To someone who thought individuals were responsible to only themselves they would view hostility against other voters as opposing the libreal democratic process whereas in the African American community, where suffrage was viewed as a collective possesion, it was right to be hostile towards those who threatened the well being of the whole community. -Karly Kovalcik<br />
<br />
Although the difference may be slight on paper, there is a huge difference between the African American woman's perspective that her husband votes for her in a way that represents her political beliefs and ideologies versus a white woman's perspective that her husband voted for her without consulting with her because he acted individually in a way that was best for his wife and children. -Karly Kovalcik<br />
<br />
After reading the article I made a decision that I had previously I had been flip-flopping between. I now believe that there needs to be subcategories of the women's history to include at least, but not limiting to, African American Women's history. The history seems to be so different just from the article we had to read. Such as, the black women feeling that they were equally part of the vote that the black men casted. I don't remember ever hearing about that before, at least with white women, but then again I haven't taken a women's history course before either -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Ashley. After reading this article, it has become clear to me that women's history needs definite subcategories. But that just makes me thing about how many subcategories can we really delve into? I mean, if you think of how many different subject classes are offered to us within our history department, all of which normally pertain to "men's history," do we need all of those categories for women's history as well? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
The other thing I found interesting in the article by Elsa Brown was just how the women and men viewed the 'sense of the vote' at first. Such as the vote casted by the men was equally the women's vote, and how the black republican politicians were able to get (well, it seems like the article was meaning quite a few) many of the black women to reject black male democratic voters. Also, just the fact the black women to fight to even get to vote in Richmond's First African Baptist Church astounded me with the way the article was talking about community earlier on. It definitely feels like slowly, but surely, the women were losing the political say they had through their men. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
In chapter 8, Brown gives examples of the freed African American trying to regain the importance of ''the family''. The church was impacted by the new seating integration, families lived together in support, and even none relatives were taken into homes that had room in racial solidarity. Single and widowed women lived together, sharing incomes and responsibility over child care. In a way, black women were improving and strengthening the idea of ''the family'' that white society held such virtue in. By living as sisters with none relatives, but former "fellow servants", African American women created an even stronger sense of female solidarity and sisterhood than white women. While many white women of the time looked down on excessive charity (even to single women with children), black women were united. I believe the lacking sense of sisterhood among all white women and failure to unite with African American women hurt them in the struggle for suffrage.--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
The experience of slavery created a need to embrace other African Americans, so it is not surprising that they reached out to the community of African Americans during the Reconstruction Era and beyond. It was family and a sense of community that held African Americans together. "Whether one eats or starves in this setting depends on the available resources within the community as a whole."(126) This essay reminded me of a conversation that I had with a senior African American woman in Georgia, who told me that during the violence of the 1950s communities of African Americans posted neighborhood watches. According to the story, white males, sometimes intoxicated, would drive through black communities seeking victims. The men took on the responsibility of protecting the citizens within the community. This women said that they seldom left the neighborhood due to potential violence, and there was no need to because school, church, and markets were all within the perimeter of the black community.--LisaM<br />
<br />
The concept that the freedom and political liberty of U.S. citizens was not synonymous (130) seems a blatent contradition to present day eyes. As we all know, the black codes in the Reconstruction Era disenfranchised large populations of blacks. Brown's essay states that black women felt they had a stake in the man's choice in voting. I recall in Georgia history, the sizeable female black population was considered a threat if allowed to vote; black women were inclined to vote Republican, and the South were Democrats.--LisaM<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Karly about how there is a huge difference between the African American woman's perspective that her husband votes for her representing her political beliefs and to a white woman's perspective that the husband voted for her without consulting with her. That he voted for who he though was best for him and his wife and children. I think it shows that even though all men are superior when it comes to women, African American men have more respect to their wives then a white man does to his. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Something that I found interesting in the reading was when it discussed how blacks were active participants throughout the state constitutional convention. African Americans both male and female crowded the galleries speaking their opinions letting their voices be heard. It says " White women, for example, certainly on occasion sat in the convention's gallery as visitors silently observing the proceedings..."(pg129). African American women were standing besides the men that "represented" them and took part in trying to make changes, while the white women sat there quietly letting their men make decisions for them. I just find this funny because you would think a white women would have a little more part in politics; but I guess an African American woman didn't have much to loose if she spoke out of turn or defended her own ideas. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that Brown discussed the varying ways to interpret the word “freedom.” For black women, freedom was the ability to remain close to the community and help the family. She stated that for black women, “the charity of this penniless negress in receiving another poverty-stricken creature under her roof was characteristic of the freedmen” (p. 126). On the other hand, from the perspective of white men and women, freedom was the ability to get ahead and better oneself. For example, Brown states, “freedpeople should adopt naturally those habits of thrift, diligence, and acquisitiveness that were a cornerstone of free labor ideology” (p.127). This highlights an important difference in perspective. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Brown talks a lot about the difference between freedom and political liberty. There was debate on whether or not civil right should be an “inherent corollary to freedom.” She mentions the views of Gibson when discussing this point, in which he suggests, “persons who had not yet learned to regulate their lives appropriately—to be thrifty, industrious, and diligent—were not yet capable of responsibly exercising liberty. Those not capable of political liberty would rely on those capable of it to protect their freedom” (p 130). In the time following the civil war, women did not have the right to vote, given this statement, is it because society did not view them as “capable of the responsibility?” Moreover, is this, to some extent true today, with the definition of “capable”, not applying to gender, but to age? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
In Browns essay I thought it was interesting on page 129 that during debates white women were silent and the African Americans were not. Instead they participated and loudly; however Brown doesn't say whether the African Amercians were men or women or both. Why were the white women silent? <br />
Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
What was also intersting to me in Browns essay was that Southern Black women and men debated the issue of woman suffrage (131). I assume this is because Black men were in the same boat as women in general because they didn't have much rights either so they understood the frustration of not having certain rights and in this case the right to vote. <br />
Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In response to your assumption Michelle, I'm going to agree somewhat, and say that black men also debated the issue of women's suffrage, because they too had to struggle to have a political voice. They had a difficult time obtaining the right to vote themselves, so they also had to persuade women to help them and back them up while trying to get a shot at the vote. This, of course, led to a massive debate over whether or not black men or women as a gender should be granted the right to vote first, and caused quite a stir when it was granted to men. There were quite a few men, though, like Frederick Douglass I believe, who supported the woman's right to vote. They understood what it was like to be considered politically naive, so I'm sure that helped in some way. - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that during the Reconstruction Era while men and women who had been slaves focused on finding the families that they had been separated from the white society surrounding these families found something wrong with the fact the black community latched onto the families they had around them. It seemed odd that they would have such a negative view on the fact that these people had such a strong desire to help out family members or even simply other people who experienced the difficulties of slavery with them. I would have thought that this would have been something that would have been admired instead of mocked. They were helping others out which was something that I had understood was the duty of any Christian, especially during this time period where the majority of the nation was Christian. Was it simply because they were a different skin color than them? Or was it because many white people during this period were so focused on improving their lot in life that they couldn't have cared less about how the others were doing? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading how although the black women in communities were denied the right to actually cast a vote in elections they still made their political opinions known. I especially enjoyed reading that these women would threaten their husbands in order to insure they voted in a way that represented not only his opinions but also hers as well! - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in Brown's essay was that while African Americans were TECHNICALLY exteneded all the freedoms and liberties afforded the white male populous, there were still social norms and restraints (that were more powerful than any amendment) that constrained their freedoms. These could be seen explicitly in the south, and more subtly in the North but they definetly existed. However, even in the time of Jim Crow laws, and a time when women (white or black) still could not vote, in the African American community black women had real power. On page 130 Brown talks about how black culture had both an internal and external political structure. In the internal structure black women had just as much power as the men. So why was this not the case with the white culture of the day? Did the conditions within slavery equalize black men and women, is this something that carried over from their culture in Africa, or were black women simply more strong willed and outspoken? - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Another point worth discussing from the reading was the incredibly gernerous and nuclear support system African Americans set up during reconstruction. Brown talks about how the ex-slaves would depend on one another, for food, shelter, and money. Sometimes they would even go so far as to share bank accounts. Although I admire their genorosity and envy their sense of community, I have to wonder if African American Society as a whole in the long run would not have been better off if the individuals would have put their extra money to a productive use for themselves individually, rather than dontating it to the poor. If families with extra money(time or space)would have invested this money - in businesses, or in education for their offspring the African American community may ascended to equality alot sooner than they did(assuming they have). - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The white characterization of newly freed blacks as "lazy and shiftless" because of their sense of collective responsibility was simply ignorance of their own history. During the Revolutionary Period and Founding, it was not uncommon for people to quarter soldiers and economically help one another due to oppression from their common foe - the British. The individualistic and free labor ideology in white America really took hold with the opening of the frontier. As an oppressed people, it was only natural that the black community would bond in such a way in the face of the oppression and discrimination which they would continue to face for another 100+ years. Phil N.<br />
<br />
Another note from late 18th, early 19th century: As far as whites had been concerned at first, only the middle and upper classes of white males had access to the ballot box. Freedom and suffrage were not linked until this time, starting with the Jacksonian period. Before that, almost 200 years had elapsed in which the franchise being the domain of the upper classes was never seriously challenged. - Phil N.<br />
<br />
I think Brown's piece brings to light a clear division between Black and White women in this time period: active vs. passive. Black women were just as active in their communities as Black men were. Their work was respected and acknowledged in the community while White women were conforming to a societal ideal that discouraged the "work" that was alongside men. After the civil war there was a window for African Americans to actively shape their own place in American society and the women were a very strong force in that. I wondered while reading if this difference of racial culture from the post-civil war period is infiltrated into American culture today? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda on how African American men treated their wives more respectively with voting than white men did. African American men consulted with their wives about who was best for the position for them and their children. White men just voted for whom they believed was best for the position without talking to their wives. Could the reason for this be because African Americans were treated unequally or naturally they just had more respect for their wives? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
What I also found interesting was how black Republican politicians in the south “took women’s participation seriously and publicly encouraged them to abstain from sexual relations with any man who voted Democratic.” I think that is getting too much into the personal life. Some women actually left their husbands or broke off the wedding until the election was over. Black Republican politicians in a way could brain-wash these women in the South. Could this be because the politicians are encouraging women to participate and are showing acknowledgment towards them? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
Reading this article just emphasizes how much more of a struggle African American women had, especially in the political realm. Some historians tend to forget that black women had to struggle because not only were they of another race, but they were also of the "weaker" gender. So reading about how much they actually did, and how active they were in politics, it shows just how impressive and how determined they were to make a stand and get something accomplished. Granted, things didn't happen overnight, but for those women who actively participated in making a voice for themselves they showed just how much some women really wanted to be able to have a say. I think that makes sense. If it doesn't, ask me in class. - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found it interesting the different ways that women found to become involved in politics before they had the right to vote. It seems as though women became truly invested in their husband's political stance and tried to influence him. It seems much more as though the men had to think of the group when they cast their vote, rather than simply voting for themselves. It's almost as though the women held the men accountable for their votes. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I noticed that a sense of community seemed to be an important factor in discussing southern black women's political history. Community seems to be incredibly important to southern black women during this time. It is interesting to think of the many different communities to which they likely belonged, and the influence that they had on each of these communities. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that freed slaves were NOT most enthused about the possibility to work for pay, but rather what meant more to them was mobility... and therefore to pursue the enjoyment of life by minimizing the "time spent at work." - Cat<br />
<br />
One thing this reading definitely highlights is that historians must be very vigilant about the reflection of their own social assumptions and political expectations in their work. - Cat<br />
<br />
I was surprised the author said women were "encouraged" to withhold sex and marriage in an effort to get their husbands to vote Republican. Who was encouraging them? I thought this type of female power wielding was looked down upon by society. - Cat<br />
<br />
As I was reading about the Black community and it's power over the individual I began thinking about collective women. Will it ever be possible to unite American women politically in a fashion similar to the Black community so that by voting the "wrong" way it would be a disgrace towards women of all races? That the Black community understood that "the issue...was not autonomy but responsibility" (136) played such a strong role in shaping the Reconstruction era. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
<br />
I may have missed it, but what were the views of the Democrats? Why were women so opposed to Democrats? Women were carrying weapons and withholding sex, and men feared them. One Woman said that “If a colored man votes the Democratic ticket he has sold himself”. I am interested to know what exactly the Democratic views were and why women were so disturbed with them. Was it just colored women or were white women opposed to the Democrats as well? <br />
Women have not always been able to vote, however we see in Brown’s essay that they make there feelings heard and well known.—Nikole Wellman <br />
<br />
Beverly Nash was a state senator in 1872 and proposed a woman’s suffrage amendment to the state constitution. Women were not allowed to vote yet but they are holding a political office. How is this so? --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
What is a Whipper?—Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
I found the quote "Their fates were intimately tied together; individual freedom could be achieved only through collective autonomy" to be very frustrating. Not only is it bad enough a woman is considered a salve but in order for her to gain freedom everyone else must be freed as well. I can't even comprehend what that have been like. We're thankful to have atleast some individualism in society today. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found it quite ironic to read about Elizabeth Botume and Beaufort South Carolina which is where I'm from and my parents currently live. If you told me today that in the 2008 presidential election I could not vote due to my gender I'd most likely laugh and then scream in your face. --- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I like that how even though women were not allowed to vote they still had a great influence over who won the elections. The power that they seemed to have over their husbands in certain areas was impressive. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting that the girls of Cherokee Female Seminary all identified themselves as Cherokee eventhough they had different social, economic and ancestral backgrounds, even with identifying the same they still created a class system from economic status. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was really intrigued by the discussion of how those in power expected the free blacks to remain in one place and be a stable working force, but blacks worked against this by moving in order to be in places that they wanted to be or in order to be closer to their families. In African American history, we learned that movement was one thing that was really valued by slaves, and often used as a form of resistance. I wonder if the reason they moved around so much was that it was the only way they could truly feel free. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye about the influential power of women. I feel that this is a power that women have wielded throughout the ages. One can see the influence that mistresses had over powerful kings in history, and even in our own history, you can see it in Abigail Adam's correspondence with her husband while he was at the constitutional convention. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
I think that the reason that so many politicians were encouraging women to withhold sex from their husbands because they realized that it would be quite an effective way to make husbands pay attention and change their votes. --Angela Scott</div>Angelahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_1_Questions/Comments328--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-17T02:18:16Z<p>Angela: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is not a real post.<br />
<br />
I agree.<br />
<br />
You're both wrong. -- Sarah H.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that fatherhood was not seen as a natural thing but instead was viewed as being "social". Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I would have thought that it would have also been seen as natural for the man to also assume a fatherly role despite his involvement in the public sphere. Is this because the men were already doing so much that being a fatherly figure just couldn't always be an important role? Or is it because if they were expected to show a more emotional side of them they would be considered less of a man because they wouldn't be acting tough? - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read in "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" that some Black Women scholars feel that even today the importance of black women and their roles in society are being overlooked in the fields of women's studies! I understood that it took a little while for scholars to realize that they had to look at the difference ethnicities differently as far as their experiences in society but I had no idea that there were aspects that were still being overlooked. I also liked the statement Leslie Alexander made in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the essay that in order to truly understand the experiences of women that scholars must become willing to explore the differences of the cultures instead of simply ignoring the fact that they are different. I thought that was a very good point. - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
The theme of the four essays is to tackle the question, what is the meaning and importance in studying women’s history? In the first essay, Haulman points out that the study of women’s history has changed over time. It first focused on the measurable contributions of women to American society and then shifted to focus more on the private lives of women in their home life. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note in the second essay that Bock brings up many different theories with which to compare the role of men and women in society. When examining the dichotomies suggested it is interesting to consider not only how women have affected society but also how the norms of society influenced the role of women. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
More than one of the essays point out that many subjects in American women’s history has been concentrated on white middle class women. It is important to look at the role of culture and ethnicity in women’s studies because all of these factors affect the experiences and challenges of women in society. The study of women is not static; it is changing, and shaped by many different factors, and it is important to consider more than one. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
In the essay "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History," I found it interesting that the women's liberation movement in the United States was mainly about gender oppression. The movements were middle class white women who wrote about the history of white women in the West. Though, women of color looked towards third-world liberation movements for support instead of women's liberation movements. Only if women of all different ethnicities joined together earlier would women's rights have developed earlier? Also women of color's gender oppression was different than white women's gender oppression in that colored women had to struggle with race and class unlike white women who mostly struggled with class. --Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found it interesting in the first point Nature vs. Culture that fatherhood was not seen as natural but social. Women scholars challenged this by stating that women are therefore seen as "nature always having a social meaning" and nature and culture mean different things in different times. Women are the ones that physically have the baby, but that does not mean they have to be subject to the male sexes. Men are also taught to grow up as a strong non-emotional person. This could also be why fatherhood is seen as social instead of natural. <br />
--Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Bock discusses how a woman's nature were child bearing, carring for the family, and taking care of things around the house originated from Europe; but what was once seen as nature is now seen as work. I I find this very true today, because a lot of stay home mothers consider their position as a mother and care taker of the home a job, however without pay as Bock mentions an "unpaid work." (pg 9) Also on the other hand there are many women that work and women for years have competed with the men in their wages but because of their sex and not who does the job best. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Leslie M. Alexander's essay mostly discusses black women and how their history is different from that of white womens history, which it is, but in today's society of white and black women are they still that different? Is this generation of black women still largley influenced by past generations in how they view themselves as black women? She also goes on to say that in order to understand black women you have to understand the black community. (pg 21) I think understanding any comminity that in its self is a different culture you have to understand their culture and way of life before understanding that community of people. The United States is full of all kinds of culturally different people. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" I found the second point, Work v. Family interesting because it looks at "women's work" and how it relates men as the "workers" and women as "non-workers". Women who are are non working mothers are still seen as "non-workers" today. I think that the stay at home mother profession should be given more respect in the professional world. Many stay at home mothers work just as hard if not harder than those in careers outside the home. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" Castaneda discusses the problems faced by scholers of color in their work to properly show the history of thier ancestors. It was interseting that these scholars struggle to accurately portray these women and not let assumptions get in the way thier research. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What I found interesting after reading all of the essays is that I still had no idea how historians should study women's history. From what I read I got the feeling that the study of women's history had the same problem as other thematic studies of history: how do you study the history of a single facet of society without studying the history of all of the other facets? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Justin. The editor raises a very valid point in the beginning before we even approach the essays, and that is "how do you study women's history?" After reading all of the essays, it's clear that it is very difficult to lump all of women's history together to study. There are so many different aspects of women's history to take into account that it almost seems impossible to study it all at once without leaving something out. Then again, isn't that what happens with history in general? When we're taught history, ignoring that men are typically the central characters, think of how much is left out so that we can stay on task for a single semester on a topic that could seem quite specific in the first place. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
An unfortunate conclusion from "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" was the need for the undermining of an important aspect of the Women's Movement in order for Women's History in order to be properly studied. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock, I realized how much of a connection our society's conception of women has with the writing of its history: how can women's history be properly studied without first changing our perceptions of women? If the study of women's history is part of the changing of our perception of women then should we expect its study to be apolitical? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
In Kate Haukman’s essay, she talks about the difficulty of studying women without examining gender history as well. If this is the case, which Bock also believed it is, then how can it be that the study of men’s history seems often less related to gender roles? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In Bock’s essay, I found particularly interesting her comment that in today’s world we still reserve the terms “working women” and “working mother” for employed women only, overlooking, even with our language, the fact that being a mother is work. I guess this just goes to show you how truly slanted society still in is valuing men’s work over women’s. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Castaneda discusses the challenges of studying women of color. When to place a person within historical perspective, is it more important to explore their race or gender first? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In her essay, "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History," Leslie Alexander makes a statement near the end saying, "The challenge remains for us to analyze Black women through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and opression." (p.22). My question, is does anyone think that is truly possible? Most of what scholars have on Black women's history has been recorded by whites, and for a great deal of time, by white men. I believe that now we as historians should be able to look at this history through the eyes of those who experienced it, but a large chunk of this history has been warped and skewed in some way. Does anyone think it's possible to correct that? Or, regardless of the tools and resources we have today, are things always going to be interpreted in a more biased sense than they should be? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that motherhood was a natural phenomenon, however fatherhood was not seen as a natural at all. That was seen as social. Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I have always assumed that fatherhood was a natural phenomenon like motherhood despite their involvement in the social sphere. The child is just as much apart of him as it is the mother. My question is if this is because men were so involved in society there wasn't time? Or was it the fact that he could not show his nurturing/loving side? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the Dichotomies essay I found it amazing that fatherhood was seen as “social.” I always felt that motherhood and fatherhood were both ‘natural,’ but now I’m not sure. I have a feeling this was not worldwide though, since each culture is different. I’m curious how other cultures viewed mother- and fatherhood. –Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I did not realize until reading these essays just how many problems are in the field of women’s history. From the sounds of the essays there have been problems getting the field established and then getting the field of women’s history to cover all women, regardless of race and class. It sounded like it was getting better, but still has lots of room for improvement. – Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I found Bock's view of the sex and gender dichotomy to be particularly interesting. I never considered that the distincion of sex from gender would restate the nature versus nurture issue. I considered this distinction to be helpful to show that many feminine characteristics should not be considered inherent nor subordinate. Bock argues that these simple definitions only hurt by reinforcing the differences between the sexes and therefore polarizing the study of women. Like other studies of history, the study of women should be a continuous effort without the pause to separate a women's world into what is physiological from what is cultural. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
What I am already finding interesting with the study of women’s history versus other studies of history that I have made is its social and active participation in the present. I feel like the goal in my other history classes has been to recreate a time or event in the past, examine cause and effect, draw similarities, etc. but of things that happened in the past and stay in the past. Whereas so far I feel like women’s study is looking into the past as well but in the attempt to create “a change towards more freedom and justice” (Bock) in the present. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
I found Bock’s discussion of equality vs. difference really interesting. She wonders why it is that “difference” is attributed to women and “equality” to men. Which makes me wonder if establishing equality in history is the main goal of women’s history, does making it a “different” field facilitate this or just reinforce dichotomies? When the women suffragists were fighting for the right to vote they weren’t voting for a “woman’s” vote they were just looking for the right to vote. I think there are the same inherent problems that we found with segregation and the “separate but equal” philosophy. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
One question posed by Bock's essay that really stood out for me was the use of the words "equality" and "justice" when applied to separate genders. It was interesting that for men, these two words complement each other but for women, they are in opposition. The focus seems to be on their context in comparing history and then gender-focused history. In the traditional sense of history with a "male" focus, equality and justice are words with a positive focus, as words that have translated into positive action. When history is focused on women, equality and justice become negative, words that have been almost unachievable goals in that context. To me, it seems like it comes back to whether we are unwilling to look at history that shows us in an unfavorable light, just like the question with looking at racial minorities' history in America. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I never stopped to consider how feminism and women's history seems so focused on white middle-class women until I read Castaneda and Alexander's essays. There seems to be little representation of minority women when talking about American women's history. It seems like a race issue but is it more the case of white American women keeping minorities and race issues away from feminism or is it, as Alexander claims, that women, especially black women, are less concerned with their gender and more with race issues in history? --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I agree with many others who have mentioned that parenthood always seemed as if it should be natural for both parties, however it is seen as natural only for women. How much does this have to do with the unique experience of women in pregnancy? Pregnancy is a natural experience reserved only for women, which might be why women see parenthood as natural. However, for men, they do not get to experience pregnancy, and only bond with the child once it is born. This may help to create the sensation that parenthood is natural for women but not for me. --Angela Scott <br />
<br />
I found the essay "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" by Leslie M. Alexander to be both interesting and thought provoking. At one point Alexander points out that it is important to understand the Black community in order to understand the Black woman. I think that this denotes an importance of understanding culture that can be applied to studying all women. Isn't it important to understand the culture that a person comes from in order to understand the individual itself? All individuals exist within a given culture and are influenced by cultural norms and roles. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In Bock's essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found the discussion of equality v. difference very interesting. How do you decide which is more important equality or difference between the sexes? It seems as though we need to find a happy medium where we can recognize that men and women are different but equal. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Karly's comment about how our study of women's history might affect the present. In studying women's history, I wonder how prior assumptions and ideas might change in knowing the true facts behind various women's movements. --Angela Scott<br />
<br />
After reading all the essays, I have found that the field of women's history is not nearly as simplistic as I had thought. I never realized all the issues that could arise in the field of women's history, it is so much more than simply the study of women. --Angela Scott</div>Angelahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_1_Questions/Comments328--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-17T02:07:12Z<p>Angela: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is not a real post.<br />
<br />
I agree.<br />
<br />
You're both wrong. -- Sarah H.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that fatherhood was not seen as a natural thing but instead was viewed as being "social". Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I would have thought that it would have also been seen as natural for the man to also assume a fatherly role despite his involvement in the public sphere. Is this because the men were already doing so much that being a fatherly figure just couldn't always be an important role? Or is it because if they were expected to show a more emotional side of them they would be considered less of a man because they wouldn't be acting tough? - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read in "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" that some Black Women scholars feel that even today the importance of black women and their roles in society are being overlooked in the fields of women's studies! I understood that it took a little while for scholars to realize that they had to look at the difference ethnicities differently as far as their experiences in society but I had no idea that there were aspects that were still being overlooked. I also liked the statement Leslie Alexander made in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the essay that in order to truly understand the experiences of women that scholars must become willing to explore the differences of the cultures instead of simply ignoring the fact that they are different. I thought that was a very good point. - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
The theme of the four essays is to tackle the question, what is the meaning and importance in studying women’s history? In the first essay, Haulman points out that the study of women’s history has changed over time. It first focused on the measurable contributions of women to American society and then shifted to focus more on the private lives of women in their home life. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note in the second essay that Bock brings up many different theories with which to compare the role of men and women in society. When examining the dichotomies suggested it is interesting to consider not only how women have affected society but also how the norms of society influenced the role of women. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
More than one of the essays point out that many subjects in American women’s history has been concentrated on white middle class women. It is important to look at the role of culture and ethnicity in women’s studies because all of these factors affect the experiences and challenges of women in society. The study of women is not static; it is changing, and shaped by many different factors, and it is important to consider more than one. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
In the essay "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History," I found it interesting that the women's liberation movement in the United States was mainly about gender oppression. The movements were middle class white women who wrote about the history of white women in the West. Though, women of color looked towards third-world liberation movements for support instead of women's liberation movements. Only if women of all different ethnicities joined together earlier would women's rights have developed earlier? Also women of color's gender oppression was different than white women's gender oppression in that colored women had to struggle with race and class unlike white women who mostly struggled with class. --Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found it interesting in the first point Nature vs. Culture that fatherhood was not seen as natural but social. Women scholars challenged this by stating that women are therefore seen as "nature always having a social meaning" and nature and culture mean different things in different times. Women are the ones that physically have the baby, but that does not mean they have to be subject to the male sexes. Men are also taught to grow up as a strong non-emotional person. This could also be why fatherhood is seen as social instead of natural. <br />
--Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Bock discusses how a woman's nature were child bearing, carring for the family, and taking care of things around the house originated from Europe; but what was once seen as nature is now seen as work. I I find this very true today, because a lot of stay home mothers consider their position as a mother and care taker of the home a job, however without pay as Bock mentions an "unpaid work." (pg 9) Also on the other hand there are many women that work and women for years have competed with the men in their wages but because of their sex and not who does the job best. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Leslie M. Alexander's essay mostly discusses black women and how their history is different from that of white womens history, which it is, but in today's society of white and black women are they still that different? Is this generation of black women still largley influenced by past generations in how they view themselves as black women? She also goes on to say that in order to understand black women you have to understand the black community. (pg 21) I think understanding any comminity that in its self is a different culture you have to understand their culture and way of life before understanding that community of people. The United States is full of all kinds of culturally different people. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" I found the second point, Work v. Family interesting because it looks at "women's work" and how it relates men as the "workers" and women as "non-workers". Women who are are non working mothers are still seen as "non-workers" today. I think that the stay at home mother profession should be given more respect in the professional world. Many stay at home mothers work just as hard if not harder than those in careers outside the home. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" Castaneda discusses the problems faced by scholers of color in their work to properly show the history of thier ancestors. It was interseting that these scholars struggle to accurately portray these women and not let assumptions get in the way thier research. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What I found interesting after reading all of the essays is that I still had no idea how historians should study women's history. From what I read I got the feeling that the study of women's history had the same problem as other thematic studies of history: how do you study the history of a single facet of society without studying the history of all of the other facets? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Justin. The editor raises a very valid point in the beginning before we even approach the essays, and that is "how do you study women's history?" After reading all of the essays, it's clear that it is very difficult to lump all of women's history together to study. There are so many different aspects of women's history to take into account that it almost seems impossible to study it all at once without leaving something out. Then again, isn't that what happens with history in general? When we're taught history, ignoring that men are typically the central characters, think of how much is left out so that we can stay on task for a single semester on a topic that could seem quite specific in the first place. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
An unfortunate conclusion from "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" was the need for the undermining of an important aspect of the Women's Movement in order for Women's History in order to be properly studied. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock, I realized how much of a connection our society's conception of women has with the writing of its history: how can women's history be properly studied without first changing our perceptions of women? If the study of women's history is part of the changing of our perception of women then should we expect its study to be apolitical? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
In Kate Haukman’s essay, she talks about the difficulty of studying women without examining gender history as well. If this is the case, which Bock also believed it is, then how can it be that the study of men’s history seems often less related to gender roles? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In Bock’s essay, I found particularly interesting her comment that in today’s world we still reserve the terms “working women” and “working mother” for employed women only, overlooking, even with our language, the fact that being a mother is work. I guess this just goes to show you how truly slanted society still in is valuing men’s work over women’s. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Castaneda discusses the challenges of studying women of color. When to place a person within historical perspective, is it more important to explore their race or gender first? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In her essay, "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History," Leslie Alexander makes a statement near the end saying, "The challenge remains for us to analyze Black women through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and opression." (p.22). My question, is does anyone think that is truly possible? Most of what scholars have on Black women's history has been recorded by whites, and for a great deal of time, by white men. I believe that now we as historians should be able to look at this history through the eyes of those who experienced it, but a large chunk of this history has been warped and skewed in some way. Does anyone think it's possible to correct that? Or, regardless of the tools and resources we have today, are things always going to be interpreted in a more biased sense than they should be? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that motherhood was a natural phenomenon, however fatherhood was not seen as a natural at all. That was seen as social. Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I have always assumed that fatherhood was a natural phenomenon like motherhood despite their involvement in the social sphere. The child is just as much apart of him as it is the mother. My question is if this is because men were so involved in society there wasn't time? Or was it the fact that he could not show his nurturing/loving side? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the Dichotomies essay I found it amazing that fatherhood was seen as “social.” I always felt that motherhood and fatherhood were both ‘natural,’ but now I’m not sure. I have a feeling this was not worldwide though, since each culture is different. I’m curious how other cultures viewed mother- and fatherhood. –Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I did not realize until reading these essays just how many problems are in the field of women’s history. From the sounds of the essays there have been problems getting the field established and then getting the field of women’s history to cover all women, regardless of race and class. It sounded like it was getting better, but still has lots of room for improvement. – Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I found Bock's view of the sex and gender dichotomy to be particularly interesting. I never considered that the distincion of sex from gender would restate the nature versus nurture issue. I considered this distinction to be helpful to show that many feminine characteristics should not be considered inherent nor subordinate. Bock argues that these simple definitions only hurt by reinforcing the differences between the sexes and therefore polarizing the study of women. Like other studies of history, the study of women should be a continuous effort without the pause to separate a women's world into what is physiological from what is cultural. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
What I am already finding interesting with the study of women’s history versus other studies of history that I have made is its social and active participation in the present. I feel like the goal in my other history classes has been to recreate a time or event in the past, examine cause and effect, draw similarities, etc. but of things that happened in the past and stay in the past. Whereas so far I feel like women’s study is looking into the past as well but in the attempt to create “a change towards more freedom and justice” (Bock) in the present. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
I found Bock’s discussion of equality vs. difference really interesting. She wonders why it is that “difference” is attributed to women and “equality” to men. Which makes me wonder if establishing equality in history is the main goal of women’s history, does making it a “different” field facilitate this or just reinforce dichotomies? When the women suffragists were fighting for the right to vote they weren’t voting for a “woman’s” vote they were just looking for the right to vote. I think there are the same inherent problems that we found with segregation and the “separate but equal” philosophy. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
One question posed by Bock's essay that really stood out for me was the use of the words "equality" and "justice" when applied to separate genders. It was interesting that for men, these two words complement each other but for women, they are in opposition. The focus seems to be on their context in comparing history and then gender-focused history. In the traditional sense of history with a "male" focus, equality and justice are words with a positive focus, as words that have translated into positive action. When history is focused on women, equality and justice become negative, words that have been almost unachievable goals in that context. To me, it seems like it comes back to whether we are unwilling to look at history that shows us in an unfavorable light, just like the question with looking at racial minorities' history in America. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I never stopped to consider how feminism and women's history seems so focused on white middle-class women until I read Castaneda and Alexander's essays. There seems to be little representation of minority women when talking about American women's history. It seems like a race issue but is it more the case of white American women keeping minorities and race issues away from feminism or is it, as Alexander claims, that women, especially black women, are less concerned with their gender and more with race issues in history? --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I agree with many others who have mentioned that parenthood always seemed as if it should be natural for both parties, however it is seen as natural only for women. How much does this have to do with the unique experience of women in pregnancy? Pregnancy is a natural experience reserved only for women, which might be why women see parenthood as natural. However, for men, they do not get to experience pregnancy, and only bond with the child once it is born. This may help to create the sensation that parenthood is natural for women but not for me. --Angela Scott <br />
<br />
I found the essay "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" by Leslie M. Alexander to be both interesting and thought provoking. At one point Alexander points out that it is important to understand the Black community in order to understand the Black woman. I think that this denotes an importance of understanding culture that can be applied to studying all women. Isn't it important to understand the culture that a person comes from in order to understand the individual itself? All individuals exist within a given culture and are influenced by cultural norms and roles. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
In Bock's essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found the discussion of equality v. difference very interesting. How do you decide which is more important equality or difference between the sexes? It seems as though we need to find a happy medium where we can recognize that men and women are different but equal. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Karly's comment about how our study of women's history might affect the present. In studying women's history, I wonder how prior assumptions and ideas might change in knowing the true facts behind various women's movements. --Angela Scott</div>Angelahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_1_Questions/Comments328--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-17T01:57:11Z<p>Angela: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is not a real post.<br />
<br />
I agree.<br />
<br />
You're both wrong. -- Sarah H.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that fatherhood was not seen as a natural thing but instead was viewed as being "social". Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I would have thought that it would have also been seen as natural for the man to also assume a fatherly role despite his involvement in the public sphere. Is this because the men were already doing so much that being a fatherly figure just couldn't always be an important role? Or is it because if they were expected to show a more emotional side of them they would be considered less of a man because they wouldn't be acting tough? - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read in "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" that some Black Women scholars feel that even today the importance of black women and their roles in society are being overlooked in the fields of women's studies! I understood that it took a little while for scholars to realize that they had to look at the difference ethnicities differently as far as their experiences in society but I had no idea that there were aspects that were still being overlooked. I also liked the statement Leslie Alexander made in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the essay that in order to truly understand the experiences of women that scholars must become willing to explore the differences of the cultures instead of simply ignoring the fact that they are different. I thought that was a very good point. - Elizabeth L. Frank<br />
<br />
The theme of the four essays is to tackle the question, what is the meaning and importance in studying women’s history? In the first essay, Haulman points out that the study of women’s history has changed over time. It first focused on the measurable contributions of women to American society and then shifted to focus more on the private lives of women in their home life. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note in the second essay that Bock brings up many different theories with which to compare the role of men and women in society. When examining the dichotomies suggested it is interesting to consider not only how women have affected society but also how the norms of society influenced the role of women. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
More than one of the essays point out that many subjects in American women’s history has been concentrated on white middle class women. It is important to look at the role of culture and ethnicity in women’s studies because all of these factors affect the experiences and challenges of women in society. The study of women is not static; it is changing, and shaped by many different factors, and it is important to consider more than one. -- Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
In the essay "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History," I found it interesting that the women's liberation movement in the United States was mainly about gender oppression. The movements were middle class white women who wrote about the history of white women in the West. Though, women of color looked towards third-world liberation movements for support instead of women's liberation movements. Only if women of all different ethnicities joined together earlier would women's rights have developed earlier? Also women of color's gender oppression was different than white women's gender oppression in that colored women had to struggle with race and class unlike white women who mostly struggled with class. --Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In the essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found it interesting in the first point Nature vs. Culture that fatherhood was not seen as natural but social. Women scholars challenged this by stating that women are therefore seen as "nature always having a social meaning" and nature and culture mean different things in different times. Women are the ones that physically have the baby, but that does not mean they have to be subject to the male sexes. Men are also taught to grow up as a strong non-emotional person. This could also be why fatherhood is seen as social instead of natural. <br />
--Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Bock discusses how a woman's nature were child bearing, carring for the family, and taking care of things around the house originated from Europe; but what was once seen as nature is now seen as work. I I find this very true today, because a lot of stay home mothers consider their position as a mother and care taker of the home a job, however without pay as Bock mentions an "unpaid work." (pg 9) Also on the other hand there are many women that work and women for years have competed with the men in their wages but because of their sex and not who does the job best. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Leslie M. Alexander's essay mostly discusses black women and how their history is different from that of white womens history, which it is, but in today's society of white and black women are they still that different? Is this generation of black women still largley influenced by past generations in how they view themselves as black women? She also goes on to say that in order to understand black women you have to understand the black community. (pg 21) I think understanding any comminity that in its self is a different culture you have to understand their culture and way of life before understanding that community of people. The United States is full of all kinds of culturally different people. Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" I found the second point, Work v. Family interesting because it looks at "women's work" and how it relates men as the "workers" and women as "non-workers". Women who are are non working mothers are still seen as "non-workers" today. I think that the stay at home mother profession should be given more respect in the professional world. Many stay at home mothers work just as hard if not harder than those in careers outside the home. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" Castaneda discusses the problems faced by scholers of color in their work to properly show the history of thier ancestors. It was interseting that these scholars struggle to accurately portray these women and not let assumptions get in the way thier research. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What I found interesting after reading all of the essays is that I still had no idea how historians should study women's history. From what I read I got the feeling that the study of women's history had the same problem as other thematic studies of history: how do you study the history of a single facet of society without studying the history of all of the other facets? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Justin. The editor raises a very valid point in the beginning before we even approach the essays, and that is "how do you study women's history?" After reading all of the essays, it's clear that it is very difficult to lump all of women's history together to study. There are so many different aspects of women's history to take into account that it almost seems impossible to study it all at once without leaving something out. Then again, isn't that what happens with history in general? When we're taught history, ignoring that men are typically the central characters, think of how much is left out so that we can stay on task for a single semester on a topic that could seem quite specific in the first place. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
An unfortunate conclusion from "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" was the need for the undermining of an important aspect of the Women's Movement in order for Women's History in order to be properly studied. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock, I realized how much of a connection our society's conception of women has with the writing of its history: how can women's history be properly studied without first changing our perceptions of women? If the study of women's history is part of the changing of our perception of women then should we expect its study to be apolitical? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
In Kate Haukman’s essay, she talks about the difficulty of studying women without examining gender history as well. If this is the case, which Bock also believed it is, then how can it be that the study of men’s history seems often less related to gender roles? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In Bock’s essay, I found particularly interesting her comment that in today’s world we still reserve the terms “working women” and “working mother” for employed women only, overlooking, even with our language, the fact that being a mother is work. I guess this just goes to show you how truly slanted society still in is valuing men’s work over women’s. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Castaneda discusses the challenges of studying women of color. When to place a person within historical perspective, is it more important to explore their race or gender first? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
In her essay, "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History," Leslie Alexander makes a statement near the end saying, "The challenge remains for us to analyze Black women through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and opression." (p.22). My question, is does anyone think that is truly possible? Most of what scholars have on Black women's history has been recorded by whites, and for a great deal of time, by white men. I believe that now we as historians should be able to look at this history through the eyes of those who experienced it, but a large chunk of this history has been warped and skewed in some way. Does anyone think it's possible to correct that? Or, regardless of the tools and resources we have today, are things always going to be interpreted in a more biased sense than they should be? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that motherhood was a natural phenomenon, however fatherhood was not seen as a natural at all. That was seen as social. Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I have always assumed that fatherhood was a natural phenomenon like motherhood despite their involvement in the social sphere. The child is just as much apart of him as it is the mother. My question is if this is because men were so involved in society there wasn't time? Or was it the fact that he could not show his nurturing/loving side? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the Dichotomies essay I found it amazing that fatherhood was seen as “social.” I always felt that motherhood and fatherhood were both ‘natural,’ but now I’m not sure. I have a feeling this was not worldwide though, since each culture is different. I’m curious how other cultures viewed mother- and fatherhood. –Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I did not realize until reading these essays just how many problems are in the field of women’s history. From the sounds of the essays there have been problems getting the field established and then getting the field of women’s history to cover all women, regardless of race and class. It sounded like it was getting better, but still has lots of room for improvement. – Ashley W.<br />
<br />
I found Bock's view of the sex and gender dichotomy to be particularly interesting. I never considered that the distincion of sex from gender would restate the nature versus nurture issue. I considered this distinction to be helpful to show that many feminine characteristics should not be considered inherent nor subordinate. Bock argues that these simple definitions only hurt by reinforcing the differences between the sexes and therefore polarizing the study of women. Like other studies of history, the study of women should be a continuous effort without the pause to separate a women's world into what is physiological from what is cultural. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
What I am already finding interesting with the study of women’s history versus other studies of history that I have made is its social and active participation in the present. I feel like the goal in my other history classes has been to recreate a time or event in the past, examine cause and effect, draw similarities, etc. but of things that happened in the past and stay in the past. Whereas so far I feel like women’s study is looking into the past as well but in the attempt to create “a change towards more freedom and justice” (Bock) in the present. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
I found Bock’s discussion of equality vs. difference really interesting. She wonders why it is that “difference” is attributed to women and “equality” to men. Which makes me wonder if establishing equality in history is the main goal of women’s history, does making it a “different” field facilitate this or just reinforce dichotomies? When the women suffragists were fighting for the right to vote they weren’t voting for a “woman’s” vote they were just looking for the right to vote. I think there are the same inherent problems that we found with segregation and the “separate but equal” philosophy. -karly kovalcik<br />
<br />
One question posed by Bock's essay that really stood out for me was the use of the words "equality" and "justice" when applied to separate genders. It was interesting that for men, these two words complement each other but for women, they are in opposition. The focus seems to be on their context in comparing history and then gender-focused history. In the traditional sense of history with a "male" focus, equality and justice are words with a positive focus, as words that have translated into positive action. When history is focused on women, equality and justice become negative, words that have been almost unachievable goals in that context. To me, it seems like it comes back to whether we are unwilling to look at history that shows us in an unfavorable light, just like the question with looking at racial minorities' history in America. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I never stopped to consider how feminism and women's history seems so focused on white middle-class women until I read Castaneda and Alexander's essays. There seems to be little representation of minority women when talking about American women's history. It seems like a race issue but is it more the case of white American women keeping minorities and race issues away from feminism or is it, as Alexander claims, that women, especially black women, are less concerned with their gender and more with race issues in history? --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I agree with many others who have mentioned that parenthood always seemed as if it should be natural for both parties, however it is seen as natural only for women. How much does this have to do with the unique experience of women in pregnancy? Pregnancy is a natural experience reserved only for women, which might be why women see parenthood as natural. However, for men, they do not get to experience pregnancy, and only bond with the child once it is born. This may help to create the sensation that parenthood is natural for women but not for me. --Angela Scott</div>Angela 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