Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$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=Awhite4McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:11:50ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-04-21T03:40:08Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>Bob McDonnell was criticized a lot on the blogs about his interpretation of Virginia's "shared history". Some said that he was leaving out those who were not Confederates, those that left to form West Virginia, and slaves. Others argued that Governor McDonnell was just issuing a proclamation about Virginia Confederate History month in April and his proclamations should not scrutinized. What are your opinions? -avanness <br />
<br />
I think it would be neat to have an event that related to the memory of the Civil War either in a more state-run commemoration or at the University. Maybe something like an open forum or discussion, that could include academic scholars, where the average public could comment on the way they have remembered the Civil War or their opinions on its memory. It could even be something like a survey that people would fill out just to get an idea about how historians, history teachers, Civil War buffs, or people who may not be so interested in the Civil War think about it today. -avanness<br />
<br />
I noticed that the proclamation left out West Virginia leaving Virginia during the Civil War. Do you think that this is an important event that should be included in the Civil War History Month of Virginia? Or do you think that it does not fit into the larger aspect of Civil War history of Virginia? -MK<br />
<br />
I think that it would be really neat to interview people all of ages to see how people today think about, understand, and commemorate the Civil War. I think it would be really interesting to see how many people are Civil War "buffs" and how other people think about or understand the Civil War. Maybe turning these interviews into some kind of documentary would be the best format to present it. -MK<br />
<br />
Something that really struck me from McDonnell's proclamation was when he stated that after the Confederacy surrendered, they returned home to their families in peace. He definitely glosses over some of the major issues of the war (and reconstruction) and presents a simplistic version, as many of the CW blogs criticized him for. Also, while reading through some of the reactions to the proclamation, there were a lot of great points raised, especially in the comments. On Robert Moore's blog, (http://cenantua.wordpress.com), he makes the distinction between heritage over history and how passion can sometimes get the best of people. Do you think that this issue of heritage and history is going to impact the way in which states approach the sesquicentennial? Is there anyway to present a more complicated, rather than simplistic view of the war without raising concerns from groups like the NAACP who had issues in 2000 with Gov. Gilmore's proclamation? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
I like things that are more interactive and get people involved. I think if there was some way to create some Civil War 'thing' (Im hesitant to use the word "event") that was both educational and interactive, people may be attracted to it. I think its important to get people of all ages involved which is why I really like MK's idea because I think it is good to get an idea of what all types of people think about the war. -ABratchie<br />
<br />
On the Old Virginia blog, as well as in the comments sections of a couple other ones, people complained that historians wanted McDonnell to be "PC." But political correctness often protects the memory of the Confederacy, either by portraying Southerners as innocents oblivious to the evils of slavery and as having been mobilized mostly in response to a Northern invasion, or by implying that the cause of the war is still an open debate. So what are people talking about when they complain about political correctness? What version of political correctness do they mean, and why do they phrase it that way? -GStan.<br />
<br />
Finding a "good" way to commemorate the Civil War may not be the way to attract people to an event. If you hold a conference, very few will come or care. If the state financed some kind of elaborate reenactment, it would probably be inaccurate or offensive or both, but there would be a better chance of attracting people who would pay for tickets, hotels, etc. -GStan.<br />
<br />
Alright: McDonnell's first proclamation sounds like it was written by the UDC, and it was real wrong, but it it also sounds like it's something somebody would want to celebrate. The most recent one is a little more complicated, a little more correct, but it sounds just a little schizophrenic. I guess I think that maybe something like the history of the Confederacy is not the kind of thing a politician can use to promote tourism. Not without being negligent. --Erin B.<br />
<br />
I find it irritating that the governor uses the term "all Virginians" so often. All Virginians do not have a legacy of the Confederacy that they want to remember. Many of today's Virginians ancestors came after the Civil War or are not originally from Virginia to begin with. I also think that he is just further prompting the Lost Cause narrative when he says that the reason Confederate soldiers returned home was because of the "insurmountable numbers and resources" of the Union Army not just because they lost, fair and square. Basically, I think there is an enormous Lost Cause flavor to this that definitely does not represent "all Virginians." - Angie<br />
<br />
After reading Governor McDonnell's proclamation about the Civil War and the posts concerning reaction about his proclamation overall I was impressed by the proclamation and Virginia's plan for the Civil War sequicential. McDonnell is doing everything he can to try and accomodate the desires of everyone in their remebrance of the Civil War, but as the governor indicated it is an extremely hard task to accomplish. Virginia is a very diverse commonwealth and it is is hard to make everyone happy because no one shares similar views pertaining to the war. Overall I am exicited by the events that are planned to commerate the Civil War, but do you think that certain groups will feel neglated vby the events that are being planned? -Nick<br />
<br />
I think that a commemoration event should be held here in Fredericksburg that educates and discusses women's role in the Civil War and how it changed gender roles in society. I think that the majority of commemoration events deal with soldiers (mostly men) but women were greatly effected by the war. I also think the event needs to be careful to discuss all different types of women and not just white, middle class women. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-04-21T03:06:34Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>Bob McDonnell was criticized a lot on the blogs about his interpretation of Virginia's "shared history". Some said that he was leaving out those who were not Confederates, those that left to form West Virginia, and slaves. Others argued that Governor McDonnell was just issuing a proclamation about Virginia Confederate History month in April and his proclamations should not scrutinized. What are your opinions? -avanness <br />
<br />
I think it would be neat to have an event that related to the memory of the Civil War either in a more state-run commemoration or at the University. Maybe something like an open forum or discussion, that could include academic scholars, where the average public could comment on the way they have remembered the Civil War or their opinions on its memory. It could even be something like a survey that people would fill out just to get an idea about how historians, history teachers, Civil War buffs, or people who may not be so interested in the Civil War think about it today. -avanness<br />
<br />
I noticed that the proclamation left out West Virginia leaving Virginia during the Civil War. Do you think that this is an important event that should be included in the Civil War History Month of Virginia? Or do you think that it does not fit into the larger aspect of Civil War history of Virginia? -MK<br />
<br />
I think that it would be really neat to interview people all of ages to see how people today think about, understand, and commemorate the Civil War. I think it would be really interesting to see how many people are Civil War "buffs" and how other people think about or understand the Civil War. Maybe turning these interviews into some kind of documentary would be the best format to present it. -MK<br />
<br />
Something that really struck me from McDonnell's proclamation was when he stated that after the Confederacy surrendered, they returned home to their families in peace. He definitely glosses over some of the major issues of the war (and reconstruction) and presents a simplistic version, as many of the CW blogs criticized him for. Also, while reading through some of the reactions to the proclamation, there were a lot of great points raised, especially in the comments. On Robert Moore's blog, (http://cenantua.wordpress.com), he makes the distinction between heritage over history and how passion can sometimes get the best of people. Do you think that this issue of heritage and history is going to impact the way in which states approach the sesquicentennial? Is there anyway to present a more complicated, rather than simplistic view of the war without raising concerns from groups like the NAACP who had issues in 2000 with Gov. Gilmore's proclamation? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
I like things that are more interactive and get people involved. I think if there was some way to create some Civil War 'thing' (Im hesitant to use the word "event") that was both educational and interactive, people may be attracted to it. I think its important to get people of all ages involved which is why I really like MK's idea because I think it is good to get an idea of what all types of people think about the war. -ABratchie<br />
<br />
On the Old Virginia blog, as well as in the comments sections of a couple other ones, people complained that historians wanted McDonnell to be "PC." But political correctness often protects the memory of the Confederacy, either by portraying Southerners as innocents oblivious to the evils of slavery and as having been mobilized mostly in response to a Northern invasion, or by implying that the cause of the war is still an open debate. So what are people talking about when they complain about political correctness? What version of political correctness do they mean, and why do they phrase it that way? -GStan.<br />
<br />
Finding a "good" way to commemorate the Civil War may not be the way to attract people to an event. If you hold a conference, very few will come or care. If the state financed some kind of elaborate reenactment, it would probably be inaccurate or offensive or both, but there would be a better chance of attracting people who would pay for tickets, hotels, etc. -GStan.<br />
<br />
Alright: McDonnell's first proclamation sounds like it was written by the UDC, and it was real wrong, but it it also sounds like it's something somebody would want to celebrate. The most recent one is a little more complicated, a little more correct, but it sounds just a little schizophrenic. I guess I think that maybe something like the history of the Confederacy is not the kind of thing a politician can use to promote tourism. Not without being negligent. --Erin B.<br />
<br />
I find it irritating that the governor uses the term "all Virginians" so often. All Virginians do not have a legacy of the Confederacy that they want to remember. Many of today's Virginians ancestors came after the Civil War or are not originally from Virginia to begin with. I also think that he is just further prompting the Lost Cause narrative when he says that the reason Confederate soldiers returned home was because of the "insurmountable numbers and resources" of the Union Army not just because they lost, fair and square. Basically, I think there is an enormous Lost Cause flavor to this that definitely does not represent "all Virginians." - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-19T02:30:07Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>The McConnell article was interesting - even if his whole geography metaphor was kind of a stretch. The most interesting idea in terms of this class is the function of historical memory as a subject and also its evolution out of the democratized history of the 1960s. Do you agree that the study of historical memory serves in part to assign sort of a "watchdog" role to the trained historian over the proliferation of individual perceptions and stories? Do you see it as a clear evolution of the "bottom-up" history from the 1960s? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
What is the importance and influence of monuments and other physical objects in the League of the South and the Southern Party? -avanness <br />
<br />
Women were barred from the "ranks of academic historians" yet they could write sentimental fiction that many men were incapable or unable to write. What impact do you think sentimental fiction about the Civil War that was written by women had on people and the process of remembering the war? -avanness<br />
<br />
Is there a suggestion for a commemoration that Gilmore could have made that would have made everyone happy? What function does making anything like a "Confederate History Month" or a "Proclamation Honoring all Virginians..." serve? Does it serve any real function other than answering the requests of a certain group? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
What does McConnell mean by saying that Memory has geography? How was the geography of memory pertaining to the Civil War developed over the last 150 years? -Nick J<br />
<br />
I thought the Shackel piece was interesting, namely his discussion of the neo-confederate movement. He precedes this by talking about how African Americans tried to preserve their heritage which was an interesting contrast between the way the South tries to remember their heritage. Do you think that either African Americans or proponents of the Confederacy are successfully able to preserve their 'hertiage' and how far should a group of go to do so (like the League of the South)? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Shackel starts off his piece by saying that the Lost Cause and the many monuments and other commemoration materials stemmed partly from their being no political outlet for southerners to express their views in. After the Civil War, Southerners were not pushing for the restoration of their cultural heritage and values on a political field, so they turned to commemoration. If neo-confederates are coming into existence, are monuments and commemoration still needed in the South? Why are there neo-confederate politics if the Lost Cause has been such a popular movement, was that movement not enough? - Angie<br />
<br />
McConnell's piece had a lot of interesting points that we have sort of touched on throughout the semester. Towards the end of the chapter, he discusses historical memory and briefly touches on its origins. How much trust and credibility should be placed on historical memory of the Civil War? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
I really liked how McConnell discussed public space and how what goes into that public space is reflective of who is in power. If we are to look at public spaces over time and see what has changed or been placed in them (such as monuments, buildings, or even plaques) it seems as though we could make a judgement of who was in power at the time. When confederate memorials were built, it seems safe to say that Confederate sympathizers were in charge. But when a confederate flag is brought down, does that say that they are no longer in that position? In the end, public spaces seem really important to how we understand society. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-19T02:23:11Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>The McConnell article was interesting - even if his whole geography metaphor was kind of a stretch. The most interesting idea in terms of this class is the function of historical memory as a subject and also its evolution out of the democratized history of the 1960s. Do you agree that the study of historical memory serves in part to assign sort of a "watchdog" role to the trained historian over the proliferation of individual perceptions and stories? Do you see it as a clear evolution of the "bottom-up" history from the 1960s? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
What is the importance and influence of monuments and other physical objects in the League of the South and the Southern Party? -avanness <br />
<br />
Women were barred from the "ranks of academic historians" yet they could write sentimental fiction that many men were incapable or unable to write. What impact do you think sentimental fiction about the Civil War that was written by women had on people and the process of remembering the war? -avanness<br />
<br />
Is there a suggestion for a commemoration that Gilmore could have made that would have made everyone happy? What function does making anything like a "Confederate History Month" or a "Proclamation Honoring all Virginians..." serve? Does it serve any real function other than answering the requests of a certain group? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
What does McConnell mean by saying that Memory has geography? How was the geography of memory pertaining to the Civil War developed over the last 150 years? -Nick J<br />
<br />
I thought the Shackel piece was interesting, namely his discussion of the neo-confederate movement. He precedes this by talking about how African Americans tried to preserve their heritage which was an interesting contrast between the way the South tries to remember their heritage. Do you think that either African Americans or proponents of the Confederacy are successfully able to preserve their 'hertiage' and how far should a group of go to do so (like the League of the South)? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Shackel starts off his piece by saying that the Lost Cause and the many monuments and other commemoration materials stemmed partly from their being no political outlet for southerners to express their views in. After the Civil War, Southerners were not pushing for the restoration of their cultural heritage and values on a political field, so they turned to commemoration. If neo-confederates are coming into existence, are monuments and commemoration still needed in the South? Why are there neo-confederate politics if the Lost Cause has been such a popular movement, was that movement not enough? - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-04-14T01:50:46Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''NOTE: Please include name and link to Blogs you're discussing.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought this blog was interesting. I liked how it was a more of an “average joe's” perspective of the Civil War and the Sesquicentennial as opposed to a scholarly or academic viewpoint. He included a lot of various topics that revolve around the Civil War in his posts. He included, for example, a mentioning of an interview with the great great grandson of Grant, information on a sculptor who died who created the “Lone Sailor”. He also includes other topics in his posts such as baseball and and since he is also a volunteer in the Interpretation Division at Ellis Island National Monument, he does include some information about this place. What do you think about a blog that is structured in this way? If he titles the site Sesquicentennial site, is it okay that he includes posts about subjects that do not relate to the Civil War? -avanness<br />
<br />
One of the sites I looked at was the President Lincoln's Cottage blog. This was a pretty simple, informative site about Lincoln's cottage and other topics that pertain to the president. I liked how the site contained news, updates, information about the cottage and the soldiers’ home. It also included information about visiting the cottage. I noticed that a few of the posts actually contained footnotes with the posts being written by various employees who work at the cottage. It seemed to be a very formal and accurate site. Do you think the general public would be more interested in a site like this, one that is more informative and accurate or in a blog such as the one from "Strawfoot"; one from an average person who is maybe just a Civil War buff? What can you possibly take away from either? -avanness<br />
<br />
I like The Strawfoot Blog (http://thestrawfoot.wordpress.com/). It was interesting to read a northern perspective on the Civil War and how New York state is preparing for the sesquicentennial. In a lot of his posts, he mainly talks about his travels to various Civil War sites and his experiences. He doesn't seem to any apparent slant or take on the meaning of the war, which I thought was interesting. How much emphasis and credibility should be placed on Blogs such as this one, a guy who has no real professional Civil War training? What can be learned from blogs like this? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Reading through the blog Crossroads (http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/) I found a lot of Professor Simpson's (ASU) posts interesting. In one of his more recent posts about the sesquicentennial, he remarks "I view the sesquicentennial as one large educational opportunity." Would you agree that the sesquicentennial is an educational opportunity or is it simply just another 'event'? Do you think that by focusing on education rather than entertainment (and possibly even commemoration) for the sesquicentennial people will less inclined to particpate? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
One of the blogs I looked at, "Civil Warriors," (http://civilwarriors.net/wordpress/) contained a lot of random but interesting posts. The blog writers Mark Grimsley and Ethan Rafuse are currently writing books on the civil war and are using this site to interact with their potential readers and exchange information. Most of the posts have to do with current events that deal with Civil War memory, such as how Thomas P. Lowry is currently being accused of altering a Lincoln document.- aaskins<br />
<br />
I also looked at "My Old Confederate Home" (http://myoldconfederatehome.blogspot.com/), a blog kept by Rusty Williams who wrote the book ''My Old Confederate Home: a respectable place for Civil War veterans''. He posts information on the sources he used to write this book, and includes a lot of interesting anecdotes about some of the vets. My favorite story was about a vet who on his 100th birthday bought an oldsmobile and hired someone to teach him to drive. This blog is quite interesting because it focuses on the vets' everyday lives after the war, and more importantly, how they adjusted to living in veteran homes.- aaskin<br />
<br />
One of the blogs I looked at was Victoria Bynum's blog, "Renegade South" (http://renegadesouth.wordpress.com/), which goes into great detail about personal stories of various Southerners involved in the war. It is interesting to see such a level of detail for so many unknown stories. It adds depth to a lot of the stuff we've been talking about. As an added plus, ahe is currently mired in controversy with John Stauffer and Sally Jenkins, and dedicates some of her posts to insulting them or responding to their put downs, which can be found by searching for either of their names. -GStan.<br />
<br />
I read Rantings of a Civil War Historian (http://civilwarcavalry.com/) and the whole time while I was reading it, I couldn't stop thinking about our conversation about the difference between academic historians and more "popular" history writers. The guy who writes this blog, Eric Wittenburg, is an attorney from Ohio who really likes to focus on Union tactics and Gettysburg. He also kind of bashes the Lost Causers for fear that they will cause people to forget the real reason behind the war: slavery. I really want to pick up one of his books and read it just to see how he writes eg, academically or for the general public. - Angie<br />
<br />
I also looked at the Civil War Bookshelf blog (http://cwbn.blogspot.com/) which was kind of confusing. It claims to be about historiography but I really didn't find much of that. He kind of just rants on about the same Civil War topic for long periods of time. There was one interesting post, though, where he talks about the difference between "stigmatizers" and "honorers." He basically says there are two types of people: those that want to honor the legacy of the Confederacy (honorers) and those that think its completely ignorant to do so because of slavery (stigmatizers). It was just interesting to see someone actually categorize people like that. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-04-14T01:37:23Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''NOTE: Please include name and link to Blogs you're discussing.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought this blog was interesting. I liked how it was a more of an “average joe's” perspective of the Civil War and the Sesquicentennial as opposed to a scholarly or academic viewpoint. He included a lot of various topics that revolve around the Civil War in his posts. He included, for example, a mentioning of an interview with the great great grandson of Grant, information on a sculptor who died who created the “Lone Sailor”. He also includes other topics in his posts such as baseball and and since he is also a volunteer in the Interpretation Division at Ellis Island National Monument, he does include some information about this place. What do you think about a blog that is structured in this way? If he titles the site Sesquicentennial site, is it okay that he includes posts about subjects that do not relate to the Civil War? -avanness<br />
<br />
One of the sites I looked at was the President Lincoln's Cottage blog. This was a pretty simple, informative site about Lincoln's cottage and other topics that pertain to the president. I liked how the site contained news, updates, information about the cottage and the soldiers’ home. It also included information about visiting the cottage. I noticed that a few of the posts actually contained footnotes with the posts being written by various employees who work at the cottage. It seemed to be a very formal and accurate site. Do you think the general public would be more interested in a site like this, one that is more informative and accurate or in a blog such as the one from "Strawfoot"; one from an average person who is maybe just a Civil War buff? What can you possibly take away from either? -avanness<br />
<br />
I like The Strawfoot Blog (http://thestrawfoot.wordpress.com/). It was interesting to read a northern perspective on the Civil War and how New York state is preparing for the sesquicentennial. In a lot of his posts, he mainly talks about his travels to various Civil War sites and his experiences. He doesn't seem to any apparent slant or take on the meaning of the war, which I thought was interesting. How much emphasis and credibility should be placed on Blogs such as this one, a guy who has no real professional Civil War training? What can be learned from blogs like this? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Reading through the blog Crossroads (http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/) I found a lot of Professor Simpson's (ASU) posts interesting. In one of his more recent posts about the sesquicentennial, he remarks "I view the sesquicentennial as one large educational opportunity." Would you agree that the sesquicentennial is an educational opportunity or is it simply just another 'event'? Do you think that by focusing on education rather than entertainment (and possibly even commemoration) for the sesquicentennial people will less inclined to particpate? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
One of the blogs I looked at, "Civil Warriors," (http://civilwarriors.net/wordpress/) contained a lot of random but interesting posts. The blog writers Mark Grimsley and Ethan Rafuse are currently writing books on the civil war and are using this site to interact with their potential readers and exchange information. Most of the posts have to do with current events that deal with Civil War memory, such as how Thomas P. Lowry is currently being accused of altering a Lincoln document.- aaskins<br />
<br />
I also looked at "My Old Confederate Home" (http://myoldconfederatehome.blogspot.com/), a blog kept by Rusty Williams who wrote the book ''My Old Confederate Home: a respectable place for Civil War veterans''. He posts information on the sources he used to write this book, and includes a lot of interesting anecdotes about some of the vets. My favorite story was about a vet who on his 100th birthday bought an oldsmobile and hired someone to teach him to drive. This blog is quite interesting because it focuses on the vets' everyday lives after the war, and more importantly, how they adjusted to living in veteran homes.- aaskin<br />
<br />
One of the blogs I looked at was Victoria Bynum's blog, "Renegade South" (http://renegadesouth.wordpress.com/), which goes into great detail about personal stories of various Southerners involved in the war. It is interesting to see such a level of detail for so many unknown stories. It adds depth to a lot of the stuff we've been talking about. As an added plus, ahe is currently mired in controversy with John Stauffer and Sally Jenkins, and dedicates some of her posts to insulting them or responding to their put downs, which can be found by searching for either of their names. -GStan.<br />
<br />
I read Rantings of a Civil War Historian (http://civilwarcavalry.com/) and the whole time while I was reading it, I couldn't stop thinking about our conversation about the difference between academic historians and more "popular" history writers. The guy who writes this blog, Eric Wittenburg, is an attorney from Ohio who really likes to focus on Union tactics and Gettysburg. He also kind of bashes the Lost Causers for fear that they will cause people to forget the real reason behind the war: slavery. I really want to pick up one of his books and read it just to see how he writes eg, academically or for the general public. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-12T03:54:46Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the posts I came across from the cwmemory.com/archives website was from the "Teaching" category. The author of the site basically talked about one of his students who is creating a historical fiction story and wanted to use some primary sources. A comment was made about the post that argued how historical fiction novels can be such good teaching tools; they allow students to relate to the character and also teaches them facts. Do you see any negative aspects of using historical fiction to teach in school or to teach children about the past (e.g. the Civil War)? -avanness<br />
<br />
Another post from the cwmemory.com/archives section under "Slavery" was interesting. The post was about a black Confederate general, Randall Lee Gibson. He, however, did not support his African American heritage, nor did he even know about it until someone brought it to his attention. He definitely seemed like he was a racist; in that he basically supported lynching and said that the African American race was the most degrading race. I think Gibson's story does make it a little questionable as to whether or not he was anhttp://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday&action=edit actual black general or not since he didn't see himself as black nor did the town. Do you think someone who does not define themselves as African American and even is discriminatory against the race should be seen as a black Confederate general or should the he only be given the title "Confederate general"? -avanness<br />
<br />
This site (http://npsfrsp.wordpress.com/) was pretty interesting. I read a piece on Salem Church and the pictures were cool to see since now today the area looks nothing like it did in the early 20th century. The area is currently surrounded by a residential area and plenty of business. What does these new, modern landscapes take away from the memory of the Civil War? Is it okay to have battlefields and such surrounded by modernity? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
I read a piece on cwmemory.com about Lincoln and the mythology that comes with him. In his post, he talks about an interview with Thomas DiLorenzo and Thomas Woods (and has the video, too) where they list various arguments against Lincoln. He criticizes them for not being aware of the scholarship. This seems to be a reoccurring problem that comes with popular histories (and opinions). How important is it that people are aware of the scholarly literature on a topic (even if they are not a historian nor have the training)? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
On cwmemory.com, I read the post about the governor's confederate history month proclamation. I thought he made an interesting point in that the proclamation encourages people to view Virginia's Civil War history from a national perspective, instead of a Virginia-centered perspective. This would mean that slavery was a national problem, not just a Virginian one and that African Americans from VA who fought in the war defeated slavery with the help of the federal government. I disagreed with the proclamation when it was issued, but the author does make some interesting points about its wording. - Angie<br />
<br />
For today's blog post I read an interesting blog concerning Union Black soldiers. Numerous books written about Union soldiers neglects to mention black Union soldiers that participated in the Union war effort, despite them contributing greatly after 1863. Why do you think the contributions by African Americans are also ignored in the commemoration of Union soldiers? -Nick<br />
<br />
I really liked the graffiti section of the npsfrsp blog site mostly because we tend to think of graffiti as a modern sort of delinquency. These soldiers in Falmouth actually tagged different buildings where they were staying by either carving or making a stencil. It seems weird to compare Civil War soldiers with today's graffiti artists but I guess for both of them, its their way of being remembered or leaving something behind. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-12T03:43:44Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the posts I came across from the cwmemory.com/archives website was from the "Teaching" category. The author of the site basically talked about one of his students who is creating a historical fiction story and wanted to use some primary sources. A comment was made about the post that argued how historical fiction novels can be such good teaching tools; they allow students to relate to the character and also teaches them facts. Do you see any negative aspects of using historical fiction to teach in school or to teach children about the past (e.g. the Civil War)? -avanness<br />
<br />
Another post from the cwmemory.com/archives section under "Slavery" was interesting. The post was about a black Confederate general, Randall Lee Gibson. He, however, did not support his African American heritage, nor did he even know about it until someone brought it to his attention. He definitely seemed like he was a racist; in that he basically supported lynching and said that the African American race was the most degrading race. I think Gibson's story does make it a little questionable as to whether or not he was anhttp://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday&action=edit actual black general or not since he didn't see himself as black nor did the town. Do you think someone who does not define themselves as African American and even is discriminatory against the race should be seen as a black Confederate general or should the he only be given the title "Confederate general"? -avanness<br />
<br />
This site (http://npsfrsp.wordpress.com/) was pretty interesting. I read a piece on Salem Church and the pictures were cool to see since now today the area looks nothing like it did in the early 20th century. The area is currently surrounded by a residential area and plenty of business. What does these new, modern landscapes take away from the memory of the Civil War? Is it okay to have battlefields and such surrounded by modernity? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
I read a piece on cwmemory.com about Lincoln and the mythology that comes with him. In his post, he talks about an interview with Thomas DiLorenzo and Thomas Woods (and has the video, too) where they list various arguments against Lincoln. He criticizes them for not being aware of the scholarship. This seems to be a reoccurring problem that comes with popular histories (and opinions). How important is it that people are aware of the scholarly literature on a topic (even if they are not a historian nor have the training)? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
On cwmemory.com, I read the post about the governor's confederate history month proclamation. I thought he made an interesting point in that the proclamation encourages people to view Virginia's Civil War history from a national perspective, instead of a Virginia-centered perspective. This would mean that slavery was a national problem, not just a Virginian one and that African Americans from VA who fought in the war defeated slavery with the help of the federal government. I disagreed with the proclamation when it was issued, but the author does make some interesting points about its wording. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-04-07T04:31:00Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>One theme that we kind of keep coming back to and that i think Horwitz's description of Stone Mountain represents, is the difficulty in balancing political correctness with existing symbols of Confederate pride. Is there a way to balance a fair and modern approach to the history of the south while avoiding socially incendiary messages - and still end up with something meaningful? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
On page 312 Horwitz discusses that when he visited Georgia he expected to see reduced homes with charred chimneys, but once again he learned that much of what he had absorbed of the Civil War was more mythic than factual. If Sherman's march to the sea was more mythic than factual in regards to the destruction committed against the Confederate countryside, why do southerners still view Sherman one of if not the biggest Northern villains of the Civil War? What has taken place currently in Civil War memory that make southerners despite Sherman even more today than the did during the Civil Wars?-Nick<br />
<br />
As Horwitz puts it on page 317 why is the fate of prisoner of wars arguably the most neglected aspect of the Civil War? Over 400,000 men were captured during the war and thousands died of diseases due to harsh conditions at prison camps such as Andersonville.Is it because people want to remember simply neglect the pain and suffering that the prison camps symbolized and spend more of their attention on studying aspects of the war that is not as dark and upsetting?- Nick<br />
<br />
How has Montgomery handled its historical treatment of both the Confederacy and Civil Rights? Is it doing something better than other southern towns? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
In the concluding chapter, Horwitz talks about the Robert Warren Penn essay that argues that memorializing the Civil War is "the ritual of being American." Do you think this explains why people without family connections to the Civil War are still passionate about the War? -MK<br />
<br />
Why do you think that the Robinson house was not preserved as well as the Henry house? How does this change the memory of the Battle of Manassas? -MK<br />
<br />
Horwitz concentrates on Andersonville in the chapter "Still Prisoners of this War" and how in many ways the memory of the soldiers remain prisoners. Do you agree that this idea is completely applicable to the memory of the war as a whole in American history? That it is a prisoner to our interpretations? - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
<br />
Is Atlanta’s sanitation of their history justified? Would it be better if we all sanitized our memory of the Civil War? Would it shorten that memory? R.King<br />
<br />
In what way was the confederacy “an attempt to institute a strict interpretation of the Constitution”? R.King <br />
<br />
Does the fact that most Civil War battlefields are on Southern soil have anything to do with how the National Park Service chooses to interpret the sites? Is it the reason for their reluctance to talk about other aspects of those sites? R.King<br />
<br />
Was I the only one put off by Horwitz's willingness to break onto federal property at night to sleep on the front porch of the Jackson Shrine?-DR<br />
<br />
The whole idea of the Civil "Wargasm" seemed to me to be nothing short of a pilgrimage. Is this comparison a stretch, or do people like Rob Hodge really approach the Civil War with a reverence that approaches fanaticism?- DR<br />
<br />
Like MK, I also thought Horwitz's discussion of the Robert Warren Penn essay was interesting. It seems odd to me that the act of memorializing a time when America was divided and when citizens claimed allegiance to two different countries is such a large part of being an American today.- Angie<br />
<br />
In the "Prisoners of War" chapter, I think Horwitz makes a good point about how we seemed to have forgotten a large part of the war by forgetting about the prisoners of war. Not only is this important to the history of the war itself, but its also symbolic of how we have forgotten some of the dirtiest yet most significant aspects of the war. Do you think if we remembered the horrible parts of the war instead of just the romantic parts, the war would stop being so commemorated? Would that be a good or bad thing? - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-05T03:14:02Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the most interesting people Horwitz meets - and certainly one of the most provocative - was Walt, the cable-box repairing, Star Trek-loving, anti-Semitic vegetarian. Walt's extremism and white supremacist ideas evolved out of the tumultuous politics of the 1960s and a lack of faith in government. For Walt, the Confederacy represented subjected peoples around the world and he fit them into an obsessive, self-deduced picture of the conspiracies that run the world. Naturally, Walt is a crazy person, but does this progression from the unrest of the 1960s to a neoconfederate position have some kind of linear path? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
How does the grandson of a Russian Jew from "between Minsk and Pinsk" get interested in the Confederacy? R.King<br />
<br />
On page 149 Shelby Foote talks about the "difference between North and South", is this 'difference' why the South still clings to the memory of the Civil War and believes such a distorted history of the event? R. King<br />
<br />
While Horwitz is in Vicksburg, he notices a different kind of racial divide than he saw in some other places. What is different about the culture of Vicksburg? Or is any place in the South a Guthrie waiting to happen? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
When Horwitz is talking to the African American preacher Michael King, he asks him "if there was any way that white Southerns to honor their forebears without insulting his." King responded with: "Remember you ancestors, but remember what they fought for too. and recognize it was wrong." (pg. 44) I was just curious what yall's thoughts on this was... -MK <br />
<br />
In Chapter 6, Horwitz is at the reenactment of the Battle of Wilderness. He discusses some of the draws for reenactors to either fight for the North or South. One of the reasons for siding with the South was "Americans' instinctive allegiance to underdogs." (pg. 136) How much do you think this plays into the general public's minds about the South? -MK<br />
<br />
Before reading this book, I never realized how hardcore some Confederate re-enactors really were, although it does seem to be the select few. These guys, like Hodge, try really hard to get everything exactly right and are willing to re-enact in the dreariest of weather conditions. It makes me wonder, if they try so hard to get the clothes, rations, and battles exactly right, do they try really hard to get the political or social history of the war right as well? - Angie<br />
<br />
After our recent discussion of the Confederate battle flag, the section on Michael Westerman, the man with the flag on his truck who was killed in Kentucky, really struck me. I think that this shooting really shows how controversial and dangerous this symbol has become. Horwitz says that during the war, the majority of that county did not even support the Confederacy. The flag seemed to have no real history in the place, yet it became an enormous problem anyways. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-03-31T04:18:21Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>The movie Glory came out during a time (1989) when more of the social aspects of the Civil War were beginning to become more prevalent throughout the scholarly literature about the war. The movie focuses on the African Americans who made up the 54th Massachusetts regiment and told the story of their contributions of Union soldiers. Do you think there is a reason that not too many other films were created that solely focused on African Americans' contributions during the war? Is this film a sufficient-enough source to sum up their experiences during the war? -avanness <br />
<br />
Ken Burns created the series ''The Civil War'' which propelled much criticism. Some of the reasons given in the article for the criticism were his unbalanced focus on the eastern and western fronts during the war, the lack of depth on the discussion of generals (he basically only focused on Lee, Grant, and Sherman), and, like so many Lost Cause authors, he contributed the Confederates' defeat with the enemy's material strength. Why do you think Ken Burns chose to create the series in the way he did? Why did he limit many of his sources to mere memoirs that were full of inaccuracies rather than additionally researching the expansive amount of scholarly literature written on the subject? -avanness<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how ''Glory'' seemed to gloss-over some important aspects about Shaw, such as his decision to take charge of the unit in the first place. Do you think this downplaying of certain historical aspects was crucial for a film like ''Glory''? Do you think the movie would have been less successful if it did not do this? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
I too, like Amy, wondered why Burns would not research using the academic sources that were readily available to him. I think that if he had done that, though, the series may not have received the praise it did from non-academic magazines (and the public, of course). I do question, however, what important aspects of the Civil War were lost since he did not consult a large variety of scholarly sources? How would this have possibly changed the results of the series and critique from academics? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Was "Glory" a good movie because it "reshaped the parameters of the Vietnam conventions and reinvented a notably absent moral worldview" or was it successful because it was simply a good movie? R.King<br />
<br />
Who was Burn's target audience? Did the "The Civil War" meet the expectations of that audience? R.King<br />
<br />
Cullen chooses an interesting quote to lead into his discussion of pro and anti-war sentiment in film. "America is to thee, thou boasted land of liberty, it is to thee I raise my song, thou land of blood, of crime and wrong" (James Whitfield). I know it is hard to generalize Civil War movies, but do you feel that as a genre they portray the "land of liberty," or the "land of blood, of crime and wrong"?- aaskins<br />
<br />
In the article on Burn's ''The Civil War'', the author mentions that any documentary that did not place the military event at center stage could be charged with distortion (pp 247). However, isn't there the most potential for distortion in the depiction of the military event? Or do you feel that by shifting the focus on other things, the portrayal can be better warped?- aaskins<br />
<br />
The article of Burn's ''The Civil War'' mentions that Burns displayed simplistic interpretations of key figures, especially the generals. Do you think this truly had an effect on how people understand the Civil War? -MK<br />
<br />
Where is the line drawn between historically accurate films and entertainment? Can a line be drawn? -MK<br />
<br />
Cullen brings up that in ''Glory'' African-Americans who became soldiers are portrayed as becoming men as well. Previously, African-Americans had been portrayed as childlike and dependent. The movie portrays this as a positive thing, while many other Civil War movies portray this as a negative aspect of becoming a soldier because it can also be seen as a loss of innocence. Why do you think the "Glory" filmmakers thought it was important to show a different perspective on what it meant to become a soldier? -angie<br />
<br />
I think that Gallagher's article about Burns' documentary was a little harsh. I understand that maybe he over-simplified things or did not give enough time to other important military campaigns and spent too much time on Gettysburg, but maybe he was more concerned about making a documentary that people would be interested in than one that was intricately detailed. His was already incredibly long, so it would probably take forever to watch a documentary that included every small detail. Furthermore, I think if any of the film reflected Lost Cause opinions (Gallagher claims this of his description of Lee), then Burns (who is from the North) probably did that on purpose. He wants the largest audience possible, so of course he would try to appeal to the South. - angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-03-31T04:04:53Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>The movie Glory came out during a time (1989) when more of the social aspects of the Civil War were beginning to become more prevalent throughout the scholarly literature about the war. The movie focuses on the African Americans who made up the 54th Massachusetts regiment and told the story of their contributions of Union soldiers. Do you think there is a reason that not too many other films were created that solely focused on African Americans' contributions during the war? Is this film a sufficient-enough source to sum up their experiences during the war? -avanness <br />
<br />
Ken Burns created the series ''The Civil War'' which propelled much criticism. Some of the reasons given in the article for the criticism were his unbalanced focus on the eastern and western fronts during the war, the lack of depth on the discussion of generals (he basically only focused on Lee, Grant, and Sherman), and, like so many Lost Cause authors, he contributed the Confederates' defeat with the enemy's material strength. Why do you think Ken Burns chose to create the series in the way he did? Why did he limit many of his sources to mere memoirs that were full of inaccuracies rather than additionally researching the expansive amount of scholarly literature written on the subject? -avanness<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how ''Glory'' seemed to gloss-over some important aspects about Shaw, such as his decision to take charge of the unit in the first place. Do you think this downplaying of certain historical aspects was crucial for a film like ''Glory''? Do you think the movie would have been less successful if it did not do this? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
I too, like Amy, wondered why Burns would not research using the academic sources that were readily available to him. I think that if he had done that, though, the series may not have received the praise it did from non-academic magazines (and the public, of course). I do question, however, what important aspects of the Civil War were lost since he did not consult a large variety of scholarly sources? How would this have possibly changed the results of the series and critique from academics? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Was "Glory" a good movie because it "reshaped the parameters of the Vietnam conventions and reinvented a notably absent moral worldview" or was it successful because it was simply a good movie? R.King<br />
<br />
Who was Burn's target audience? Did the "The Civil War" meet the expectations of that audience? R.King<br />
<br />
Cullen chooses an interesting quote to lead into his discussion of pro and anti-war sentiment in film. "America is to thee, thou boasted land of liberty, it is to thee I raise my song, thou land of blood, of crime and wrong" (James Whitfield). I know it is hard to generalize Civil War movies, but do you feel that as a genre they portray the "land of liberty," or the "land of blood, of crime and wrong"?- aaskins<br />
<br />
In the article on Burn's ''The Civil War'', the author mentions that any documentary that did not place the military event at center stage could be charged with distortion (pp 247). However, isn't there the most potential for distortion in the depiction of the military event? Or do you feel that by shifting the focus on other things, the portrayal can be better warped?- aaskins<br />
<br />
The article of Burn's ''The Civil War'' mentions that Burns displayed simplistic interpretations of key figures, especially the generals. Do you think this truly had an effect on how people understand the Civil War? -MK<br />
<br />
Where is the line drawn between historically accurate films and entertainment? Can a line be drawn? -MK<br />
<br />
Cullen brings up that in ''Glory'' African-Americans who became soldiers are portrayed as becoming men as well. Previously, African-Americans had been portrayed as childlike and dependent. The movie portrays this as a positive thing, while many other Civil War movies portray this as a negative aspect of becoming a soldier because it can also be seen as a loss of innocence. Why do you think the "Glory" filmmakers thought it was important to show a different perspective on what it meant to become a soldier? -angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-29T02:49:41Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Chadwick's article, he mentions that Griffith never truly understood the impact of ''Birth of a Nation.'' Do you believe that? -MK <br />
<br />
In Gallagher's article- he says that it yet to be seen whether or not the Lost Cause will be vanquished in modern-day films about the Civil War. Do you think that the Lost Cause rhetoric still plays a big role in people's memory and understanding of the Civil War or has it pretty much faded out? -MK<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 134, Bruce Chadwick explains how many critics and ministers believed Birth of a Nation to be a true story. Many argued for a mandatory showing of the movie in schools and parents should also take their children to see this film; "any parent who neglects this advice is committing an educational offense." How do you think making this a mandatory showing could influence children's and others' thoughts about the Civil War and reconstruction? Keep in mind how Margaret Mitchell was influenced by the movie. -avanness<br />
<br />
What problems or issues can arise when adapting a novel to a film? For example, Margaret Mitchell wrote her novel geared more towards a Southern white audience. Filmmakers thought this "confederate view" could interfere with the romance of the film so changes were made. The most prevalent being the subject of race. -avanness<br />
<br />
Chadwick says that many critics of "Birth of a Nation" argued that it completely (and obviously) ignored the real history of the war. He then goes on to say that this did not matter, because audiences were more concerned with the romantic portrayal of the war anyways. Why do you think audiences cared more about the romanticism? Why didn't they want or care about having more accurate information? - Angie<br />
<br />
In Gallagher's article, I found the difference between the portrayal of slaves in the lost cause films and anti-lost cause films incredible. I always assumed that the portrayal and perception of their role in the war had changed gradually, but it actually did not. In fact, in 1959, there was a film put out about loyal slaves and in 1965 there was a film about anti-slave southerners. The change seems to be abrupt and dramatic. Gallagher attributes it to the Civil Rights movement and Act of 1964, which makes complete sense. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-29T02:41:28Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Chadwick's article, he mentions that Griffith never truly understood the impact of ''Birth of a Nation.'' Do you believe that? -MK <br />
<br />
In Gallagher's article- he says that it yet to be seen whether or not the Lost Cause will be vanquished in modern-day films about the Civil War. Do you think that the Lost Cause rhetoric still plays a big role in people's memory and understanding of the Civil War or has it pretty much faded out? -MK<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 134, Bruce Chadwick explains how many critics and ministers believed Birth of a Nation to be a true story. Many argued for a mandatory showing of the movie in schools and parents should also take their children to see this film; "any parent who neglects this advice is committing an educational offense." How do you think making this a mandatory showing could influence children's and others' thoughts about the Civil War and reconstruction? Keep in mind how Margaret Mitchell was influenced by the movie. -avanness<br />
<br />
What problems or issues can arise when adapting a novel to a film? For example, Margaret Mitchell wrote her novel geared more towards a Southern white audience. Filmmakers thought this "confederate view" could interfere with the romance of the film so changes were made. The most prevalent being the subject of race. -avanness<br />
<br />
Chadwick says that many critics of "Birth of a Nation" argued that it completely (and obviously) ignored the real history of the war. He then goes on to say that this did not matter, because audiences were more concerned with the romantic portrayal of the war anyways. Why do you think audiences cared more about the romanticism? Why didn't they want or care about having more accurate information? - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-29T02:41:18Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Chadwick's article, he mentions that Griffith never truly understood the impact of ''Birth of a Nation.'' Do you believe that? -MK <br />
<br />
In Gallagher's article- he says that it yet to be seen whether or not the Lost Cause will be vanquished in modern-day films about the Civil War. Do you think that the Lost Cause rhetoric still plays a big role in people's memory and understanding of the Civil War or has it pretty much faded out? -MK<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 134, Bruce Chadwick explains how many critics and ministers believed Birth of a Nation to be a true story. Many argued for a mandatory showing of the movie in schools and parents should also take their children to see this film; "any parent who neglects this advice is committing an educational offense." How do you think making this a mandatory showing could influence children's and others' thoughts about the Civil War and reconstruction? Keep in mind how Margaret Mitchell was influenced by the movie. -avanness<br />
<br />
What problems or issues can arise when adapting a novel to a film? For example, Margaret Mitchell wrote her novel geared more towards a Southern white audience. Filmmakers thought this "confederate view" could interfere with the romance of the film so changes were made. The most prevalent being the subject of race. -avanness<br />
<br />
Chadwick says that many critics of "Birth of a Nation" argued that it completely (and obviously) ignored the real history of the war. He then goes on to say that this did not matter, because audiences were more concerned with the romantic portrayal of the war anyways. Why do you think audiences cared more about the romanticism? Why didn't they want or care about having more accurate information?</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-22T03:37:38Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>In every chapter, Desjardin refers back to this idea of the "mythology" of the Civil War and how it has been shaped by the reinterpretations of the public memory of the war. Do you think that Gettysburg is the perfect symbolism for the "mythology" of the Civil War? -MK <br />
<br />
I too, noticed that Desjardin mentioned the myths behind Gettysburg. Do you think this mythology comes from a lack of fully understanding exactly what the battle and battlefield meant to those soldiers who were actually there? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Do you think that National Parks and Civil War battlefields should explain more of the history behind how and why a particular marker or monument came to be placed at specific sites? Does there need to be more historical justification for these memorials? -MK<br />
<br />
If Farley wanted to reshape the memory of Little Round Top so much why didn't he try to talk himself up like all the men who supposedly shot Reynolds? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Had anyone else not heard of Sickles before? Maybe it's because I have not read enough Civil War things but I don't remember hearing about him before and he seems like a pretty memorable guy. It seems to me like his attempts to get his story to stick did not work too well in the long run. - Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
On page 45, Desjardin refers to a collective "historical inferiority" complex suffered by Americans. This is an idea that I feel, represents a lot of the popular understanding of the Civil War, especially in terms of the themes we have studied in this class. Americans were eager, soon after the war, to begin celebrating the big History, with a capital H, and Gettysburg seemed to be the closest thing. Do you think, for example, that Southerners may have been compensating for something with all of those statues? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
The story about Bachelder's attempt to record the complete account of the battle is extremely interesting. While he was definitely misled and confused by the numerous differing and contradictory accounts from veterans, he seemed to have his own motivation to manipulate some of the facts and to redirect emphasis. Was this strictly a money-making/legacy-building endeavor, or is it more likely that he was looking at his project as an artist and not an historian? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
Desjardin talks about how the battle of Gettysburg is full of legend and folklore that stems from the first-hand accounts of the people who actually experienced the war. Do you think it's a problematic that a major battle in the Civil War has created many contradictions and myths even in the literature? What are the effects of this creation? -avanness<br />
<br />
How can we as historians make sense out of the veterans' accounts of their experiences in battle when Desjardin claims the memories are full of "confusion, embellishment, [and] deception..." on page 47? -avanness<br />
<br />
How can we as historians write ANY history of the battle at Gettysburg if all accounts are suspect? R.King<br />
<br />
This theme of chroniclers writing the story that they wanted to has been evident throughout our readings this semester. How can anyone write a "true" history of the Civil War if the truth doesn't exist? -R.King<br />
<br />
Why do you think Gettysburg has elicited so many different interpretations and meanings that are more flawed than accurate (according toe Dejardin? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Last class we mentioned several "what if" scenarios and what one historian claimed could have been done with all the money spent on the Civil War. In our reading, the author discusses how Congress appropriated $50,000 for one written history on the battle of Gettysburg. This sum is shocking to me for several reasons: 1. that the government would commission the written history (this is problematic in terms of objectivity), 2. that they would propose such a large amount (especially after such a costly war), and 3. that it would be entirely on Gettysburg (rather than on the Civil War as a whole). What was your reaction? - aaskins<br />
<br />
Desjardin mentions the National Park Service's role in representing U.S. history. In a particular incident, he quotes the Sons of Confederate Veterans who said that the NPS should "return to its unaligned and apolitical policies of the past, presenting history, not opinions." In my research for my paper, I obtained an official NPS booklet from the 1970s on Andersonville prison camp. I found it odd that the NPS plays such a prominent role in the standardization of Civil War memory. I was also surprised that (at least in my source) there did not seem to be a particular slant. Is this generally true of NPS's role in Civil War memory?- aaskins<br />
<br />
We have always been taught that historians use primary sources for evidence. They use them to prove that their thesis is true. So what happens, like in the case of personal accounts of Gettysburg, if the primary sources themselves are suspect? I think that it would lead to a thesis not being so simple. Scholars would definitely have to undertake the question of why the sources were embellished in the first place. - Angie<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how the media influenced what people remembered and celebrated, just like it does today. Desjardin gives the example of Pickett’s charge and how it’s remembered as a Virginian affair because he and his men were from the area around Richmond, which was a media capital. Obviously, the stories that the media chose to report are those that the people heard of and therefore became famous. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-03-10T02:16:05Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>Coski describes numerous compromises in the South regarding the Confederate flag. With a symbol as emotionally charged as the Confederate flag, is compromise acceptable?- aaskins<br />
<br />
If public display of the confederate flag was to be banned, which of the following two reactions would be most likely: <br />
1. support for the flag would surge and incite greater conflict OR<br />
2. people would move past the issue, and learn to forget.<br />
-aaskins<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how people began to cite different hypocrisies in school systems that tried to ban the Confederate Flag. Do you think school systems were right in trying to ban the flag or do you think it just caused more problems? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
We talked about this a little on Tuesday, but Coski discusses the meaning of the Confederate Flag overseas in Europe. He states "the Europeans have grasped something that Americans take for granted: the Confederate flag is fundamentally an American Flag" (293). Do you agree with his statement in that American's take the Confederate Flag for granted as an American Flag? Do you think it is an American Flag? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
The Battle Flag has been compared to many other symbols that have been perceived as intolerant, like the swastika or even symbols of black power. Are some of these more apt than others? Is there an absolute line that can be drawn between what it is comporable to and what it isn't, one rooted in history? Or is it all relative? -GStan.<br />
<br />
I thought the controversy that involved the college student named Kerrigan who hung her confederate flag out her window on campus was interesting. If she told people she did this because it reminded her of home and her heritage why did people continue to be defensive about the matter and insist her actions were inappropriate? -avanness<br />
<br />
Do defenders of the Confederate flag have a right to be able to fly the flag in public because of the first amendment? Are their rights being violated? -avanness<br />
<br />
I left the section about tolerance (or lack there of) for the battle flag in public schools feeling rather confused. I think that the courts generally did the right thing in protecting the rights of the minority against intimidation but there are some cases, like the middle school kid who got suspended for drawing a Confederate flag in his notebook, that seem a little ridiculous. It seems like some schools are censoring before there was really even an issue, because they think the flag is inherently racist. Which brings us to the debate of whether or not the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism or a heritage symbol… or both? I’m really not sure what I think. - Angie<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that groups like the SCV and UDC tried to distance themselves quite far from the Klan. When they were campaigning to keep the battle flag at the Capitol in Alabama, it was their worst fear that the Klan would start campaigning for it as well because that would just prove to everyone that it really was a racial symbol. They were both campaigning for the flag to stay but for completely different reasons. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-02-24T02:51:55Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought the conversation Ferguson had with the man, Robert, at the conference was interesting. In particular, "Southerners accepted Jim Crow only with the greatest reluctance, he told me. Segregation was a response to demands from the Northern businessmen following the Civil War," was an idea I have not heard of. I wonder, do you think this is a more modern argument on the side of the South to defend their reasons as to why they created such strict segregation laws or was this what "Lost Causers" and Southerners would have claimed even in the late 1800s? -avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
How do you think the smaller Lincoln memorial in Richmond and the grand statue of Abe Lincoln in Washington, D.C. differ in their effectiveness and meaning for people? What was the purpose behind creating one so large and one that sat among the people? -avanness<br />
<br />
On page 65 Ferguson discusses how William Petersen wrote ''''Lincoln-Douglas: The Weather as Destiny'''', which tied Lincoln's behavior to the weather. I found this to be very interesting and was wondering what do you think Lincoln's mood/ behavior would be in certain kinds of weather? Also does weather actually have any effect on our mood? -Nick J<br />
<br />
This book immediately, and throughout, reminded me of Confederates in the Attic. I know it has not been assigned yet, but for those of us who have already ready it, I think it bears mentioning that the authors write very similarly. They even describe how they were obsessed with the Civil War when they were little (different sides though!) and how it faded away when they were teens. Furthermore, they both spend their book on a quest to find out the real meaning behind America’s obsession with these Civil War figures. I feel like they are practically the same book, just dealing with different sides. – Angie<br />
<br />
I found it interesting, but not surprising, that it was elites who wanted to put the statue of Abe and Tad in Richmond. They were even southern elites who defended the honor of the Confederacy, like the Dabney fellow. Why does this socioeconomic class tend to be more reconciliationist than others? They were ones who essentially owned the South during the Civil War anyways. Why aren’t they as offended by a Northern statue in the Confederate capitol? – Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-02-22T01:39:06Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>I think the way in which the author of the essay in Fahs and Waugh tries to explain the highly romanticized Lee by Jubal Early and Douglass Southall Freeman is interesting. The author basically says that the Lost Cause ideology has remained because most of its components are based on truths. This includes the number of Union soldiers that exceeded the amount of soldiers the Confederacy had. Do you think the Lost Cause is something that could eventually die out because of the fact that certain historians and scholars have exposed its myths or do you think it is too much a part of Southerner's memory and Civil War memory in general? -avanness <br />
<br />
Going off of Amy's question, do you think that the Lost Cause views of Lee that emerged in society should be taken as truths? Also, I found it interesting how some Northerners (both during and immediately after the war) seemed to like the interpretations of Lee that were favorable. What do you think accounted to this and who would have fit into this category (clearly not all Northerners had similar opinions). -ABratchie<br />
<br />
In "A Tree is Best Measured When It's Down," the author discusses the way in which FDR uses Lincoln to get through the Depression. How do you think he accomplishes this and do you think political leaders might still use Lincoln and his presidency to think about political matters today or was this only something that might have been beneficial during the 1930s because of its close proximity to the Civil War and the time of Lincoln's presidency? -avanness<br />
<br />
The piece "Shaping Public Memory of the Civil War" written by Gary W. Gallagher raises numerous important questions about the ways Confederate general Jubal A. Early and historian Douglass Freeman influenced the way Americans have understood the Confederacy and the Civil War. Why did Early and Freeman write about Lee so frequently? Also how did Early and Freeman shape the literature about the Confederacy and public understanding of Lee? -Nick J<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Cullen article, Sandburg is described as writing during the “golden age of Lincoln Culture.” (p.42) Earlier though, it discussed how portraits and anecdotal stories were being published as early as the 1880s. It also discusses how Lincoln was used by Roosevelt and others to help deal with the depression. But why do you think interest in Lincoln remained so strong for so long? How many biographies were really necessary for the country to get their fill of the Union President? - Angie<br />
<br />
<br />
Its interesting, especially in the case of Mercie’s Lee Monument, how controversial the distinction between “art” and “truth” could be. Of course a sculptor or artists of other materials would want to put their own artistic spin on their projects but the people commissioning the project wanted their hero to be portrayed their way. In the end, the people with the money won out, but I wonder how often an artist’s interpretation differed from what the commissioner wanted. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-02-17T02:56:36Z<p>Awhite4: New page: In Woodrow Wilson’s speech, he repeatedly talks about how the 50 years since the Civil War have been “peaceful” and have been “without class or difference of kind or race or origin...</p>
<hr />
<div>In Woodrow Wilson’s speech, he repeatedly talks about how the 50 years since the Civil War have been “peaceful” and have been “without class or difference of kind or race or origin.” It seems like he is talking about a completely different country considering violence against African Americans was at its height in the 50 years after the war. Its not surprising, as Blight points out, that African Americans were opposed to reunions such as these. I wouldn’t want to listen to an idealized memory that was fundamentally false either. - Angie<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that while the general theme in the North after the war was to move on, McKinley’s campaign actually brought up the war in order to win. They compared the masses that were marching for federal aid to those rebellious Southerners of the Civil War. Basically, if someone was disturbing the peacefulness of union, then they were akin to a Confederate. I guess this shows that the North really hadn’t forgotten the war and were willing to use it for their convenience. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-02-10T02:20:35Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>The textbook war waged by the UCV and the UDC had the interesting outcome of causing Northern publishers to pander to Southern narratives out of fear of a boycott of their products. This is a good illustration of the issues of the Civil War simply meaning more to the South than it did to the North. I wonder, though, if these discrepancies were ever noted by Northern schoolchildren in any way nearly approaching that of Southern school children. – Erin B.<br />
<br />
Do you read the trends in juvenile Civil War fiction in the 1880s as an attempt to instill the ideals they supported (white supremacy, white reconciliation, etc.) or were the writers simply responding to the market? – Erin B.<br />
<br />
The issue over the "truthful" history of the Civil has been a common link between all the various readings this week, especially in McPherson's essay concerning textbooks. He mentions how Rutherford created her own "facts" surrounding the Civil War which were completely false. How do you think this push by the South to embody the Lost Cause rhetoric in textbooks has affected the memory of the war today? Also, do you think these "facts" presented by Rutherford should be considered as historical interpretations of the war despite their untruthfulness? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
<br />
I have never learned about some of the beliefs that Grant had about the Civil War that he wrote in "Report to Congress." In particular, Grant said that South's advantages offset Northern superiority and that Northern soldiers fought just as well and under more difficult circumstances to that of the South. Do you agree with these statements? Do you think the South really did have more advantages in the war or was this just a ploy by Grant to get people to believe the North had to work harder in order to win? -Avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
To add to our conversation from Tuesday, the essay in Fahs and Waugh on textbooks talked about how veterans wanted to keep the "Confederate heritage alive through children of veterans." Do you think these textbooks and the push to get the "correct" history of the war written down from the South's perspective are two reasons as to why the Lost Cause view is still around today and just as popular especially in the South? Were the ex-Confederates trying to create a legacy they knew would continue to be alive more than 100 years later because of their children and future relatives? -Avanness<br />
<br />
Waugh talks about Grant's ability to write "clear and forceful battle reports" and how this was the same for when he was writing his memoirs. Do you think that his ability to make himself look successful makes his autobiography more of a work of fiction? -MK<br />
<br />
In the trends of the children's books, Fahs argues that both Optic and Page used notions of white supremacy and white reconciliation and how because of this African Americans were typically left out. Do you think that the only way for the Union to reconcile was through the ideology of white supremacy? -MK<br />
<br />
Why do you think many of the Southern monuments allude to the Romans and Greeks? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Are there any other Civil War Memorials/Monuments dedicated to noncombatants. Is John Calhoun's in Charleston the only one? What might have prevented the creation of other memorials like his? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Why was Grant afraid of leaving the legacy of the war in politicians' hands? How would/could they have altered the legacy? Is his fear unfounded?- Aaskins<br />
<br />
"Truth was derived from facts but not dependent upon them." (pp. 21) Both Waugh and McPherson touch upon this theme of revealing the "true" history. But Waugh emphasizes that Grant's memoir was perceived (at least by his fans) as the correct version of the Civil War. Is he presenting the truth (as he claims is his purpose) or is this merely another example of derived-truth?- Aaskins<br />
<br />
McPherson and Fahs discuss the relationship between Civil War memory and children through memorial services and literature. One thing that wasn't mentioned is the trend of naming children (and grandchildren) after Civil War figures. Has this been effective in creating "living monuments" as McPherson discusses? Is the name-legacy still prevalent (and if so, is it more for southern memory or northern)? Is it an effective method of instilling Civil War appreciation in descendants of veterans?- Aaskins<br />
<br />
In Waugh’s article about Grant’s memoirs, she discusses how Grant was aiming to set the record straight and tell the world the “truth” about why the war was fought. Similarly, the South was attempting to do the same thing, but their “truth” was quite different. Why did Grant and his truth fall to the wayside when up against the South and their truth? - Angie<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in Fahs article how the themes in children’s civil war stories changed from during the war to after the war. For example, during the war, wealth was portrayed as a negative characteristic, but afterwards it was a good characteristic. It’s not surprising that people’s priorities change as the country changes, but I do find it surprising that stories from the same author and about the same event can have such different themes in them. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-02-08T04:31:16Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>The soldiers who wrote pieces for magazines such as the ''Confederate Veteran'' included a lot of stories or war memories that related to or tied into reconciliation. Blight even stated that reconciliation and fraternalism dominated a lot of the ex-soldiers memories. Since these stories and memories were all written down, I was wondering if you think the idea for reconciliation, at least among the soldiers, would have come as quickly if the veterans had never received the opportunity to write for the magazines? -Avanness<br />
<br />
I was a little surprised to read repeatedly how proponents of the Lost Cause believed and stated that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. They argued that secession from the Union was the main cause for the South's participation in the war. People who believed in the Lost Cause even ended up rejecting people like John Mosby who was against reunion and was adamant about claiming slavery was the cause of the war. Why do you think this was? Do you think the South was really just trying to save their image or were they really ready for reconciliation with the North? -Avanness<br />
<br />
I was also surprised to see how persistent Lost Causers advocated that the war had been about secession, not slavery. Blight talks about how the Lost Cause idea itself transformed, and race was the most commonly left out. What advantages did this have for Southerners and reconciliation? How do you think memory would have changed if race and slavery had been incorporated into the Lost Cause? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
In Chapter 6, most of the veterans’ recollections and assessments of battle and the war in general became popular about twenty years after the war. Blight mentions that for many of the soldiers, dwelling on some of the raw memories in the years just following the war was simply too painful, but then later in the chapter suggests some other reasons that celebrating the valor of the soldiers gained common appreciation across sections. What caused the nationwide decline in race relations in the last decades of the century? – Erin B.<br />
<br />
Blight quotes Robert S. Dabney on pg 263 as having written that "Yankees would ultimately meet their just fate...'in the day of their calamity, in pages of impartial history, and in the Day of Judgment.'" Harsh words. Do you think that religion played a larger role in understanding the effects of the war in South than in the North? What kind of a role did it play in South? -- Erin B.<br />
<br />
Blight talks extensively about soldiers memories in ''Century'' Magazine. Most of those memories, however, came from famous generals, not "many ordinary voices" (179). What do you think the impact of those memories was on society and what do you think was lost from the recollections that were omitted from the issues? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Blight talked how Civil War veterans wanted to pass along the virtues of the soldiers down to the next generation. Do you think this motivated more veterans to write about their war experience and join memorialization organizations? - MK<br />
<br />
I found Blight's description of Civil War memory as a national pastime very interesting. What were other people's reaction to this statement? -MK<br />
<br />
"The former soldiers were the living reminders that the current society, however drab and materialistic, had evolved out of a more heroic time." This quote says very clearly something that we have discussed a great deal, and it also gives us an idea of how quickly the times changed from the heroic romanticized era to a more common time. How often did these events involving the civil war veterans occur? AJ L.<br />
<br />
Why were magazines like ''Century'' so opposed to publishing the real horror stories from the war? Blight discusses how it opposed the reconciliation theme, but why weren’t people interested in knowing what really happened to the soldiers who were imprisoned in war camps and the like? - Angie<br />
<br />
On page 275, Blight tells us how a southerner named Albert Morton attended both a UCV and a GAR parade. Morton says that the Confederate parade was fun and lively while the Union memorial parade was “wooden” and almost apathetic. While the observation is presumably biased since he was a southerner, it still seems ironic that the Northern parade (the victors) would be less celebratory than the southerners (the losers). Did the North really care so little about memorializing their victory? - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-01-27T03:59:32Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>Memorial Day was founded by African Americans in Charleston. However, as the holiday became national, African Americans were usually left out of the rhetoric used in speeches on Memorial Day, which usually spoke to reconciliation. What do you think was the reason? --MK<br />
<br />
Writing served as an outlet and an avenue of memorialization of the war for veteran soldiers. Do you think the soldiers' memories of the War that were published tainted the meaning or significance of their memories? --MK<br />
<br />
How do you think veterans reacted to the publishing of ''Miss Ravenal's Conversion from Secession to Loyalty''? Blight notes that the piece did not sell well, but I wonder what reactions people had towards it. -ABratchie<br />
<br />
On page 73 Blight says that “Americans now had a defining past of mythic battles.” Why was the Revolutionary War pretty much ignored as a source of “mythic battles” for the United States and the Civil War so popularized? –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Blight quotes the ''New York Herald'' on page 87, "The man whose memory dates back over a month is voted a bore, and accused of being interested in ancient history." This was the tone the paper wished for the Memorial Day set to happen May 30, 1877 in New York City. How do you think veterans of the war felt after reading this type of statement? Was it that easy to forget personal memories of the Civil War? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Blight says “Civil War memorialization should not be used for political purposes among the children born since the war.” (Pg94) However, six presidents elected were veterans of the war. How might they have used this in their campaign as the forms of memorialization changed in the decades after the war? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the story about Governor Kemper and Jubal Early was interesting. In 1875 during a huge celebration in Richmond, Early told Governor Kemper that he did not want blacks at the festivities during Memorial Day. Kemper was going to ignore him but still complied a little by have the black people walk at the back of the parade and alleviated the Virginia General Assembly from taking part, a group that had a few black members in it. Blight then talks about how Early used this strategy as a way to erase blacks from confederate memory. Do you think alleviating them from this celebration could have led to them being erased from Confederate memory? Why do you think the Governor did not ignore Early fully and allow black people to participate in all the celebrations? -Avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
Roger Pryor made a speech in 1877 about how the war had nothing to do with slavery. He claimed that slavery "just went away like the change in the weather" (pg. 91). He further said that no Southerner fought to save slaveryt nor did any Northerner end it. Do you think this argument would have been powerful enough that Northern and Southern citizens would have agreed to them? How common do you think this rhetoric was? -Avanness<br />
<br />
Blight makes it clear that both Union and Confederate histories of the war were published and read throughout the country. Why the did the Southern version become the one most accepted? --R.King<br />
<br />
What part did Decoration/Memorial Day play in the Civil War being remembered in a reconciliation view? --R.King<br />
<br />
The episode that occurred in Richmond during the unveiling of the Stonewall Jackson memorial demonstrated the roles black southerners were to play in the Lost Cause narrative. On page 83 Blight says, “the only blacks who formally participated were a contingent of former slave workers who had been in the Stonewall Brigade during the war,” and this group was positioned at the very end of a long parade. How does this episode represent the popular amnesia or reremembering process that took place across the South following the war? -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Robert E. Lee spoke urged the nation to "not keep open the sores of war" (149). Was this unique among southerners? - Erin B.<br />
<br />
Within the first 20 years after the Civil War ended, Memorial Days became days of reconciliation for many Americans but days of great distress for those who felt the South should not have been forgiven. How does this struggle represent the different memories people had about why the war was fought in the first place? - Angie<br />
<br />
Blight talks about how newspapers began publishing the war stories of individual soldiers after the War. He also says that much of the space was given to Southerners as opposed to Northerners. Why were people more interested in reading the stories of the South? - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-01-25T03:54:29Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions/Debate topics ==<br />
I think that an important concept that needs to be discussed in class is if you believe the Union could have done more to prevent violence committed against African Americans? Throughout the readings it seems that the Union tried to prevent violent acts committed by the KKK but that they could have done a lot more to stop the violence committed in the South.-Nick<br />
<br />
Why do you think the KKK Hearings were considered enough? Once they were over it seems that the problem was no longer important enough to pay attention to. Does this go to the core of prejudice in this country? --R.King<br />
<br />
== Trelease ==<br />
<br />
Were any of the Senators/Representatives in the KKK Hearings from the South? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
“Heretofore such men had served their masters only in the fields; now they would do not less faithful service at the polls.” As Trelease points out, “Nowhere did white underestimation of negro intelligence show itself more clearly.” While this opinion was not held the majority of white Southerners, it does demonstrate the paternalistic impulse left over from slavery. What were some of the ways in which vigilantism like the KKK was rationalized alongside a belief in a childlike dependence by the former slaves? – Erin B.<br />
<br />
On page 5 Trealease writes about the belief that Emancipation increased the Southern white rape complex because freedom presumably stimulated the Negro's innate passion for white women and removed external restrains. What are your thoughts about this supreme taboo that was held by Southern whites?- Nick<br />
<br />
As Trelease states in the introduction, blacks were never advocating for supremacy of whites, simply equality. If whites saw blacks as incapable of taking care of their own wellbeing without a slavemaster, why were many so whites afraid of blacks rise to equality and feel the need maintain control over them? - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
According to Trelease, whites during Reconstruction were afraid of a violent black uprising. In some cases, using this fear as a basis, they violently searched the houses of many of the black community members. Do you think whites were actually scared of this type of uprising, even though they were often the majority and better armed, or was it just another excuse to assert their authority? - Angie<br />
<br />
== Fahs/Waugh, "Anna Dickinson" ==<br />
<br />
Many men believed that women belonged in the home and not in politics, yet here was Dickinson giving political lectures and being asked by candidates to support them in her speeches (shown in Fahs and Wah’s reading when Greeley and Wilson were trying to “lure her into the campaign. Pg167) Dickinson might not have been lecturing for women’s suffrage by why wasn’t she used as an example that women did have the mind to understand politics and be allowed to vote? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
Really a bummer of an ending. When reading about the political atmosphere/discussion from this period, you almost have to expect high levels of partisan and sectional loyalties that frame all arguments and contribute to the legacy of bitterness one associates with Reconstruction – which makes reading about Dickinson and the nomination of Greeley by the Democrats all the more interesting and complicating. What could have made Dickinson hesitant to align herself more with the biggest names in women’s suffrage? –Erin B.<br />
<br />
"Dickinson, like Grant, was a veteran of the Civil War." Do you think that because the so much of the population considered themselves to be veterans, regardless if they actually fought in the war itself, helped Dickinson use Civil War memory to her advantage through her speeches? - MK<br />
<br />
Dickinson seemed to be well received by her audiences. How often did women, like Dickinson, give speeches of this caliber, and did they usually receive the same attention (whether positive or negative)? Also, both parties were persistent in getting Dickinson to work for their campaigns. Why do you think they chose to solicit her specifically? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how I had never heard of Anna Dickinson before yet she seemed to be a very popular speaker and lecturer at the time. She was associated with the group of people who put the issue of women suffrage aside to take on the issue of abolition. Do you think this is a reason she has not had her name mentioned as much as let's say Susan B. Anthony who continued to take on women's rights at the time? -Avanness<br />
<br />
Why did history overlook this woman? -- R. King<br />
<br />
Dickinson grappled with the desire to protect and aid the “freedpeople” versus the desire to move on from the war. Dickinson spoke for the Liberal Democrats by saying that if the war was really over, as it should be, then there should be no need for a war hero such as Grant to be president and that "freedpeople" SHOULD be already treated as equal citizens. (p. 171) Do you think Dickinson really felt that the war was over? Did Dickinson and other Liberal Republicans feel that moving on from the war meant ceasing all Reconstruction aid to African Americans? - Angie<br />
<br />
== Blight ==<br />
<br />
Blight talks about the healing process of the nation was on the South's terms. Do you think he is fair in his assessment? -MK<br />
<br />
On page 117 Blight states "Klan violence against blacks in the Reconstruction South succeeded especially in its uses of fear." What role do you think fear plays in the recollection of black memory from this period? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
<br />
Blight states a couple of times that Northerners did not feel ready to make reconstruction=reconciliation. They believed they shouldn't have to completely forgive and forget the South and the Civil War. Do you think the Northerners who shared this opinion were being fair to the South? Were their opinions part of the reason reconstruction wasn't successful right from the beginning? -Avanness<br />
<br />
On page 111 Blight makes the following statement; "In Southern lore, in formal history, and eventually in popular culture, the Klan, as saviors of Southern society, racial order, and white womanhood attained a heroic image in American memory..." I can accept the "Southern lore" aspect and if the "formal history" was one written for a Southern audience I can accept that, but to say that the Klan were "heroic" in the context of the entire nation I have serious disagreements with Mr. Blight. I find it hard to believe that Blight believes it either, since following this statement he provides several pages of eyewitness accounts refuting the heroic nature of the Klan. Why would Blight make such a statement to begin with? -- R. King<br />
<br />
Blight again makes a statement on page 123 that is confusing to say the least, "Although Grant had stood up to the Klan and used federal authority to put it put of business in the South..." Was the Klan really put out of business? --R.King</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-01-20T00:26:50Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>As mentioned in class, the people at this time did not have the ability to figure out who was who based on DNA when trying to bury them and report to their families. In Faust's reading, somehow James Moore was able to identify 12,912 of the 13,363 bodies of Union soldiers from Andersonville. This just seems remarkable. How long did it take him to figure the identifications of so many men? And how? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Faust talks about how the national reburial program led to the redefining of the nation. How did the treatment of the dead jeopardize the redefinition of the nation? --MK <br />
<br />
Do you think that the use of songs in the slaves' memory of the Civil War and Emancipation impact or influence the memory for those who were relatively young at the time? --MK<br />
<br />
Faust discusses the role of blacks in the burials of Union soldiers across the South (192-193) and how impartial blacks were to helping the bury the Union dead. Why do you think this was, and what kind of fears do you think the slaves encountered from whites in the south who were hostile to the burying of Union soldiers in the south? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
<br />
The issue of a proper and honorable burial for soldiers, especially Union soldiers in the South was a problem after the war. How much do you think this process of creating a national cemetery system contributed to reconciliation? -Avanness<br />
<br />
A couple times in Blight's book, African Americans' sentiments towards the war and slavery were mentioned. A good amount of the time it seemed like they wanted to look past the fact that they were enslaved and oppressed for hundreds of years. Was forgetting slavery something that most African Americans wanted to do in an attempt for reconciliation? This seems like a reaction that immediately followed the war but did not last long. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Blight briefly talks about how women in the South initially remembered the war after the Confederacy's defeat. A theme of gloom seems overwhelming for many women in the south and how they remembered the war. How often did women in the south feel this "gloomy" emotion after the conclusion of the Civil War and how did it affect their memory of it? Also, what about Northern Women? What were their perceptions on the conclusion of the war and their memories? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Faust’s piece contrasts the reinterment process taken on by the federal government for Union soldiers with that taken on by families and women’s organizations for Confederates. The disparity really demonstrates some of the unique awkwardness of the Civil War and Reconstruction. How does this particular aspect of the aftermath of the war help to explain some of the long-held, sectional bad feelings? -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Why did some slaves "stick to (their)masters"? Was it because they were "too soft" as Felix Haywood stated or was it a relic of the oppression they lived with their entire lives? -- R.King<br />
<br />
Why do we still embrace Blight's "blood feud"? Why haven't we,after one hundred and fifty years,reconciled the Civil War? -- R.King<br />
<br />
On page 191, Faust writes that during Whitman’s long task to find and record Union graves throughout the South, he often came upon graves or graveyards that were terribly unkempt. Even worse, it seemed obvious that the Southerners were destroying the graveyards on purpose. On page 191, he writes that the Southerners had built roads and walkways over the graves that had all but destroyed them while nearby there were Confederate graves that were very well kept. Why did Southerners purposefully destroy Union graves when they themselves knew the feeling of not knowing where their deceased loved ones were? - Angie<br />
<br />
On page 271 of Remembering Slavery, the story of Robert Glenn begins. Glenn’s story is interesting because even after he knew he was free, he decided to stay with his master for a year and even considered staying longer. How many freed slaves continued to stay on and live and work for their ex-masters? Why did they decide to continue to work for the people who had enslaved them even though they were now free? - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-01-18T03:42:47Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== McPherson, What They Fought For, ==<br />
<br />
In McPherson's "What They Fought For," the issue of slavery was left out in the majority of the letters on both the Union and Confederate sides (pg. 49). However, many soldiers understood the War as fundamentally about slavery instead of reunion after the Emancipation Proclamation. Do you think the absence of slavery in the letters affected the soldiers' memories? --MK Napier <br />
<br />
<br />
McPherson discusses the both the North and the South's reasons for fighting and through his sampling of letters, he was able to draw some parallels between the two. Both sides seemed to connect one of their reasons for fighting to the American Revolution and upholding a sense of liberty. Do you think this connection to the American Revolution and the Civil War is important? Did many soldiers experience similar sentiments, not just the ones from McPherson's sampling? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
<br />
McPherson sampling techniques are to say the least "interesting" and at worst suspect. He has taken a very unbalanced approach when it comes to confederate letters and diaries yet takes a more balanced approach with the northern articles. Is he taking Telsen's approach of constructing a history to fit his needs or is it something more benign? -- R.King<br />
<br />
McPherson repeated over and over again about how the Confederate soldiers expected to win, that it would be better to die for the cause, and he even used the term "subjugated" to refer to losing the war to be a fate worse than death. Later on in the reading he also used the term "glorious cause." I wonder how words like this that are written in soldiers' diaries and read throughout primary sources shape the way in which people think of the Confederacy, their passion, and their reasons for their involvement in the war? -Avanness<br />
<br />
McPherson suggests that, based on his sample of journal entries, Confederate soldiers seemed largely oblivious to the irony of their references to slavery and freedom when referring to the "tyranny" of the Yankees, while suggesting that their Revolution-era counterparts were typically appreciative of this “paradox” (50-51). Is this demonstrative of a shift in culture in the South since the American Revolution or is it just an example of how patriotism is written about in war-time journal entries? -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
McPherson throughout the section on "Holy Cause of Liberty and Independence" describes the Confederacy's motivation in fighting and discusses that the defense of their homeland was one of their chief motivations. Defending their homeland from the Union seemed to greatly inspire the Confederacy and in response to their fighting spirit a sergeant from Illinois wrote that the Confederates " fight Devils in Tophet because the were fighting to keep an enemy out of their own neighborhood and their own property" (19). An officer also from Illinois summarized the Confederacy's war motivation fairly well by stating " they are fighting from different motives than us. We are fighting for the Union... a high and noble sentiment but after all only a sentiment. They are fighting for independence and are animated by passion and hatred against invaders ... it makes no reason whether their cause is just or not. Do you agree with this statement that it made no difference if the Confederacy's cause was just or not?- Nick J.<br />
<br />
McPherson's article outlines the various motives for fighting, and the particular confederate and union attitudes regarding each other. One chapter outlined the "confederate bloodlust" at seeing dead yankees, a particularly striking chapter, but there was no parallel description of Yankee point-of-view as particularly morbid. Why would the south be more inclined to emphasize in correspondence home this morbid satisfaction? Or is this a result of historiographical error or bias?- A. Askins<br />
<br />
"What They Fought For" posits that civil war soldiers were far more idealistic than previously assumed. However, a letter does not describe a soldier's thoughts, but what they put down on paper. In any war the two may not be the same thing, though they certainly could be. Is there a difference in the two, or are the views in these letters, as McPherson suggests, largely accurate portraits of soldiers' opinions on the war? Also, it should be noted that the view in general society was that war in general was honorable and glorious, which cannot be said for the first world war or those after it. Could this have affected how a soldier chose to describe the war? -GStan.<br />
<br />
As mentioned before in McPherson’s piece both the Union soldiers and the Confederates compared themselves to the men who fought in the Revolutionary War. In your opinion, did one side have a stronger argument in comparing themselves to their forefathers? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Remembering Slavery ==<br />
<br />
In ''Remembering Slavery'', many of the slaves mention that did not understand the meaning of 'freedom'. For example, on page 215, a salve girl remarks, "I didn't know what 'free' meant, and I askes Mrs. Harris if I was free." I'd imagine that many slaves did not understand this concept as well, but my question is, how many of them asked their slaveholder what the meaning of free was and got a truthful answer? Were the slaveholders able to exploit their slaves further even after the Civil War ended simply because many did not understand what it meant to be free? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
On page 240-241 of the Remembering Slavery article, said that some freed slaves were sad that they were free after the war partially because the Yankee soldiers had destroyed food and livestock in the regions in which they lived. Since earlier accounts had talked about the celebrations of the soldiers coming to town (pg. 234), does this mean that the “collective” memory of freed slaves is actually quite different than individual memories? -Angie<br />
<br />
== Blight, ''Race and Reunion'' ==<br />
<br />
In ''Race and Reunion'' Blight talks about themes of rebirth, reunion, and reconciliation of the nation at the end of the Civil War. Do you think that the southern memory of the Civil War (in particular the Lost Cause, Jim Crow Laws, etc.) were an attempt to stop the "rebirth" of the nation?--MK Napier<br />
<br />
Why did the promoters of the 1913 Gettysburg reunion discourage discussion of the causes of the war? Was it because it would have shown the war to be a Union failure in light of the countries acceptance of Jim Crow? -- R.King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Blight's reading and throughout "Remembering Slavery," the idea of a Black Civil War memory is mentioned. I wonder how important you think their memories about Civil War are in the way we have shaped the Civil War in our memory today? Do you think they are more important than Union or Confederate soldiers' memories or that many of their memories have been lost over time due to their slave status? -Avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
In Race and Reunion, Blight discusses Walt Whitman’s writing about his experiences in Civil War hospitals and the ways in which witnessing the brutality of war inspired his later writing, especially the themes of death and destruction as a means to national rebirth, and redefinition. But the issues of abolition and race are absent from Whitman’s poetry and prose concerning his experiences with the “Secession War.” How does this reflect the larger, national understanding of the meaning of the end of the war for white Americans? - Erin B.<br />
<br />
On page 19 in Blight’s book, he mentions that in the aftermath of the war, private, or individual, memories collided with the political collective memory that was involving. What would be the difference between individual and collective memories? Would they always oppose each other? -Angie<br />
<br />
== General questions ==<br />
<br />
There war was called by many different names. From our readings we have the 2nd War for Independence, a southerner’s term for the war (in McPherson’s piece) and the Secession War from Whitman, a northerner (in the reading from Blight). How long after the war did it take for ‘The Civil War’ to become the most common term for the war? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== debate topics ==<br />
<br />
McPherson talks about northern women extolling their husbands to return home, that family was more important then fighting for their country. Did southern women fell the same way or did they feel as there husbands did. -- R.King<br />
<br />
In ''Remembering Slavery'': the importance of song and folk lyrics as their own battlefield: how did the southern blacks use song to demonstrate and spread their own current events knowledge, and what examples in this article struck you most?- A. Askins<br />
<br />
McPherson in "Remembering Slavery discusses the recruitment of African Americans in the Union Army and how the inclusion of African Americans soldiers impacted the war. In your opinion, how instrumental was African Americans joining the Union Army in contributing to the Union's victory?-Nick. J</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_1_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 1 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-01-13T01:16:28Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>If the Race problem was so deeply ingrained in the reasoning behind the civil war, and both sides believed they were fighting for the right causes, how did the Yankee and Confederate soldiers reconcile their differences while the race problem itself continued to grow bigger and bigger?- AJ L.<br />
<br />
What methods of shaping people's memory of the civil war seemed to be most effective? The monuments that were erected, the books that told the varying history of the war (printed by both north and south), the politics of the time etc... AJ L.<br />
<br />
How does the collective memory of the Civil War from both the northern and southern perspectives influence the "American Memory" and history of the Civil War? --MK Napier <br />
<br />
Other than the Lost Cause, what might be some reasons for why the South seems to have heavily dominated the memorializing through monuments, books, movies, etc., the Civil War? --MK Napier<br />
<br />
Do you agree that it is more important the way a memory is constructed (what influences the narrator, how a person utilizes others' memories/ideas to explain about an event or detail, his or her mood/biases etc.) rather than the accuracy of the memory itself? -avanness<br />
<br />
Why do you think women had such a desire to create commemorative groups, especially in the south, after the Civil War? The reading by Thomas Brown said that these groups had wanted to honor those who had died, sponsor mourning ceremonies, and engage in everyday social activities. What would they have inevitably gotten out of engaging in these types of activities? -avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
In Blight’s prologue, specifically on page 4, he writes that American’s chose romance over reality in their remembrance of the Civil War. It is easy to understand that the South might not have wanted to face the hard reality of their loss, but why did the North choose romance as well? Was it just as hard for the North to deal with the realities of the end of the War as it was for the South? – Angie<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 1123 of David Thelen’s article, he writes that “people together searched for common memories to meet present needs.” Later, on page 1126, he asks the question, “Why did some southern whites energize their resistance to Reconstruction with memories of a Lost Cause?” Did the need for southern whites to stand apart from Reconstruction initiate a common memory of some sort of “Lost Cause” even though perhaps the “cause” was a little bit different for each of them as individuals? If southern whites did not feel so strongly against the emancipation and equality of African Americans would they have all still united under such a memory as the “Lost Cause”? – Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-04-01T10:48:46Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
== "Balancing Work and Family," Betty Jeanne Boggs ==<br />
"Always this-- 'because you're a woman'" (page 208). I was really moved by this article and '''felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming.''' I can't believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn't pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. '''I still felt strong emotions towards her statement "For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn't know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby" (page 210)''' because it's something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can't imagine it's ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don't allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it's nice to imagine. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but '''I also noticed her husband's willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war.''' I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she "wanted to be in two places at one time." '''I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker,''' and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today's working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs' story, and I feel that it's a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs' case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs' did want to eventually continue her career she didn't do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, "...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go," (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn't think it was possible to juggle both or weren't sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn't think it was possible otherwise the "problem that has no name" would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how '''Betty Bogs said, "I worked in a war plant and it was one of the things you did when your country was at war." (P. 208) Just the way she said it made it sound like it was normal, and I think she is right in a sense'''. It was normal for women to go out and work; it was a way to help with the war effort. Her experience of loving her job seemed quite similar to the other Rosie the Riveters we have read about. I was surprised though, to see that she was going to school for a math degree, and even considered becoming a lab technician. At the time, I think it was frowned upon for women to be anything other than a housewife or a teacher. '''''Even when I did my interview for our paper, my interviewee said the only jobs you went to school for were to be a teacher or a secretary.''''' Betty enjoyed working; I'm sure it was liberating to her because she was doing something many people frowned upon. It was also interesting how there was a prominent role reversal between Betty and her husband Josh. She was the one working, and her husband was the one who was with their baby more often and seemed to have a closer relationship with the child. Bogs said, "Josh had a good relationship built up, because he'd have Tad to himself." (P. 210). And, her husband was completely okay with staying at home with the children while she worked! The surprising part was, though, that although Betty loved her job and enjoyed working, she encouraged women to stay home with their children because it was important to their development. I guess that was the most surprising part to me. She worked so hard and had come so far, but realized that in the end, her family came first. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article. I find it rather ironic that today’s woman still struggles with the choice between staying home and raising her children and going out into the workplace. Being an older student, I notice a number of my friends who have college degrees, including post-graduate degrees and have made the decision to forego a career or postpone their career to stay home with their children. ''' I think that it is difficult to say what decision you will make regarding your kids until you are in the position of having to make the decision of leaving your child with someone else or working.''' Betty Jeanne Boggs was fortunate to be married to someone willing to sacrifice his time to give her the opportunity to further her career and her husband was lucky to have a woman willing to support him while he finished school. - EFritz<br />
<br />
Boggs obviously believed that a woman should be able to do anything a man could do, such as go to school and work in certain jobs. However '''for raising a kid she thinks that "a mother should be there the first couple of years of a child's life," (30) Does this mean that she did not think it was a man's place to raise a kid?''' Obviously she felt that a man should help, as Josh helped plenty with Tad but their was never any mention of him giving up his education or his job. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
As EFritz was saying above, '''it really is hard for a woman to judge another about their struggle of work and home until they are in that position.''' Boggs was able to keep working, but mainly just because her husband was home more while continuing his education. Had he already finished school, she would have had to end her career earlier. It wasn't as if he was like "Hey Honey, you keep on keepin' on at that job of yours and make me some money!" He understood how much easier it would be at the time to have the arrangement of work and home that way... In response to J Rowley's question, I don't think Boggs was implying that it was not a man's place to raise a child. As a mother, you feel a certain bond or connection with your child and not only want to be there in those initial year, but you feel a NEED to be there for your child. - Christine L<br />
<br />
I think this article was chosen to be the first for this section because it is still relevant to the struggles that women-and especially mothers, go through today. The struggle between wanting to be a full time caregiver and the desire to have a career and be successful in the field of your choosing do not always go hand in hand, and some places of employment are not as accommodating as one would like them to be. Rarely are “stay at home” dads the ideal image of American families even today. A stay at home dad contrasts to what people see as the “normal” family situation, while a stay at home mom is still seen as the norm. Women who choose to work full time, for any reason, still have to face criticism from other people about how they choose to raise their children. And sometimes those critics do not take into account the improvements in the standard of living that the child (or children) can potentially attain if the mother works or both parents work. Supporting the children should be the main objective, but many times that idea gets lost in what outsiders consider proper. –jmarshal<br />
<br />
I really like this article because it shows that not All men at that time expected their wives not to work and stay home to be a homemaker. Perhaps it was for his own benefit, but really I think he just understood and accepted the fact that maybe his wife could get a better job and earn more than him. On pg. 209, he says “I want you to finish school, and then I’ll go back and won’t have to work because you’ll work full time.” Josh isn’t hostile or even upset when he says this, he is just being practical which I feel like a lot of the guys at the time weren’t. Also, its not like he is afraid of work and he seems perfectly comfortable with work. “He never once hesitated to change diapers or feed the baby.” (pg. 210) I think that this shows that Josh didn’t conform to societal ideals and the fact that he didn’t allowed Betty to work easier. I think if more women had understand husbands, then they wouldn’t have felt such a pressure about staying home. -- Angie<br />
<br />
== Rachel Carson Answers Her Critics==<br />
<br />
I am not the world's biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and '''for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions.''' Ridiculous that her response "No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now" (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that "A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world" (page 228). '''She certainly won me over. (And I would especially ''buy some more Samoas'' to support her environmentalist cause.)''' --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
I know that earlier in this class we had talked about how women were often linked to the environmentalist cause so I tried to keep that in mind when I was reading this piece. ''' I am not sure if I could picture a man writing this with the same effect.''' Most of the points she makes are very strong and she even seems to go against the point that she is saving nature only to save the beauty of it. '''However, if women were still connected to the environmentalist cause would she have an easier time winning them over because she was a woman? Would she have a tougher time gaining support from men?''' - J Rowley<br />
<br />
J Rowley--good questions. What if Silent Spring had been written by a man? Gotta love theoreticals... I agreed that this was a very strong answer to all of her critics--stronger still because she didn't specifically target any one person or company, and made it clear that she was not taking any of the criticism personally, and was thus not bothered by it: "I am confident that the verdict of history will show that we..." She invokes history to her side, claiming that time will tell, as it ultimately did. Very smart. --Sarah Smethurst '''''(Samoas FTW)'''''<br />
<br />
In response to Sarah's post, I think that it was Carson's intention not to target one person, company, or group of people. During this period of time, when America was still feeling a backlash against women's rights, it was tougher for women to gain momentum in anything they said or did. I think Carson realized this, and perhaps realized that she would be more effective if she left the boundaries opened and made a general statement, therefore gaining more support and respect from those who supported, and even more importantly those who opposed her.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==<br />
<br />
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, '''Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when ''he'' has achieved complete control over ''himself'' and his environment. Only then can ''he'' meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future?''' Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Erin, I noticed that Church uses 'he' throughout the piece, but I don't necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just '''a quirk of grammar'''. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women "will be taking their rightful place in world affairs," and so girls should be "provided with the same opportunities" (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of 'parents' rather than simply the role of 'mother. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
"Just" a quirk of grammar? I wonder that if this, and similar use of gendered language throughout history is just a "quirk of grammar," and if so, why people get upset over phrases like "rule of thumb," whether or not the supposed history of that phrase is true or not, the implications of that phrase is what makes it contentious. The use of gendered language carries powerful messages that convey female-ness as weak, passive, powerless, etc. while the opposite is true with male-oriented language. I think that there is more meaning to a woman who seems "almost a feminist" because of some of her arguments using such a "quirk of grammar" than we seem to accord it--surely a woman as conscious as Church about women's "rightful place in society" would not use "he" out of expediency or convenience. Maybe it sheds some light into pervading conceptions of women's identities and how they related to the whole--if not in general, then at least from Church's point of view? -schang<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann's statement above. One of Church's main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that "neither the father nor mother should reign supreme" (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that "girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys" (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don't believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. '''I also found the wording of Church's essay interesting when she states "women will be taking their ''rightful'' places in society" (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs.''' --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==<br />
<br />
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. '''Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse.''' Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. '''To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement.''' –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Regardless of one's moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn't mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn't fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? '''Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?''')in today's world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said "Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual" (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman's right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I'm happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, '''I'm also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??''') because if she hadn't had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson's decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn't a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It's amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Ssellers. The U.S. didn't give her an option. How could the "Land of the Free" criticize one of it's citizens for taking advantage of an opportunity that the state refused to give?-Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I found it '''interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation. Why was that? Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure? And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure?''' – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I like Alice found interesting that the doctor described other procedures he performed but would not dare mention abortion. I do not think he really cared about women's health, I think he was worried that if women came to him who were pregnant and wanted abortions one he would know they were pregnant outside of marriage and two he did not want people (government) to find out he was performing them, at the time I feel like he could of lost his license if it was found out. Maybe he did care about women but with all the precautions he took and the way he spoke to Joyce I have to say I do not think he did, he may of just been a doctor who did not believe in having children outside of marriage. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Regardless of everyone's outrage at the stigma attached to abortions during most of the twentieth century and up to today, why wouldn't it have been a public decision? Pushing aside my own feelings towards abortion and trying to stay away from issues of morality or immorality, shouldn't our society be concerned about demographics? For example, during the early years of the twentieth century in the US and in the pre-WW2 years in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany we saw government incentives for parents to have more children, because (at least in the latter two) they had a national security interest in seeing higher birth rates. Americans at the turn of the century (and arguably still today) were concerned that low birth rates and abortions among upper and middle class whites would lead to "racial suicide." When people at the time thought in this manner, why wouldn't abortion become a public decision? It seems that it made sense for that time in history and arguably even today--unless one thinks that we should all go our separate ways and that individual decisions do not affect society as a whole. I think the decision to take a pregnancy to term or abort has drastic consequences (although unforeseen) for society insofar as determining the demographics of that society in years to come. And if the argument that men should provide financially for the women that they impregnate and either assist in expenses or pay for an abortion is ironic in that it perpetuates the idea that women cannot provide for themselves, and is a form of protectionist legislation that we saw in earlier years such as Muller v. Oregon. I feel that as one of the few men in the class I should just come out and state my stance on abortion--I am all for it, especially as a male I feel as though no matter what my personal convictions are as far as morality and life and etc., it's not my body and it's not my choice. Personal liberty is important to me, which is why I support the ability of women to have abortion, and also the same reason why I oppose legislation that demands men to take financial responsibility for these matters--it's a violation of personal liberty. And no, I'm sure that it isn't "fair" that men can "have fun" and not have to deal with the same consequences, but that isn't something that can be legislated into equality. On a different note, the stigma attached to abortions then and now--it doesn't just come from oppressive conservative men, but it comes from women as well. Not just the Bible-thumpers, but from young, college-aged liberal-esque women who for all their proclamations of being prochoice, still seem to find ways to label their fellow women who have found some level of sexual liberation and have fun, like men have supposedly been doing for ages, various derogatory terms. An example of this would be all the dirty looks and hushed whispers I've seen and heard on this campus from girls directed towards girls who have had abortions. Again, women cannot be socially oppressed by just men, other women take part in it and I want to know why--what do women have to gain by perpetuating certain stigmas and conceptions? -schang<br />
<br />
This article was horrifying. The measures that Joanna had to take to get an abortion in New York City seemed so...for lack of a better word sketchy, that they would have seemed better placed in a bad movie. it was really sad to see the measures that women were reduced to in order to obtain the procedure, like meeting a creep at the Rainbow room that wants to take you back to fire island for some post abortion "relaxation". With stories like this it is no wonder that women like Margaret Sanger were moved to action. The worst part about this story is that Joanna was probably one of the lucky ones in that she seemingly had a safe operation without any harmful side affects. I'd hate to think about how many women were not so lucky.-Emma<br />
<br />
=="An Unplanned Pregnancy", by Joanna Rubin==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be '''fascinating, insightful and harrowing'''. I wonder '''what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story.''' Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but '''was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure?''' My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, "When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics" (217).''' Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered.''' -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, "Although I didn't for a minute think I didn't want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn't 'Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.'"(217) '''She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn't "taking the easy way out," it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece.''' I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
'''I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women.''' Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury, and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so. It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control. I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50's and 60's and what would lead to the landmark courtcase ''Roe v Wade''. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
'''Did women even think about an abortion possibly killing them?''' Such as the woman in Margaret Sanger’s Epiphany over Birth Control article who died from a self induced abortion because she couldn’t handle another child. Of course there is always the possibility that child birth could also kill them. Abortion seems a lot more risky though, especially being illegal like it was. Abortion clinics surely couldn’t be regulated and keep safe because there weren’t any governmental policies or standards to be enforced. I would much rather have the child and give it up for an abortion, quietly, than risk dying from a painful abortion that could lead to a deadly infection. That’s just my opinion though; maybe they were too afraid of being pregnant in the first place to think straight and logically. Even though Ms. Rubin thinks that this is a “real clinic” and it “alleviated a tremendous amount of anxiety and fear,” (216) obviously it wasn’t much of facility because she did get “a low-grade infection,” (217). I know that she was in hast to rid herself of being pregnant, but you would think that she would be smarter about her decisions. '''She obviously wasn’t going to tell her family, as Rubin describes, “I didn’t have any support from my parents,” (216), possibly because being a sexual women was taboo? Even if that was so, the least they could do was help her or were families that unsupportive of their daughters? I really can’t see a father and, partially, a mother abandoning their child in such a desperate situation.''' -Morgan<br />
<br />
In response to Morgan above, '''I feel pretty much the opposite way about everything she said.''' Yes abortion was risky but so was pregnancy and childbirth. This woman was young, unwed, and in school. If she were to have had the child she would have lost everything in life that she worked so hard for. She may have been able to have the child quietly and gave it up, but who would have paid for it and where would she have gone? Her parents would have likely shunned her out of their lives, she didn't have the money, the "father" of the baby didn't have money. She would have had to take months off of school, and how would she have explained that? And perhaps she could have gotten an infection from the abortion, but women were not sitting around gabbing about abortions so it's not like they had first-hand accounts to go off of, just heresay and gossip. I feel she was not "in hast," she clearly weighed her options and knew what would have happen if she would have had a baby in her position. - Christine L<br />
<br />
Joanna Rubin’s piece “An Unplanned Pregnancy” was touching and interesting. I think that Rubin was attempting to express the fact that there was regret involved but she did what she thought was right. I agree with Christine, here is a young woman who did not love the person that impregnated her, in her first year of Grad school. If she did love him, she “might have kept it” (217) but she didn’t. Which is a better choice, to live a life with a child and a husband whom you do not love and resent? Or go to any lengths, in this case, Puerto Rico, to have an abortion. She admits that this was a hard decision with consequences. '''It also seems that her personal doctor was not completely opposed to her choice “When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor and he had told me to come and see him afterwards”''' (217). He even gave her antibiotics. I was wondering how often doctors helped patients who went to have abortions out of the country or illegally? –Caryn<br />
<br />
i think this piece really shows how alone women felt, and the total isolation that came along with an unwanted pregnancy. Rubin really had no one to turn to except the father of the baby who she did not love. At least today while an abortion is not a gratifying prospect to any woman, it is legal and women aren't forced to undergo isolating and often unsafe procedures. The fact that her Doctor was understanding afterwards and gave her antibiotics to treat her infection made it seem like while Doctors could not perform the procedures they were sympathetic and did what they could. So while this Doctor was unwilling to perform the procedure, he was willing to be discreet and to treat her for the infection she got obtaining an illegal abortion. Perhaps there was some feeling of guilt behind his actions, I think if I was a Doctor I would feel guilty that I was knowingly turning women away and forcing them to take extreme measures against an unwanted pregnancy. -Emma<br />
<br />
I found Joanna Rubin’s article really depressing mostly because of how alone she felt, like some other people have mentioned. I think the saddest thing is that she felt like she didn’t even have a choice. I am all for the right for women to have the choice of whether or not they keep the baby, but I feel like in Rubin’s article, she wasn’t give the choice except in the opposite way. She couldn’t tell her family and she didn’t want to be with the father. It seems like it didn’t even cross her mind that they there was a possibility of her being a single mom or adoption. I think this is a reflection of the time period that women were expected to marry the father of their child, and since Rubin didn’t want that, she pretty much had no choice other than to flee the country like a criminal and have an abortion. -- Angie<br />
<br />
=="The Problem That Has No Name," Betty Friedan, 1963==<br />
<br />
'''I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife.''' This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women's lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they'd still feel isolated in that they couldn't share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It's telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry "just to know they are not alone." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home. '''Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties. ''' If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them? In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife? '''It became a moral dilemma.''' Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles. '''I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.)''' Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts. -MHimes<br />
<br />
Women at this time were dealing with such an immense problem. Prior to WWII, they had obtained universal suffrage, and then more independence through the work place while their husbands were in combat. Suddenly, when their husbands returned their extensive independence disappeared as well. Many would would have been scrutinized by their husbands or their peers for complaining about the lifestyle changes they encountered. It is not surprising to see them internalize many of their doubts and fears regarding their complacency or position in society. Over time, it is evident that the problem that women encountered disappeared, and women began to obtain more control of their own lives and leverage in society. Friedan was a pioneer in exploring communication and bonds between women.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I found this passage very interesting and thought provoking. Women had a brief glimpse of life in the workplace during World War II, but when the men came home, they again assumed their traditional role as a housewife. This excerpt mainly revolves around the question: Is this all our lives' will amount to? Many obviously wanted more than what a housewife provided and some felt almost incomplete doing the monotonous work of daily chores. However, I think now, especially after doing my interview that this work could not only be difnified but also quite challenging. The person who I interviewed said her daughter in law is a stay at home mom and she works harder than anybody she knows. I expect these women to wish for more after many of them had jobs for years, but their work can be just as hard as many respects as what the men are doing. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== Psychiatrist Marynia F. Farnham and Sociologist Ferdinand Lundberg Denounce the Modern Woman as the "Lost Sex," 1947 ==<br />
<br />
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they ''have jobs themselves''? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting. '''It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities. But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences.''' I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home. Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations. Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family? ''' I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family.''' -MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements. I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated. They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children. They seem to really find danger to a woman's feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men. They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi<br />
<br />
At first glance, these writers describe the "Modern Woman" of 1947, as one who appears to have her own destiny within her grasp. She is now conflicted however, because she has more responsibility; to the home, children, and to work. I found this article interesting because the writers argue the modern woman of their time is now struggling to retain femininity because she is in the "dangerous position of having to live one part of her life on the masculine level, [and] another on the feminine."(413) Is the need to be equal to men and their accomplishments what caused this rivalry? I never really thought of how damaging the social and psychological barriers were in Post-War War II America. '''I understand women proved what they were capable of, but what I am still curious about is how hard was it for women to switch back to dependence of their husbands when they knew they were just as capable in the workforce.''' From the videos we saw in class, I gathered that many women found pride that they could do skilled labor, but this article brings up a good perspective I think. From my interpretation the perspective is that women's success has to be achieved through a balance of dependence and independence in their role in the household. -- David Fitch<br />
<br />
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==<br />
'''I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around.''' Just imagine being in that courtroom. '''Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. ''It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace.''''' Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found the WSP to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how "women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making" (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. '''Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can't handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously?''' --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
'''I saw WSP as more sly and manipulative. They knew that the most effective way to get a woman's voice heard was to play up those female stereotypes, especially in court'''. No judge would throw out a bunch of sweet women who weren't doing anything wrong! And they couldn't go militant or get too forceful with their protests. That kind of thing tends to irritate and annoy people rather than make them agreeable to the cause. I just think that if you're going to go with that method, you can't complain about being treated like a stereotype afterwards. So, Taylor complaining about wanting to be treated equally while manipulating the female stereotypes is definitely hypocritical. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with CBrau. I love the women of the WSP! I found them hilarious and very manipulative. These women obviously knew exactly how to get attention and to use there femininity against political figures to buy for attention. But did these women really think that just because they were women nothing would happen to them? “They’re not going to electrocute me, They’re not going to shoot me,” (218) said Taylor while she was deciding to cross the street or not. Did she think this because she was a woman and surely men wouldn’t hurt her? I guess the stereotypes of that generation weren’t to hurt women, even if they were criminals? They were so outspoken though, even when in the presence of court, “we would present her with a bouquet, and we would applaud,” (220) but they weren’t thrown out of court. I wonder if in the decades before if they were even allowed in court, much less speak out. It appears to me that they were mainly a spectacle looking for attention towards their cause, even if it endangered them. -Morgan<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was charming. I absolutely love the visual of these women in their pretty little dresses with matching shoes and handbag, white gloves, hats and perfectly coiffed hair being brought in to testify before Congress. I am no anti-war activist but I think these women had the backbone to petition their government to change the course of history, all before they had to get home and prepare dinner for their families and help their children with their homework. And they still wanted to be treated as ladies, even while they were being hauled off to jail. What irony. - EFritz<br />
<br />
I don't necessarily agree with their political opinions, but I'm just saying...their personality would be a good thing to have. Their spunk would continue to entertain people.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
=="Star Struck," Vicki L. Ruiz ==<br />
<br />
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, '''I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920's to 1950's written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today.''' All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because '''unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.”''' -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
I found this article could easily be related to today and how women are percieved or told how they should be percieved in the media. While I feel that many immigrant groups wanted to promote their culture, especially the Mexican Americans through language and traditions, the children of immigrant parents wanted to assimilate into American culture, and the leading way in California was through "the public fascination with Hollywood."(367). Today, things have still not changed infact I believe we as a society have become more fascinated with Hollywood and how it defines America, I cannot even count how many times I have heard the story about Sandra Bullock and her husband and very little on world affairs or even the healthcare bill. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Being from Southern California, I can definately relate to this article and many of the points that are made here are definately still relevant today, many years later. Many still live in poverty and are often treated as second class citizens. There are tons of farming fields in the area, and you can generally only see mexicans out there picking. It's not that they choose this lifestyle, just that they are somehow relegated to do it. One interesting thing the article mentions is that there was no gradual immersion language program and it was just "sink or swim in an English-only environment" (365). I beleive this still holds true today, although it is somewhat better. I knew some who hardly spoke english and were just thrown into an english-speaking environment, and this incredibly difficult to adapt. Another interesting point is that being "Spanish" had a somewhat positive connotation whereas being "Mexican" was a negative connotation. They speak the same language yet being from Mexico somehow makes you worse than being from Spain. The thing that stands out to me the most is that people then and even now seem to have a pre-conceived notion that mexicans are inherently lower class than Americans, but they are people, just like we are. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==<br />
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts. '''This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking.''' This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212). This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially. It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives. Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well. This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi<br />
<br />
The history of Native Americans deserves just as much credit as African Americans or Women's history. This story of Indian relocation is just one of the many very sad experiences of what United States policy has put them through. The sadist part of it all is that they were here first! This particular story shows that even in the 1950s the US was still relocating 60,000 Indians thinking we had the right to "mainstream " them into Urban areas. After reading this depressing story it make me feel extremely grateful that Native Americans are no longer treated in this way and made me realize if anyone in the USA should be the most proud to be American, it should be all the Native Americans left today that still retain their cultures. -- David Fitch<br />
<br />
Just as with the Japanese internment camps during World War II, I feel like the US government was good at alienating various racial/ethnic groups in America. The Indians had already been forcibly removed once (The Trail of Tears) but to do it again is just horrible. The fact that the government changed it mind all of a sudden was both disturbing to the American Indian way of life, but also scarred them emotionally and in many other ways, which is similar to what abratchi said above. What is most awful is how the Mankiller family had so much trouble adapting.''' How could the government just take the Indians from their old way of life and drop them into bustling urban/industrial cities, where they have no idea what to do, how to act, and are seen as aliens to the country, even though they were Americans.''' It was sad to read about how the girls were made fun of at school, and as a result they "sat up late every night reading aloud to each other to get rid of our accents." (P. 214). These girls were so ashamed of their ancestry, which was even sadder. Why was it so necessary to assimilate different cultures into American culture? Why couldn't white Americans just simply coexist with minority groups and accept one another for their differences instead of displacing them physically as well as emotionally? Wilma Mankiller used the word "alienation" which I think is a perfect word to describe this situation. These Indians were alienated from their homes, culture and just life in general and the worst part of all of it was that this relocation didn't help the government in any way. So in the end, both the government and the Indians lost. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
<br />
This line really caught my attention: "He (Wilma's father) must have honestly believed that in a distant city he could provide a better life for his children, with all the modern amenities" (p. 212). Interesting, considering Wilma and her family were very poor and I'm assuming isolated from modern civilization at Mankiller Flats. So how did Wilma's father know about modern civilization and the chances it offered? From talking to the BIA? From going to Boarding School? From working? Or perhaps it really was their poverty that convinced him they needed to move and try for a new life (despite the risks and separation from home). -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how she almost plays off the decision to move to California as her parents decisions that they made without the force of governmental pressure. Yes there were no weapons forcing them to move or marching them down a path they did not want to take, but the propaganda for leaving (the promise of a better life, the false advertisements of wealth and opportunity) would have been enough to get any group of people to leave their homelands, especially if they had been used to poverty for an extended period of time. The American government does not have the best track record when it comes to handling relations with other ethnicities and races in terms of making equal opportunities available. Ghettos turned ethnic enclaves seem to be a recurring theme in American minority history, and each minority group has had an impact on the development of the America that exists today, therefore each group does deserve to have recognition, not just the African Americans and women, but the Japanese Americans who were placed in internment camps, the chicano Americans who were limited in their migration but who were instrumental in making the US a transcontinental commerce, and finally the Native Americans, who suffered every time white Americans wanted to move and take their land. No group should be excluded in American history and none should be excluded in how they are remembered and honored today. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
I found this story really interesting, and I feel like it is an area that is not often discussed. I personally was not aware of efforts by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to relocate native Americans to urban areas as if they had not been moved around enough! The authors comparison of her journey to the trail of tears immediately caught my attention and in many ways her experiences could be compared to those of her ancestors. I also found it really interesting that her family bonded with the latina family in their neighborhood, this family probably were immigrants at one time so its nice to think that they would reach out and help another family going through similar experiences.-Emma<br />
<br />
==A Letter to the Editor of ''The Ladder'' from an African American Lesbian, 1957==<br />
<br />
'''The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here.''' Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society. On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.” The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422). It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of. - Alice W<br />
<br />
The Letter to the editor of The Ladder was very interesting. I agree with Alice on many points. I was also intrigued by her account of the struggle that women faced in general, whether they were homosexual or not. She explains “Women, like other oppressed groups of one kind or another, have particularly had to pay a price for the intellectual impoverishment that the second class status imposed on us for centuries” (421). It must have been comforting for lesbian women to have these publications out there. As MP explained in the preface to the chapter, The Ladder was the first American lesbian publication. Upon further research, I found that The Ladder was the first nationally distributed lesbian publication in the United States and was edited by Phyllis Lyon, co founder of Daughters of Bilitis, a lesbian organization. As the writer of the letter noted, this publication was “a fine elementary step in a rewarding direction” (421). It seems like a publication such as The Ladder was a step forward in bringing the lesbian community together while portraying a positive image of lesbian women to the public, something that was beyond taboo at the time. -Caryn<br />
<br />
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==<br />
<br />
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. '''She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416).''' A '''man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating.''' Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M<br />
<br />
This reminded me so much of this wonderful non-fiction piece called "The Ghetto Girls' Guide to Dating and Romance" by Sonja Livingston. Check it out. ANYWAYS '''I also heard echoes of the "double burden" idea of being both black and a woman: "the Negro woman finds herself at the bottom of the economic and social scale."''' I imagine that Murray's article was pretty darn controversial at the time--she talks unabashedly about the failings of black men, throwing her lot in with ostracized women who have spoken out with similar opinions. She makes a bold call to arms, and I'd be interested to know how that was taken. I'd imagine there was a lot of hate mail involved. --Sarah Smethurst</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-24T22:58:29Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman. She was able to make more money than she had before the War. Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child. I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill's experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I'm glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn't, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller's poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill's off hand comment of "they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse" (186). I know this is a women's history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==<br />
<br />
"Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job" (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today's understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it's easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers<br />
<br />
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply "didn't click" for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn't someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==<br />
<br />
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II's new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family's heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it's not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that "she'd never had the time" to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It's easy to see how real-life women in Gertie's situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, ''The Doll maker'', I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of what they wanted their life to be like. I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage. Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted. As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages. -MHimes<br />
<br />
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine. Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan<br />
<br />
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression. This family moved to Detroit due to the country's massive mobilization and hopefully a job. I think their experience there was nothing like they expected. They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status. But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work. Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring. The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was "adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room." I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living. Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, "Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall." (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband's job. I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie's life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, "When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?" (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==<br />
<br />
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were "perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater" (pg. 375) was on to something. It's noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn't seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to "less exhausting" positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army. “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==<br />
<br />
I felt for these Japanese-American people. There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was a terrible time in American History. We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps. This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S. In continuing with Morgan's mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower. These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad. The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
For Morgan's comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler's concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America's internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities. Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting. I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==<br />
<br />
This piece was particularly interesting. I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women. She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her. I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth's husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work. All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how "The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives." (205) I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==<br />
<br />
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties? She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts. Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness. She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it. There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work. However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children. – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a "new woman" and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, "fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death." (MAW, 191). Marion's letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC's wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Photos taken during WWII by Esther Bubley==<br />
<br />
First, I want to say that I found the photos to be really helpful. Not only can I understand the history of women during WWII but I can see them, I think this makes a big difference in fully understanding the time. Next, I want to say that what stood out to me was the different ways that women were dressed. All of these pictures were taken during the war, however, some women were wearing typical woman's clothing of the time, while other women were wearing pants. What is more interesting is that women in the skirts all seemed to sit in a really uncomfortable, uptight looking way with their legs crossed at the bottom or held tightly together with their hands in their laps. The women in pants, on the other hand, are sitting in traditionally male positions as we would see them today, slouched with legs wide open, leaning on the thighs. I'm not sure if that means anything, but it stood out to me. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
==Mary McLeod Bethune Urges President Roosevelt to Turn to Qualified Negro Women for Help, 1940==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be really interesting because it shows that black women felt the need to help their country just as much as the white women did. The reason it is so interesting to me is because up until this time, the country had not done much for the black community, so why should they feel like they need to be helping their country? The answer to that question is sort of what Bethune is getting at. She is saying that the black community has earned the right to be patriotic and defensive of their country because they ''are'' citizens. She wants to be treated like the white citizens who are defending their country because she is a hardworking citizen too. On page 372, she says while speaking about the black community, "they, too, have earned the right to be numbered among the active forces who are working towards the protection of our democratic stronghold." I think that Mary Bethune wants the President to know that black women love their country and want to protect it, and they should be given the right to do so. - Angie<br />
<br />
<br />
==Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, A Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s==<br />
<br />
I thought reading this article was really kind of sad because of how much Jeanne didn't seem to want anything to do with her Japanese culture. I don't think it was really a conscious decision on her part, its just that she was American and wanted to do American things. She didn't want to learn the traditional Japanese form of dance but instead wanted to do baton twirling and go to catechism. Furthermore, it was pretty obvious that she didn't care whether or not she found a Japanese husband or not. Jeanne and probably many other girls just like her really were not foreign at all. Jeanne didn't even speak Japanese. Americans at this time were terrified of anyone of that race and threw them all into the same category whether they belonged or not. This is a perfect example of someone who didn't belong. Women were already fighting hard for more equality and these girls had it even harder because, just like African Americans, they didn't have gender OR race on their side. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-24T22:50:49Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman. She was able to make more money than she had before the War. Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child. I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill's experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I'm glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn't, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller's poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill's off hand comment of "they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse" (186). I know this is a women's history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==<br />
<br />
"Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job" (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today's understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it's easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers<br />
<br />
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply "didn't click" for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn't someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==<br />
<br />
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II's new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family's heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it's not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that "she'd never had the time" to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It's easy to see how real-life women in Gertie's situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, ''The Doll maker'', I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of what they wanted their life to be like. I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage. Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted. As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages. -MHimes<br />
<br />
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine. Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan<br />
<br />
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression. This family moved to Detroit due to the country's massive mobilization and hopefully a job. I think their experience there was nothing like they expected. They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status. But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work. Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring. The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was "adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room." I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living. Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, "Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall." (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband's job. I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie's life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, "When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?" (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==<br />
<br />
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were "perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater" (pg. 375) was on to something. It's noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn't seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to "less exhausting" positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army. “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==<br />
<br />
I felt for these Japanese-American people. There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was a terrible time in American History. We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps. This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S. In continuing with Morgan's mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower. These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad. The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
For Morgan's comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler's concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America's internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities. Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting. I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==<br />
<br />
This piece was particularly interesting. I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women. She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her. I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth's husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work. All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how "The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives." (205) I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==<br />
<br />
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties? She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts. Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness. She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it. There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work. However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children. – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a "new woman" and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, "fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death." (MAW, 191). Marion's letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC's wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Photos taken during WWII by Esther Bubley==<br />
<br />
First, I want to say that I found the photos to be really helpful. Not only can I understand the history of women during WWII but I can see them, I think this makes a big difference in fully understanding the time. Next, I want to say that what stood out to me was the different ways that women were dressed. All of these pictures were taken during the war, however, some women were wearing typical woman's clothing of the time, while other women were wearing pants. What is more interesting is that women in the skirts all seemed to sit in a really uncomfortable, uptight looking way with their legs crossed at the bottom or held tightly together with their hands in their laps. The women in pants, on the other hand, are sitting in traditionally male positions as we would see them today, slouched with legs wide open, leaning on the thighs. I'm not sure if that means anything, but it stood out to me. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
==Mary McLeod Bethune Urges President Roosevelt to Turn to Qualified Negro Women for Help, 1940==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be really interesting because it shows that black women felt the need to help their country just as much as the white women did. The reason it is so interesting to me is because up until this time, the country had not done much for the black community, so why should they feel like they need to be helping their country? The answer to that question is sort of what Bethune is getting at. She is saying that the black community has earned the right to be patriotic and defensive of their country because they ''are'' citizens. She wants to be treated like the white citizens who are defending their country because she is a hardworking citizen too. On page 372, she says while speaking about the black community, "they, too, have earned the right to be numbered among the active forces who are working towards the protection of our democratic stronghold." I think that Mary Bethune wants the President to know that black women love their country and want to protect it, and they should be given the right to do so. - Angie<br />
<br />
<br />
==Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, A Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s==</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-24T22:28:26Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman. She was able to make more money than she had before the War. Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child. I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill's experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I'm glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn't, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller's poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill's off hand comment of "they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse" (186). I know this is a women's history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==<br />
<br />
"Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job" (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today's understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it's easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers<br />
<br />
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply "didn't click" for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn't someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==<br />
<br />
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II's new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family's heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it's not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that "she'd never had the time" to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It's easy to see how real-life women in Gertie's situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, ''The Doll maker'', I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of what they wanted their life to be like. I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage. Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted. As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages. -MHimes<br />
<br />
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine. Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan<br />
<br />
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression. This family moved to Detroit due to the country's massive mobilization and hopefully a job. I think their experience there was nothing like they expected. They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status. But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work. Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring. The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was "adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room." I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living. Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, "Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall." (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband's job. I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie's life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, "When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?" (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==<br />
<br />
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were "perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater" (pg. 375) was on to something. It's noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn't seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to "less exhausting" positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army. “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==<br />
<br />
I felt for these Japanese-American people. There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was a terrible time in American History. We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps. This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S. In continuing with Morgan's mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower. These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad. The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
For Morgan's comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler's concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America's internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities. Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting. I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==<br />
<br />
This piece was particularly interesting. I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women. She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her. I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth's husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work. All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how "The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives." (205) I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==<br />
<br />
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties? She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts. Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness. She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it. There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work. However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children. – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a "new woman" and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, "fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death." (MAW, 191). Marion's letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC's wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Photos taken during WWII by Esther Bubley==<br />
<br />
First, I want to say that I found the photos to be really helpful. Not only can I understand the history of women during WWII but I can see them, I think this makes a big difference in fully understanding the time. Next, I want to say that what stood out to me was the different ways that women were dressed. All of these pictures were taken during the war, however, some women were wearing typical woman's clothing of the time, while other women were wearing pants. What is more interesting is that women in the skirts all seemed to sit in a really uncomfortable, uptight looking way with their legs crossed at the bottom or held tightly together with their hands in their laps. The women in pants, on the other hand, are sitting in traditionally male positions as we would see them today, slouched with legs wide open, leaning on the thighs. I'm not sure if that means anything, but it stood out to me. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
==Mary McLeod Bethune Urges President Roosevelt to Turn to Qualified Negro Women for Help, 1940==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be really interesting because it shows that black women felt the need to help their country just as much as the white women did. The reason it is so interesting to me is because up until this time, the country had not done much for the black community, so why should they feel like they need to be helping their country? The answer to that question is sort of what Bethune is getting at. She is saying that the black community has earned the right to be patriotic and defensive of their country because they ''are'' citizens. She wants to be treated like the white citizens who are defending their country because she is a hardworking citizen too. On page 372, she says while speaking about the black community, "they, too, have earned the right to be numbered among the active forces who are working towards the protection of our democratic stronghold." I think that Mary Bethune wants the President to know that black women love their country and want to protect it, and they should be given the right to do so. - Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-24T22:17:27Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman. She was able to make more money than she had before the War. Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child. I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill's experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I'm glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn't, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller's poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill's off hand comment of "they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse" (186). I know this is a women's history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==<br />
<br />
"Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job" (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today's understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it's easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers<br />
<br />
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply "didn't click" for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn't someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==<br />
<br />
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II's new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family's heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it's not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that "she'd never had the time" to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It's easy to see how real-life women in Gertie's situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, ''The Doll maker'', I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of what they wanted their life to be like. I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage. Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted. As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages. -MHimes<br />
<br />
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine. Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan<br />
<br />
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression. This family moved to Detroit due to the country's massive mobilization and hopefully a job. I think their experience there was nothing like they expected. They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status. But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work. Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring. The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was "adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room." I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living. Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, "Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall." (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband's job. I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie's life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, "When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?" (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==<br />
<br />
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were "perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater" (pg. 375) was on to something. It's noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn't seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to "less exhausting" positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army. “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==<br />
<br />
I felt for these Japanese-American people. There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was a terrible time in American History. We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps. This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S. In continuing with Morgan's mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower. These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad. The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
For Morgan's comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler's concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America's internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities. Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting. I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==<br />
<br />
This piece was particularly interesting. I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women. She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her. I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth's husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work. All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how "The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives." (205) I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==<br />
<br />
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties? She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts. Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness. She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it. There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work. However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children. – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a "new woman" and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, "fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death." (MAW, 191). Marion's letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC's wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Photos taken during WWII by Esther Bubley==<br />
<br />
First, I want to say that I found the photos to be really helpful. Not only can I understand the history of women during WWII but I can see them, I think this makes a big difference in fully understanding the time. Next, I want to say that what stood out to me was the different ways that women were dressed. All of these pictures were taken during the war, however, some women were wearing typical woman's clothing of the time, while other women were wearing pants. What is more interesting is that women in the skirts all seemed to sit in a really uncomfortable, uptight looking way with their legs crossed at the bottom or held tightly together with their hands in their laps. The women in pants, on the other hand, are sitting in traditionally male positions as we would see them today, slouched with legs wide open, leaning on the thighs. I'm not sure if that means anything, but it stood out to me. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
==Mary McLeod Bethune Urges President Roosevelt to Turn to Qualified Negro Women for Help, 1940==</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-18T04:21:30Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn't find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression. I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help. I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat. She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them. That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily. The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says "if she's proud then she starves silently" (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today's societal norms.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating. It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was absolutely heart breaking to read. The images popped from the pages and really made these women become real and human. It is hard to understand the devestating effects the Depression had, and I think too often people look at the statistics (which are staggering and upsetting) but dont always stop and think about what really was going on. People were not sitting around passively going through the Depressio, they were lining up in hords to sit and wait hour after hour for, sometimes, months in hopes of any job opening up at all. LeSueur did an excellent job of being able to capture this feeling off deflated hope considering she was living it too, there was insight that can only be gained by seeing someone day in and day out desperate and needing that she was able to record in a manner that is heartbreaking. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
I think the most compelling part of this story was when the author described the breakdown of a young woman the previous day that escalated into a fight with the woman in charge of trying to find jobs for all of these desperate women. Both women are in a state of absolute desperation although one has a job she too faces bleak despair every day. The young woman has come to the agency everyday for 8 months in hope of finding a job and the other is forced to try and find jobs for hundreds of women when there aren't any to be had. It was heartbreaking for the other women to observe that now the only thing left for this woman is to go to the streets and turn to prostitution.--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I was particularly struck by the last line, “It’s not the suffering of birth, death, love that the young reject but the suffering of endless labor without dream, eating the spare bread in bitterness, being a slave without the security of a slave” (149). Without hope, the girls were left with nothing. I simply cannot imagine feeling as if you have been stripped of your future, and even thinking that perhaps slavery is better than simple poverty. Would these women have really traded positions with 19th century plantation slaves? Maybe, maybe not, but the sentiment shows the power poverty has on people’s ideals. – Alice W<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. '''Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families.''' I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters "were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action" (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. '''I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something.''' --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn't know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I can't imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. '''I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.''' -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. '''Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs?''' -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann brings up an important point in regards to women's resistance to accept charity. While I agree with everyone who has posted that these letters were heartbreaking, I also felt a sharp sense of pride reflected in these letters. Some women were willing to give collateral, like the woman with the wedding rings, just to ensure that any aid they were given was not viewed as charity, rather a loan. I think this reflects a lot of women's sentiments at the time and I am curious to see what other objects or possessions women were willing to part with to receive things they needed. -abratchi<br />
<br />
The letters to Mrs. Roosevelt were indeed upsetting, although I was most impressed with the woman seeking assistance for a new baby and offering to provide collateral. My question is why didn’t she take Mrs. Roosevelt’s advice and seek assistance from the Welfare Association? '''I understand pride and it’s commendable that she didn’t want to be seen as a charity case, but I think that the welfare of your children is always paramount.''' I think that she should have sucked it up, gone to the Welfare Association and asked for assistance. Social programs are put in place to help those in need for a specific period of time, I know I would have done anything and gone anywhere to help my kids. In addition, I found it kind of amusing that in all of this tragic poverty, one child writes and asks for roller skates of all things. I wonder if the Roosevelt’s or the White House had asked the citizens to send them letters of concern or if these are just individuals just too overburdened and looking for hope. EFritz<br />
<br />
In response to the above about the woman not wanting help from the Welfare Association, I think it's just really a matter of pride, but completely understandable. Welfare was a VERY new cause then, and before the only people who got charity were those of the low low working class. These women writing Mrs. Roosevelt were obviously very educated, probably newly impoverished and couldn't possibly imagine being indebted to someone. It is interesting to the note change in American views toward the presidency. I feel that today you would not see these huge amounts of letters to the President and First Lady in time of need. - Christine<br />
<br />
I agree with Christine about women not wanting welfare was a matter of pride. But I feel that if the situation were bad enough, someone might be willing to accept any help they are offered. However, I do understand that times were so tough, and I'm sure no one, men or women, wanted to admit that they were practically destitute and there was no end in sight, even with the New Deal's initial emergence. I found the introduction to this article quite interesting. President and Mrs. Roosevelt encouraged people to write letters expressing their concerns and problems. I think it was important for the American people to know that someone was listening to them, and that their pleas were not futile or unheard. The Roosevelts showed concern for the American people, and I think that was extremely important to people, especially in such harsh times. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
My first response to each of these letters is "Wow." I literally am struggling to find something to say. I agree with ABRATCHI about feeling the pride reflected in the letters. These women were all very strong-willed, though they were in hopeless situations. They were able to place aside their fears and insecurities in order to ask the most powerful woman in America to help them. That alone is respectable. It is also interesting to see how the way American's react to dire situation has changed in the past few decades. I sense that Americans, women in particular, have evolved to possess a more "go-getter" attitude.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
Like everyone has already expressed these letters were heartbreaking to read and its impossible not to feel these womens despair. '''They reminded me of a previous reading we did of the letters that African Americans in the south sent to a Chicago newspaper in their desperation to find a job. These women echoed the same amount of faith and trust that those women did in their letters. While these letters are extremely difficult to read it was amazing to see the kind of faith that the American people had in the government.''' Eleanor Roosevelt really made her self available to the people and whether or not she was able to help these women I think it must have helped them to know that there was someone out there who was listening. --Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I, like many others, found the letters to Mrs. Roosevelt really interesting. I think that its important to notice that many of these women were not comfortable asking for charity, and even reassured Mrs. Roosevelt that if she couldn't help them, they would understand. I also thought that the lady who offered her rings as a sort of collateral was especially intriguing because that fact that she was willing to give up two of her most important possessions shows how desperately she needed help. It also shows how much she trusted the First Lady to keep her rings safe so that she could earn them back later. I think its really cool and different how close these women felt to her. It seems to have been on such a personal level, like they were old friends. - Angie<br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of to'''uch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348).''' Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I feel that in times of crisis the government looks more for the ideal (which was never realized by most people anyway) and then makes it a national campaign. I liked her point about "who is to say when a man earns enough to suppor his family" (348) because it brings attention to the fact that during this time men really had an even harder time making enough t provide food for his family, and if he could do that, did that mean he earned enough? What standard are they basing "enough" on, because it may be different fro every person. So who really can judge a married woman as "needing a job" or "frivolous"? From the letters read earlier about the plight of most women workers (and a huge number of male workers as well), no job during the Depression was frivolous, every little bit counted for the family to survive.--jmarshal<br />
<br />
I agree with all of statements made so far on this post. It is pretty unbelievable that congress would even pass a law like this to begin with especially when women are now gaining more rights as well as opportunities in the workplace. Women should not always be allowed to work, even if their husband is making money because it just provides more income and support. Elanor makes some solid points, and all revolve around the basic question that if women want to work, why shouldn't they. Congress was right to repeal this act, especially during a dire economic crisis, but it should of never existed in the first place. Women working also just creates mor jobs and opportunities for everyone else and it was about time congress did something about it. -afrisk<br />
<br />
'''I was struck by Roosevelt's almost prophetic final statement, when she wonders if one day we will respect working women more than women who stay home.''' I think we have seen this time, although I think perhaps popular opinion is moving slightly past that and more towards whatever-you-choose-to-do-is-valid-because-it's-your-choice. When my mom chose to stay at home and raise me and my brothers, she got a certain amount of flack for her decision from people who assumed this meant she was "not working." That's not EXACTLY what Eleanor is saying--she's talking about women who stay home but make little of their time and embrace laziness instead, and not specifically about stay at home moms--but it's interesting to think that maybe this is where the idea started. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change. Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home. She was knowledgeable of how the system worked. It was no surprise that they took on this role. -MHimes<br />
<br />
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money. I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm. It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm. She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit. -MHimes<br />
<br />
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting. In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities. I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm sincerely impressed by the efforts of the housewives that were described in this section. My personal favorite is when "Black mothers in cleveland, unable to convince a local power company to delay shutting off electricity in the homes of families who had not paid their bills won resotration of power after they hung wet laundry over every utility line in the neighborhood." (page 402)That is crafty AND it got what they wanted to get accomplished accomplished. Although I don't support the logic that a woman's place is in the home, I have to give the housewives their credit for being as politically active as was described. -ssellers<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman's domestic service would be labeled a "slave market." Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==<br />
Obviously this is an issue that is still debated about today, and it is tough to say if it will ever be totally solved. Bromley is adamant on the use of birth control, especially during the great depression, when many families cannot really afford a child in their lives. It is, however, very difficult to force people to use birth control, especially when the methods at this time were so rudamentary. It is impossible to force all families to use birth control, but during a time like this, I beleive the use of it should be taken much more seriously because many children born during this time, will have a very difficult life right from the start. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338). Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control. However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression. How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control? Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books. It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies. It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics. It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition. Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex. It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you're already struggling to survive. It's stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes "it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility" it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn't afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn't allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn't allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn't refrain from having them. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately I find myself offended ON BEHALF of those struggling working-class Depression-era women whose complicated and difficult lives we're so flippantly joking about. I think we need to take a step back and put some historic context on these events--the temptation to cast our modern lens about birth control, considering what we know now, on events, personal decisons, and legislation so permanently mired in the past is alluring, but dangerous. Think about what it was like to be one of those women--the desperate women who inspired Margaret Sanger to push for birth control in the first place. Imagine yourself as one of the women we're talking about this week--married to a husband you may or may not love but whom society is screaming at you that you should, the both of you unemployed, going out every day to try to find work, any work at all, willing to suffer long hours and terrible conditions for a tiny bit of money that you desperately need. You could stand for hours in a breadline, trying not to make eye contact with all the other miserable women around you, or you could go to the welfare office and attempt to reapply again, even though you'll be denied just like you have all the other times before, but your dignity is one of the only things you have left to your name and you just can't degrade yourself that far. Not today. So you scrounge for small jobs, anything you can do--cooking, washing, cleaning--with no job security and no legislation to protect you. You take home the pennies you made, which you add to the nickels your husband managed to get, and you have to scrape it all together to buy a very small amount of food, which goes to feed your kids and occasionally you and your husband. How many kids do you have? 3? 4? 5? Too many mouths to feed as it is, and then one month your period is late and you know that you're pregnant, AGAIN, and you don't have any money for clothes, food, hospital bills, or anything else a new life requires. So what do you do? What CAN you do? Beg for charity? Write letters to the First Lady that will go unanswered? Get rid of the child you can't have with a coat hanger? Can you even imagine that? And years later some college student sitting in her class suggests you should've just stopped having sex. That if you hadn't used all that "free time" to get busy, maybe you wouldn't be so damn poor? That you should give up the only time you ever feel close to someone else, the only time you feel beautiful or loved? Or, worse, that you should somehow convince your husband not to have sex with you, knowing that there are very few laws that would help you if he chose otherwise against your will? Maybe if you knew any birth control methods that had more than a 5% success rate you could be saved from a bit of that misery. Maybe. There are, of course, the problems of logistics--manufacture and distribution at a dirt-cheap price you could afford--even if the problems of legislation and government blocks are overturned. <br />
<br />
THIS is why we study history. When we see life the way someone else once did, when we consider others' hardships and are able to empathize with their problems, we learn to get outside of ourselves and our own narrow opinions. If you walk through life with blinders that you've constructed for yourself or let others construct for you, you'll miss so much of the world around you, and we can't afford that blindness any more than we can afford to forget how these women thought and felt. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
Well put, Sarah, but I would also like to add, that for these couples to stop having sex, '''both''' the man and the woman would have to agree to this. Many times women had a hard time convincing their husbands to refrain, and so they had to seek out female contraceptives so they could protect themselves that way. - Alice W.<br />
<br />
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==<br />
<br />
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt's. Mollie's life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this. Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south. While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161). I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I liked this story a lot because it was so different than how many people view life during the Depression. I feel like Hollywood has made it seem like The Depression consisted of a bunch of poor people living on city streets and dirty factories. While these things were true, this story seems to show that things for simple, country farmers were still as they had been in the late 19th centuries. Mollie's family had to carry in water from a well, knew absolutely nothing about personal hygiene, and her brothers attended a one-teacher schoolhouse. The only thing that reminds you that Mollie is living in the 20th century is when she leaves home to go work in a factory and buys new things like hightop shoes. I think Mollie's personal story is touching and sad, but I also think that her story shines a light into how different life was in the country than in the city. Its like they never progressed into the 20th century. -- Angie<br />
<br />
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==<br />
<br />
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength. I found Carlotta's family's generosity amazing during such a rough time. Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money. They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate. The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays. Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community. While I'm sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
<br />
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==<br />
<br />
This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them. And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity. And they didn't oppose to having a picture taken of them! Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn't actually the case? Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it? Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women. Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I think that perhaps the women photographed were of a different mentality than those read in other primary sources we read. These women were Mexican American women, who were probably accustomed to not having the best that society can offer, they were not part of the prototypical white middle class ideal before the Depression. Also, they eithe had to go, or volunteered to go, around the back of the soup kitchen, so maybe they did face the same struggle with accepting cherity as other women we have read (or they were not allowed to go in because they didn't qualify for aide), but after weighing the option of going hungry or being able to feed their family for the nigt, it cmes down to you do what you have to do to survive. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
Like CBrau I found this photograph very odd. From reading Meridel LeSueur’s “Women in Breadlines” I also thought that women were too proud to wait in a soup line. I got the notion that women would feed all of their family before themselves and if they did not have a family that they would starve because they were too timid to wait in line for food. These women don’t seem to timid or scared to be standing waiting for food at all, they’re smiling in fact. Maybe it is because these women are Mexican-American? Like jmarshal states that they are used to not having the best of society and probably have no problem asking for help. I think that we’ve been focusing on the white middle-class women much, who were shaped by their lifestyle before the depression. Before the depression these women were independent and shied away from receiving any help at all, especially from a man (such as pictured here). Mexican –American’s always have had large families, retaining the structure as man being head of the household, surely did not feel this pressure to uphold ideals that she never had and gladly accepted help. -Morgan<br />
<br />
The caption notes that it was rare to see women on a breadline/soup line during the Depression, which I found strange considering the Orleck article on housewives. However, I googled some pictures, and it seems to be true. Weren’t women doing everything possible to provide for their families? So why not stand in breadlines? Was there some kind of masculine association with it? You’d think standing in a line for handouts would actually be emasculating. Maybe it was because men were expected to provide for their families, and this was just another way to do it. -- Taylor Brann</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-18T03:44:40Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn't find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression. I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help. I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat. She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them. That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily. The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says "if she's proud then she starves silently" (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today's societal norms.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating. It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was absolutely heart breaking to read. The images popped from the pages and really made these women become real and human. It is hard to understand the devestating effects the Depression had, and I think too often people look at the statistics (which are staggering and upsetting) but dont always stop and think about what really was going on. People were not sitting around passively going through the Depressio, they were lining up in hords to sit and wait hour after hour for, sometimes, months in hopes of any job opening up at all. LeSueur did an excellent job of being able to capture this feeling off deflated hope considering she was living it too, there was insight that can only be gained by seeing someone day in and day out desperate and needing that she was able to record in a manner that is heartbreaking. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
I think the most compelling part of this story was when the author described the breakdown of a young woman the previous day that escalated into a fight with the woman in charge of trying to find jobs for all of these desperate women. Both women are in a state of absolute desperation although one has a job she too faces bleak despair every day. The young woman has come to the agency everyday for 8 months in hope of finding a job and the other is forced to try and find jobs for hundreds of women when there aren't any to be had. It was heartbreaking for the other women to observe that now the only thing left for this woman is to go to the streets and turn to prostitution.--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters "were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action" (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn't know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I can't imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann brings up an important point in regards to women's resistance to accept charity. While I agree with everyone who has posted that these letters were heartbreaking, I also felt a sharp sense of pride reflected in these letters. Some women were willing to give collateral, like the woman with the wedding rings, just to ensure that any aid they were given was not viewed as charity, rather a loan. I think this reflects a lot of women's sentiments at the time and I am curious to see what other objects or possessions women were willing to part with to receive things they needed. -abratchi<br />
<br />
The letters to Mrs. Roosevelt were indeed upsetting, although I was most impressed with the woman seeking assistance for a new baby and offering to provide collateral. My question is why didn’t she take Mrs. Roosevelt’s advice and seek assistance from the Welfare Association? I understand pride and it’s commendable that she didn’t want to be seen as a charity case, but I think that the welfare of your children is always paramount. I think that she should have sucked it up, gone to the Welfare Association and asked for assistance. Social programs are put in place to help those in need for a specific period of time, I know I would have done anything and gone anywhere to help my kids. In addition, I found it kind of amusing that in all of this tragic poverty, one child writes and asks for roller skates of all things. I wonder if the Roosevelt’s or the White House had asked the citizens to send them letters of concern or if these are just individuals just too overburdened and looking for hope. EFritz<br />
<br />
In response to the above about the woman not wanting help from the Welfare Association, I think it's just really a matter of pride, but completely understandable. Welfare was a VERY new cause then, and before the only people who got charity were those of the low low working class. These women writing Mrs. Roosevelt were obviously very educated, probably newly impoverished and couldn't possibly imagine being indebted to someone. It is interesting to the note change in American views toward the presidency. I feel that today you would not see these huge amounts of letters to the President and First Lady in time of need. - Christine<br />
<br />
My first response to each of these letters is "Wow." I literally am struggling to find something to say. I agree with ABRATCHI about feeling the pride reflected in the letters. These women were all very strong-willed, though they were in hopeless situations. They were able to place aside their fears and insecurities in order to ask the most powerful woman in America to help them. That alone is respectable. It is also interesting to see how the way American's react to dire situation has changed in the past few decades. I sense that Americans, women in particular, have evolved to possess a more "go-getter" attitude.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
Like everyone has already expressed these letters were heartbreaking to read and its impossible not to feel these womens despair. They reminded me of a previous reading we did of the letters that African Americans in the south sent to a Chicago newspaper in their desperation to find a job. These women echoed the same amount of faith and trust that those women did in their letters. While these letters are extremely difficult to read it was amazing to see the kind of faith that the American people had in the government. Eleanor Roosevelt really made her self available to the people and whether or not she was able to help these women I think it must have helped them to know that there was someone out there who was listening. --Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I, like many others, found the letters to Mrs. Roosevelt really interesting. I think that its important to notice that many of these women were not comfortable asking for charity, and even reassured Mrs. Roosevelt that if she couldn't help them, they would understand. I also thought that the lady who offered her rings as a sort of collateral was especially intriguing because that fact that she was willing to give up two of her most important possessions shows how desperately she needed help. It also shows how much she trusted the First Lady to keep her rings safe so that she could earn them back later. I think its really cool and different how close these women felt to her. It seems to have been on such a personal level, like they were old friends. - Angie<br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I feel that in times of crisis the government looks more for the ideal (which was never realized by most people anyway) and then makes it a national campaign. I liked her point about "who is to say when a man earns enough to suppor his family" (348) because it brings attention to the fact that during this time men really had an even harder time making enough t provide food for his family, and if he could do that, did that mean he earned enough? What standard are they basing "enough" on, because it may be different fro every person. So who really can judge a married woman as "needing a job" or "frivolous"? From the letters read earlier about the plight of most women workers (and a huge number of male workers as well), no job during the Depression was frivolous, every little bit counted for the family to survive.--jmarshal<br />
<br />
I agree with all of statements made so far on this post. It is pretty unbelievable that congress would even pass a law like this to begin with especially when women are now gaining more rights as well as opportunities in the workplace. Women should not always be allowed to work, even if their husband is making money because it just provides more income and support. Elanor makes some solid points, and all revolve around the basic question that if women want to work, why shouldn't they. Congress was right to repeal this act, especially during a dire economic crisis, but it should of never existed in the first place. Women working also just creates mor jobs and opportunities for everyone else and it was about time congress did something about it. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change. Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home. She was knowledgeable of how the system worked. It was no surprise that they took on this role. -MHimes<br />
<br />
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money. I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm. It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm. She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit. -MHimes<br />
<br />
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting. In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities. I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm sincerely impressed by the efforts of the housewives that were described in this section. My personal favorite is when "Black mothers in cleveland, unable to convince a local power company to delay shutting off electricity in the homes of families who had not paid their bills won resotration of power after they hung wet laundry over every utility line in the neighborhood." (page 402)That is crafty AND it got what they wanted to get accomplished accomplished. Although I don't support the logic that a woman's place is in the home, I have to give the housewives their credit for being as politically active as was described. -ssellers<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman's domestic service would be labeled a "slave market." Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==<br />
Obviously this is an issue that is still debated about today, and it is tough to say if it will ever be totally solved. Bromley is adamant on the use of birth control, especially during the great depression, when many families cannot really afford a child in their lives. It is, however, very difficult to force people to use birth control, especially when the methods at this time were so rudamentary. It is impossible to force all families to use birth control, but during a time like this, I beleive the use of it should be taken much more seriously because many children born during this time, will have a very difficult life right from the start. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338). Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control. However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression. How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control? Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books. It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies. It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics. It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition. Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex. It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you're already struggling to survive. It's stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes "it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility" it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn't afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn't allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn't allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn't refrain from having them. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
“couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that?" "if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children ... then stop having sex" "Having a child during the depression when you couldn't afford it ... is selfish." <br />
<br />
I hate to be the one who has to call people out but I am offended ON BEHALF of those struggling working-class Depression-era women whose complicated and difficult lives we're so flippantly joking about. I think we need to take a step back and put some historic context on these events--the temptation to cast our modern lens about birth control, considering what we know now, on events, personal decisons, and legislation so permanently mired in the past is alluring, but dangerous. Think about what it was like to be one of those women--the desperate women who inspired Margaret Sanger to push for birth control in the first place. Imagine yourself as one of the women we're talking about this week--married to a husband you may or may not love but whom society is screaming at you that you should, the both of you unemployed, going out every day to try to find work, any work at all, willing to suffer long hours and terrible conditions for a tiny bit of money that you desperately need. You could stand for hours in a breadline, trying not to make eye contact with all the other miserable women around you, or you could go to the welfare office and attempt to reapply again, even though you'll be denied just like you have all the other times before, but your dignity is one of the only things you have left to your name and you just can't degrade yourself that far. Not today. So you scrounge for small jobs, anything you can do--cooking, washing, cleaning--with no job security and no legislation to protect you. You take home the pennies you made, which you add to the nickels your husband managed to get, and you have to scrape it all together to buy a very small amount of food, which goes to feed your kids and occasionally you and your husband. How many kids do you have? 3? 4? 5? Too many mouths to feed as it is, and then one month your period is late and you know that you're pregnant, AGAIN, and you don't have any money for clothes, food, hospital bills, or anything else a new life requires. So what do you do? What CAN you do? Beg for charity? Write letters to the First Lady that will go unanswered? Get rid of the child you can't have with a coat hanger? Can you even imagine that? And years later some college student sitting in her class says you should've just stopped having sex. That if you hadn't used all that "free time" to get busy, maybe you wouldn't be so damn poor? That you should give up the only time you ever feel close to someone else, the only time you feel beautiful or loved? Or, worse, that you should somehow convince your husband not to have sex with you, knowing that there are very few laws that would help you if he chose otherwise against your will? Maybe if you knew any birth control methods that had more than a 5% success rate you could be saved from a bit of that misery. Maybe. There are, of course, the problems of logistics--manufacture and distribution at a dirt-cheap price you could afford--even if the problems of legislation and government blocks are overturned. <br />
<br />
THIS is why we study history. When we see life the way someone else once did, when we consider others' hardships and are able to empathize with their problems, we learn to get outside of ourselves and our own narrow opinions. If you walk through life with blinders that you've constructed for yourself or let others construct for you, you'll miss so much of the world around you, and we can't afford that blindness any more than we can afford to forget how these women thought and felt. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==<br />
<br />
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt's. Mollie's life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this. Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south. While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161). I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn<br />
<br />
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==<br />
<br />
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength. I found Carlotta's family's generosity amazing during such a rough time. Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money. They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate. The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays. Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community. While I'm sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
<br />
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==<br />
<br />
This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them. And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity. And they didn't oppose to having a picture taken of them! Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn't actually the case? Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it? Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women. Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I think that perhaps the women photographed were of a different mentality than those read in other primary sources we read. These women were Mexican American women, who were probably accustomed to not having the best that society can offer, they were not part of the prototypical white middle class ideal before the Depression. Also, they eithe had to go, or volunteered to go, around the back of the soup kitchen, so maybe they did face the same struggle with accepting cherity as other women we have read (or they were not allowed to go in because they didn't qualify for aide), but after weighing the option of going hungry or being able to feed their family for the nigt, it cmes down to you do what you have to do to survive. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
Like CBrau I found this photograph very odd. From reading Meridel LeSueur’s “Women in Breadlines” I also thought that women were too proud to wait in a soup line. I got the notion that women would feed all of their family before themselves and if they did not have a family that they would starve because they were too timid to wait in line for food. These women don’t seem to timid or scared to be standing waiting for food at all, they’re smiling in fact. Maybe it is because these women are Mexican-American? Like jmarshal states that they are used to not having the best of society and probably have no problem asking for help. I think that we’ve been focusing on the white middle-class women much, who were shaped by their lifestyle before the depression. Before the depression these women were independent and shied away from receiving any help at all, especially from a man (such as pictured here). Mexican –American’s always have had large families, retaining the structure as man being head of the household, surely did not feel this pressure to uphold ideals that she never had and gladly accepted help. -Morgan<br />
<br />
The caption notes that it was rare to see women on a breadline/soup line during the Depression, which I found strange considering the Orleck article on housewives. However, I googled some pictures, and it seems to be true. Weren’t women doing everything possible to provide for their families? So why not stand in breadlines? Was there some kind of masculine association with it? You’d think standing in a line for handouts would actually be emasculating. Maybe it was because men were expected to provide for their families, and this was just another way to do it. -- Taylor Brann</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-16T00:34:09Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
'''EXTRA CREDIT: Focusing only on the primary source readings, discuss the context within which one or two of these documents were created: What were the goals of the people writing? Who were they writing for? Consider the circumstances of their creation. How would people at the time have received those ideas or claims and why? (Think broadly; some people would like some ideas that others would not.) ''' <br />
<br />
==Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith==<br />
Since we didn't get a chance to spend time on them in class, you can listen to some of their music [http://kokoro.umwblogs.org/2010/03/13/ma-rainey-and-bessie-smith/ here]. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Thanks Taylor! - christine<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
<br />
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference? How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching. I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so. I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal. -Alice W<br />
<br />
I thought the phrase “hope in a jar” (P.360) was interesting because it showed how women depended so much on make up to bring them more importance in the world. They also expected make-up to make life smoother for them, bringing them new opportunities. So many acts, like using make up that were previously looked down upon, were suddenly accepted when society saw that movie stars/high class people would use cosmetics. Society and culture was so easily influenced by outside factors such as movies. I think during this time, cosmetics created a false sense of “the self." “A woman’s personal success relied on her appearance.” (P.355) What about her abilities, her work ethic, etc? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Wonder what the guys in the class think about makeup in this class. I personally don't like makeup, but that might be more of a personal opinion reflecting my upbringing and interpretations of media. I suppose the question is--if makeup is not linked to prostitution anymore, then what is, because for some reason I think that makeup still represents that oldest of professions to some degree. I have no idea how looking "exotic" is supposed to be less offensive...I don't really understand the WASP middle class fascination with all things different--is this a new development or something that arose around this time period? I like Mary Ann's interpretation of the rise of makeup, highlighting feminine features when increasing numbers of women were entering the public sphere. So my question is whether or not the rising popularity of makeup indicative of a new level of freedom experienced by women or something that more firmly entrenched and highlighted their separateness from men? I suppose this goes back to the arguments between the feminists and social feminists insofar as making a truly equal society or preserving protective legislation... -schang<br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time. The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l<br />
<br />
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well. I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
Why would Dr. Frederick "of course...tried to explain it away?" Didn't Jane Addams, Louise DeKoven Brown and other Chicago reformers blame overwork, commercialized recreation and alcohol for "bringing out natural yearnings and instincts that THEY preferred to see repressed"? Why would these women want to see these instincts repressed? Wouldn't a prominent woman such as Addams OF COURSE have approved of open sexual practices? And why would Dr. Frederick have bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex? Mosher's study wasn't common nor was it published, so why are we assuming today that it was a common thing to ask women about their attitudes towards sex a century ago? And didn't the Mosher survey find that some women didn't have an interest in sex? I'm sure that women's history is a contentious topic but objectivity needs to be maintained and we need to make sure that we don't project our modern day assumptions into history. -schang<br />
<br />
Um, no one’s assuming that it was common practice for women to be interviewed about sex at that time, or really for anyone to be interviewed about it at that time. Nor do I see anyone projecting modern day assumptions. Frederick’s suggesting that “sexual desire is entirely absent in a much larger number of women than is generally supposed" (291) and that any woman who expresses real sexual desire is pretty much a nymphomaniac. I simply pointed out that, despite the impropriety of asking such questions at the time and in particular coming from a man, if he had done ''actual'' scientific research, such as the interviews conducted by Mosher (and from the samples we saw, all of the women often found sex agreeable), that he would have probably disregarded the answers and tried to explain them away because it didn’t jive with his and society’s beliefs about women. A lot of people probably would have done the same. Yet, clearly the Mosher survey shows that there were some women of the period who were more open to sex and recognized that they enjoyed it or even that it was necessary to their health. So, sure, maybe there were women like Jane Addams who preferred to see sex repressed, but there were also women who didn’t want to repress their sexual desires. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I agree with Taylor here. The Mosher survey is an example of dialogue beginning to open, but certainly not the norm. The doctor was not going door to door asking all women these questions; this was just a small sample group. That being said a survey such as this not only reveals that women at this time did harbor sexual desire, it also illustrates that types of marriages that they had. Though some of the women believed that sex was primarily for the purpose of procreation and male sexual satisfaction, others felt that it was a key component to the marriage. This was not a popular conversation at the time so I do not see how any of the former posts were projecting modern ideals onto the study. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
==Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses Discuss the Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930==<br />
<br />
Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses stressed the importance of the sexual relationship between the husband and wife, in order to obtain a fulfilled and happy marriage. Their goals were to make sex education more available to the “average” person and not limited to only professional classes and to show the importance of women’s own active participation in the physical relationship of marriage. They acknowledged that women had recognized themselves as sexual beings in this modern era and needed to be educated to fulfill those roles in a marriage of mutual companionship. I think they were writing for those who restricted this information from getting out. They are showing that by restricting this information that they are impairing (what they called handicapping) women from obtaining that fulfilled happy marriage and encouraging personality conflicts by allowing ignorance on the subject of sex. In general, I don’t think people knew how to react to this information. They probably felt it was needed and wanted but some were afraid to openly acknowledge this but secretly may have wanted to obtain it. There were religious reasons that encouraged people to reject this in fear of being immoral and inappropriate. Some women may have been comfortable with the rigidity of women’s role whereas others felt that it allowed women a more equal partner in the marriage. Blanchard and Manasses were saying that by educating women, they would meet the needs of their own sexual desires and expectations and being more apt to satisfying her partner. These women are liberal in their thoughts on pre-marital sex and emphasized that one should try their partners out sexually before marriage to see if they would be compatible. I don’t think that this was generally accepted though it wouldn’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t being practiced. In the eyes of these two Psychologists, the modern marriage required a larger emphasis on the physical side and this made the importance of educating women about sex and contraceptives even more important. -MHimes<br />
<br />
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be "one vast brothel." The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written. It's amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality. Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the 'slippery slope' argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Carlton C. Fredericks, M.D.’s assessment of what he calls “Nymphomania” was absurd. He even goes as far to propose that women who view sex or masturbation as gratifying automatically classify them as perverts. It seems that any sexual expression that he deemed as improper was in some way perverse. It was such a contrast to the Mosher study because Fredericks views a women’s sexual appetite as “insane or mildly insane”(291) where Mosher is finding that many women feel it is necessary to carry on a healthy marriage. It is interesting as well because the Mosher's study took place at around the same time, the duality between these two school of thought are amazing! –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece. As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves. This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
<br />
I love your comparison, Erin! It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted. Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women. I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a "proper" lady that wasn't particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible. And yet, Dr. Frederick's claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence. I wonder if more readers believed or didn't believe what this man wrote. I laughed at the last line, "the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them" (p. 4). This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
If there was one article I read out loud incredulously as I forced my roommate to listen, it was this one. Fredericks gets the Women's History prize for Official Idiot, and I hope he was recognized as such during his time, although I doubt it. His accusations are not only wildly speculative and libelous, but also unfounded and unsupported by neutral documentation. Even if you took out the ridiculous subject material, his disturbing lack of evidence and wild examples would make for an extremely weak argument. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I wonder if I am finding this thread to be a bit ridiculous because I am a male or if there is just a little hint of a bias in peoples' interpretations of this primary source. First, unless I am mistaken and if I am, then someone please correct me, but I had thought that masturbation by anyone, males or females, was considered a perversion of sorts during this time period. Second, did Mosher find anything contrary to what Frederick did? I don't remember reading any of Mosher's own interpretations of the interview results, the reading is just the interview questions and answers--none of Mosher's own analysis there, unless I forgot something. Differences between results? Where was Frederick based out of? Were Californians more liberal back then as they are now? Even if they weren't, geographical considerations have to be taken into account before a comparison can be made. Why is Frederick's study less convincing? Does it not represent the popular AND professional understanding of femininity and sexuality at the time? And before we dismiss his claim that the numbers and variations of practices were too various to include and such, this was published in a journal, and therefore couldn't include whatever raw data he might or might not have collected. Again, why was Frederick an idiot--for publishing something that was in line with the prevalent medical opinion concerning this issue? Same argument for the other complaints about Frederick. I'm not defending Frederick as a person, I am only arguing for trying to retain some semblance of objectivity when reading primary documents and trying to put them in the context of their time period rather than impose our own conceptions onto history. -schang<br />
<br />
It seems to me that the people finding Frederick’s report ridiculous do recognize that it would have been in line with traditional medical assumptions of the day. You’re right that the survey has none of Mosher’s own analysis, but I think the answers (at least the ones we were able to read and that’s key for anything we say regarding it) speak for themselves. All of the women found sex agreeable, except for one woman who found it agreeable “usually.” All of them said there were times when they desired sex, and some of them said the ideal would be to have sex when both the husband and wife wanted it. The idea of a woman actually ''wanting'' sex, and not being a nympho, is the complete opposite of Frederick’s report. So, to answer your question, yes, the survey contradicts Frederick, and that’s putting it lightly. Reading the Mosher survey right before Frederick’s report really highlights his lack of evidence for his claims, and maybe that’s why people were reacting so harshly towards him in their comments. Wanting scientific evidence isn’t even out of line with the time period either. Frankly, for all of your talk about looking at primary sources within their context, I think you’re ignoring the Mosher survey within its context. To me, the survey (in the parts we read) suggests that perhaps Frederick’s assumptions about women and their sexual desire, or lack thereof, weren’t as prevalent in actual society as believed. Perhaps public assumptions about sex didn’t completely match up with personal assumptions about sex, if that makes any sense. Unfortunately, we don’t have many surveys like Mosher’s. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Again, Taylor I agree. The Fredericks report seems quite frankly, his opinion of women. I understand that this was a popular notion held by many medical professionals at the time, but he shows no objectivity, nor does he express any scientific evidence to back up his claim. The Mosher study, though it does not provide and analysis of the subject matter at the end, still demonstrates how WOMEN viewed sex and sexual satisfaction at the time. The Mosher survey is a sociological study where as the Fredericks Report is an editorialized account. I think when comparing these two primary sources, we have to remember that fact. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I disagree with the implication of Catt's undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it's still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states "Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn't follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men". I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal <br />
<br />
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women. "You won't be so welcome there, but that is the place to be," (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside. I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says "this is the same old struggle but in a new field." She new that just because women had the right to vote didn't mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie<br />
<br />
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights. The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process. Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak. EFritz<br />
<br />
I concur (big word) with EFritz with the acknowledgement that Catt was fully aware of the impending struggles of women. She recognizes the difficulties women will now face as voters. Though they have the right to vote, it does not inherently mean that everything else they desired, namely equality with men, will be achieved. Though suffrage was obtained it does not bring about total reconstruction in societal norms, which have been in place for centuries. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I believe that at the bottom of this article there is a very simple goal for Carrie Chapman Catt, to get recognition from the world of the actual substantiality of women. Since that is a rather large, ambiguous, and (considering it still has not been a completed goal)impossible goal she had to first start aiming that goal toward the women she expected to lead the fight to accomplish it. Although it almost seems as though Catt is talking to women she had already convinced to join her in the fight towards suffrage, I personally believe she is attempting to persuade women who may not understand that they are being oppressed by the lack of societal recognition for their greatness. She is trying to inform them that they were born great women and should fight to be recognized for that, even if that fight means going against the crowd that would rather the women would just shut up and deal with their place in life. I think the people who she wasn't trying to persuade with this message would take it the same way that people in today's society react when they're reminded with the continued inequality of Women in places like the workforce; They'd either not care, not understand why anyone would bother to care, care a lot, or justify the reasoning for the inequalities on arbitrary facts (like women being capable of getting pregnant meaning that they will use that capability to miss out on working and lose the company money, which is why they aren't paid as much). On the other side, people hearing this argument from the other side might find an invigoration for the cause so great that they dedicate their life to changing and fighting for the rights of women. Men might read this article and realize that they have no justification within society for the woman to still be dealing with the same fight she'd been dealing with throughout the entirety of the existence of the United States. That reaction, however, I feel is entirely unlikely and considering the lack of women's equality still existing today to a great extent, it probably was unlikely. Carrie Chapman Catt, however, probably felt that she had to write this article because she had to express to her followers, potential followers and dissenters that she wasn't done fighting just because women finally got the right to vote. To her, that was just the first step. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
I think Carrie Chapman Catt gave this cautionary speech to women as a way to remind them that they should not forget what they fought so hard for. She wants women to use their heads and think for themselves. She doesn't want them to vote how their husbands vote just because. She doesn't want them to only discuss politics within their homes and only influence their husbands. She wants women to realize that just voting is not enough, but they have to step into the political arena and voice their opinions. I think this probably did not go over well with many people at the time, especially conservative men. Just like in the first western states that gave women suffrage, men were probably expecting women to just follow their lead in political opinion. I'm sure they were surprised and a bit distraught to learn that Carrie Chapman Catt was directing women to learn about politics themselves, formulate their own opinions, and then fight to get their ideas and views out there. --Angie<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment. Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society. To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men. Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion. Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true. She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women. She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE'RE EQUAL!! Others didn't quite that stance. It's important to remember that many women approved of women's suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different. She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified. ---jmarshal<br />
<br />
Of the two arguments that Alice Hamilton and Doris Stevens gave I found Steven’s debate to be more influential than Hamilton’s. Steven’s was very straight forward about what she wanted, especially in listing what the Equal Rights Amendment would achieve for women. The list itself is eye-catching because it isn’t part of a paragraph, a radical move by a radical woman I suppose. I think that Doris is the epitome of what younger women didn’t want to be like, as Bromley further suggestes in her article. -Morgan<br />
<br />
Obviously the debate that appeared in The Forum in 1924 would have been written for people who were able to obtain copies-mostly white, middle class, men and some women. Both sides were defending their positions of whether to have an Equal Rights Amendment or not. Doris Stevens basically believed that suffrage alone did not give women full rights as humans and needed more protection of the law and equality. She clearly defined the rights she thought women were due including "Equal Citizenship rights" and "Equal pay for equal rights" (125). Like Morgan, I don't find Hamilton's argument nearly as convincing. I may also be biased, however, because I still find it very unusual for women to not desire the same amount of rights that men had or think that having more rights might even be harmful for women or cause more problems. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
The goals of both authors, Doris Stevens and Alice Hamilton, were to appeal to their affiliations and to persuade readers that their certain cause was more just than the others. Whether this was accomplished is debatable however. I can see why some women, either part of the National Women’s Party or the League of Women’s Voters, may have read this debate and changed side based upon it. Not being part of either I can see both side’s points and the validity behind them. The circumstances under which the debate was written was at a time of the 1920’s when women had achieved suffrage and were looking for something else that they could fight for, as well as bond together over. Most women after being given the right to vote, as well as Congress, didn’t see anything else that women needed. There was so much that could be gained by an Equal Rights Amendment, but the younger generation seemed unwilling to fight for it. Even the white, middle class women who had always had issues with something political or male oriented. I think that the arguments presented between both women were viewed as a good show, but nothing of great importance. -Morgan<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz, "Sexual Geography & Gender Economy" in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
This essay discusses the growing sexual and emotional freedom that women were obtaining in the eartly 20th century. They were able to choose how they wanted to carry themselves sexually in society. However, to me, this essay was also a great paradox. Although these women expressed themselves more feely than in the past, they were also severley tied down to men still. Even in these so-called "furnished-room" districts, there was still sexual oppression and these women were subject to rape, poor conditions and economic dependence. Although they could conceibably choose their different sex partners, they were also very dependent on these men for their business. They need to break away from these districts in order to be truly sexually liberated. Many downplayed these factors, but in order for women to liberated, these constraints must be lifted.-afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn't just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers<br />
<br />
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz's article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, "opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion" (US, 335). This "freedom of urban life" gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal<br />
<br />
Today the women described in this article would be a combination of a prostitute and a “sugar-baby” to a “sugar-daddy”. Like others I found “dating,” “pick-ups,” “occasional prostitution,” and “temporary alliances” (329) as odd names to give to these casual sexual encounters, as if they were nothing at all. I doubt that these women thought anything of it and let it become a way of life though. Instead of going out and finding better jobs or more work, they fell back onto the notion of being a woman could get them what they wanted without the work. “If I did not have a man, I could not get along on my wages.” (330) -Morgan<br />
<br />
What's behind the three different versions of the sexual revolution? Flappers vs independent new women vs working-class rowdy girls. Is there one single interpretation that can explain the revolution or do all three have some merit? Also interesting, it seems as though some people now see prostitution as a good thing, if not a means to get by economically. I recall that most people were shocked and upset when reading about the Chinese prostitutes during the late nineteenth century...so what changed that makes people more comfortable with this idea? The seeming lack of organization insofar as the kind of bookkeeping that we saw with the bills of sales of Chinese prostitutes? Does the lack of that kind of documentation naturally imply that women were no longer coerced into prostitution, even if it was to just get by once in a while? Or were there pimps, perhaps some of the men living with them in these furnished districts that acted in such a capacity but without drawing up bills or contracts since prostitution was illegal now? And if this wasn't the case, which I suspect might have been in at least some shape or form, perhaps societal pressures from their peers coerced them into prostitution, since apparently if a good looking girl didn't sell herself she was considered a fool. What's worse? That kind of social coercion or the kind of legal coercion that we saw in California? -schang<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
Feminism.. "For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman's place in the world..." I enjoyed this line... that's how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I found it interesting how "Feminist-New Style" felt superior to the older women who had enabled them to lead the comfortable, sociable lifestyles they pursued. They felt no gratitude towards these former suffragettes, only contempt. Is this because they felt stronger than them because of their youth, felt more independent because of their economic independence, or just simply thought they were entitled to all of the rights they had? The answer baffles me. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In response to Anna's question, I think it might have a been a combination of the three. Even today, it is obvious in some cases where youths are ungrateful for what they have been given or the privileges they have been born with. For instance, many Americans view the opportunity to vote as a right, not the privilege it is. The same can be said for the women of this particular era. Simultaneously, the economic independence that these women were able to benefit from would give them almost a false sense of self. They would not appreciate the labors their mothers had to endure. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I absolutely loved this article because I think it actually represents alot of the ideals that modern women have today. I think it was really progressive for Bromley to talk about women being able to have both a career AND a family, giving equal attention to both. That is the sort of equality that women have been fighting for, the right to be happy. Bromley is saying that women the new woman, if she balances everything correctly, can be very happy. She has the ability to be a professional and still has the ability to be a mom. She doesn't need to constantly argue that she is as good as a man because she can just simply prove it in her actions. I think its really cool how she sort of brings all the different opinions of what women should be doing together and forms a type of super woman. -- Angie<br />
<br />
My favorite part of this article, other than the ambition of younger women to have a family and a career (as Angie points out) was the reference to war materials. “With a battle-cry still on their lips…still throwing hand grenades,” (128). This article was written in 1927 and “The Great War” had only ended ten years earlier. I believe that tensions in the Us may have still been raw and that may be the reason for such a reference. Bromley effectively suggests that the 1st and 2nd generation women as battle-hardened veterans. As veterans I would expect them to cold and judgmental toward those that they had fought against, men. -Morgan<br />
<br />
While I thought some of the points made by the New Style Feminists were good, I can't help but feel that their mothers and even grandmothers would be sad to see the flippant way they discussed their struggles and triumphs. They seem to have forgotten that these women fought hard so that they their daughters would not have to. While their argument about creating your own identity instead of fighting to keep your maiden name was valid these new style feminists seemed to have overlooked what was at the core of the feminist movement. It was interesting to see how this article shows the differences between generations. Although the New Style idea of the stereotype of feminism has a cause for angry and embittered women has definitely persevered.--Emma<br />
<br />
<br />
The goal of Dorothy Bromley’s “Feminist-New Style” article, of 1927, was to differentiate between the three generations of women that were part of the 1920’s era and to emphasize the younger generation. Obviously Bromley was a strong supporter, defender, of the younger generation and was writing to enhance her reasons for disliking the older generations of women. The young women would have received this article whole heartily as a defense against the older generations, as a response to the criticism they had already received. The older generations probably saw this article as an attack against them and what they had stood for. Possibly an attack on what they had already accomplished insofar as the younger generation not being appreciative of what they had done for them and the freedoms they had created for them. Bromley’s article was written at the end of the 1920’s and the beginning of the sexual revolution of the 1930’s just around the corner, the young generation of women were already showing rebellion towards the traditional behavior of women that was expected. This article may have helped instill in the younger generation that what they were doing was ok and more “modern” women, such as Bromley, understood and accepted them, even if the older generations did not. -Morgan<br />
<br />
Firstly, I agree with Morgan that perhaps Dorothy Bromley was trying to encourage younger women. I also think that this was a sort of defensive piece as well, though. At the time, men probably were not 100% comfortable with women having their own professional lives and this can be seen as her letting everyone know that the new feminist can balance a family as well as a career. She says things like "she will not, however, live for her job alone" (p. 128) and "nor has she become hostile to the other sex" (p. 129). These statements are comforting to those people that have some crazy idea of a cold-hearted feminist. Perhaps there were a few of them during the suffrage days, but Bromley is trying to convince women AND men that that really is not the case. -- Angie<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi<br />
<br />
The anxious mothers were certainly anxious, but who could blame them with a high “maternal and infant” (130) mortality rate. Like the others who have posted I was quite intrigued by both mother number 2 and number 3. The second mother had, what seemed to me, laughable concerns. I have to remember that women were generally clueless about prenatal care at this point, so I could understand that if you crave something so intensely denying yourself would seem detrimental to the baby, but I was unclear as to why touching your face had anything to do with this. The third mother expressed the most valid concerns of the three. The shear idea of justice in a medical malpractice suit must have seemed so far-fetched at the time, considering that medical malpractices suits are hard to prove today! As the third mother recounted, many of the doctors who claimed to be experts, did not provide adequate care to these mothers in both the pre and post natal area. The third mothers call for government regulation of hospital practices must have been quite revolutionary at the time, given the fact that many professionals such as doctors were trusted almost blindly. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys. I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children. Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau's pamphlets. Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women. This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E. is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on. Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women. Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today. Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after. I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one. I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program. It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was 'marking' the baby by her cravings. I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to. In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz<br />
<br />
I found this article shocking, even mildly sad. The desperation of these women to obtain information about their bodies and pregnancy is a stark contrast to today, when all you have to do is log onto the internet to answer any and every question. What is even worse is that I'm sure the postal system did not operate very quickly back then, leaving the women waiting weeks for an answer from the Children's Bureau. However, I liked that the government finally took an interest in women's concerns and created this branch. It clearly was of service to many women of very diverse backgrounds.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I thought this article was really interesting and it was nice to see that the government was giving attention to an area that was obviously in need of federal aid or even just attention. I think sometimes we take for granted how the improvements in modern medicine and healthcare overall have made childbirth significantly safer for women. I was sad to see that the program ended in 1929. Judging by these letters the Bureau was important and helpful to a lot of women. --Emma<br />
<br />
These letters remind us both that women in the 1920s faced very real threats to their lives during pregnancy and childbirth and that the lives of many women throughout the country continued to revolve around their children and families and not political issues like the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment. The authors of the letters want to do everything they can to be good mothers and protect the health of their children and themselves. But it sounds as though discussion of the matters relating to childbearing, despite the Children's Bureau publications, were largely absent from public discourse and women found themselves very isolated. Perhaps, like birth control, pregnancy and childbirth was seen as too crude to be discussed openly or even among friends, as the author of the second letter indicates no one in her immediate circle cares about her questions. And women's issues remained low on the list of priorities of doctors, causing many women to suffer health consequences. One would think that in an age that valued motherhood, especially white middle class motherhood, so extensively, that women like those who wrote the letters would have had more options to keep themselves and their children healthy. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Mary Ann is right on point. Women during this time had little access to health care, especially poor and working class women. I think it is good to keep in mind that it was usually only the mid to upper class who had access to health care and doctors because they could afford for it. Also, since this was the period of Comstock Laws, women were unable to access information about birth control which made pregnancy a very real, yet fearful thing because of the risks that were involved. I believe that these women were writing simply out of need for information they could not access elsewhere. These women display just a snapshot of the reality of pregnancy during this period, while also echoing the concerns of women who were now expected to be completely responsible for both the home and the children. -abratchi<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann as well. We do have also remove ourselves from the modern notions of child birth and child rearing and remember that it was quite life threatening. It was not uncommon for women to have one child after another as well because of the lack of birth control. It must have been very comforting to these women to have a Federal agency such as the Children’s Bureau to guide them. In the aftermath of the Great War, I gather that many women turned to Children’s Bureau for help. I looked up some more information on the Bureau on our favorite Wikipedia and found out that it was created by President Taft In 1912 and that Julia Lathrop was the first head of the Bureau. I wonder if Taft appointed her because he thought that as a woman she was more qualified to run the Bureau or if she was simply THE person for the job. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== Excerpt from "Passing" by Nella Larsen ==<br />
<br />
I remember reading this scene from "Passing" back when my high school class covered the novel, and I was very intrigued by the notion of passing and the possible reasons for it. The story Clare gives for her own experience in passing in this section seems to be one of convenience and opportunity (raised by white aunts that did not advertise her background), deception (she manipulates her husband to run away with her before her aunts could reveal she was black), and a lot of yearning (she seems to resent her aunt's treatment of her and other white people, which makes her passing as a white person ironic). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah about how intriguing this passage was. After reading this excerpt, I think that Nella Larsen's topic was something that had crossed the minds of many African Americans at the time. The idea of "passing" into another life, just to experience the other side, was something that I'm sure, African American men and women all had imagined at some point. It was sad though, how Clare had to hide her race, at the request of her aunts. It was interesting to me that although she lived with her aunts, she was still expected to "doing all the housework, and most of the washing." (P. 140) In the story, Clare even says that she had "Negro blood" and apparently that is why she did all the housework, and it was almost expected of her because of her race. The Harlem Renaissance gave Nella Larsen a way to voice this imaginative idea, to maybe give the rest of the world the idea that African Americans merely wanted to be like everyone else, and she portrayed this by showing how important "passing" was for Clare. -- Alex M.</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-16T00:26:06Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
'''EXTRA CREDIT: Focusing only on the primary source readings, discuss the context within which one or two of these documents were created: What were the goals of the people writing? Who were they writing for? Consider the circumstances of their creation. How would people at the time have received those ideas or claims and why? (Think broadly; some people would like some ideas that others would not.) ''' <br />
<br />
==Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith==<br />
Since we didn't get a chance to spend time on them in class, you can listen to some of their music [http://kokoro.umwblogs.org/2010/03/13/ma-rainey-and-bessie-smith/ here]. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Thanks Taylor! - christine<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
<br />
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference? How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching. I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so. I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal. -Alice W<br />
<br />
I thought the phrase “hope in a jar” (P.360) was interesting because it showed how women depended so much on make up to bring them more importance in the world. They also expected make-up to make life smoother for them, bringing them new opportunities. So many acts, like using make up that were previously looked down upon, were suddenly accepted when society saw that movie stars/high class people would use cosmetics. Society and culture was so easily influenced by outside factors such as movies. I think during this time, cosmetics created a false sense of “the self." “A woman’s personal success relied on her appearance.” (P.355) What about her abilities, her work ethic, etc? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Wonder what the guys in the class think about makeup in this class. I personally don't like makeup, but that might be more of a personal opinion reflecting my upbringing and interpretations of media. I suppose the question is--if makeup is not linked to prostitution anymore, then what is, because for some reason I think that makeup still represents that oldest of professions to some degree. I have no idea how looking "exotic" is supposed to be less offensive...I don't really understand the WASP middle class fascination with all things different--is this a new development or something that arose around this time period? I like Mary Ann's interpretation of the rise of makeup, highlighting feminine features when increasing numbers of women were entering the public sphere. So my question is whether or not the rising popularity of makeup indicative of a new level of freedom experienced by women or something that more firmly entrenched and highlighted their separateness from men? I suppose this goes back to the arguments between the feminists and social feminists insofar as making a truly equal society or preserving protective legislation... -schang<br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time. The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l<br />
<br />
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well. I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
Why would Dr. Frederick "of course...tried to explain it away?" Didn't Jane Addams, Louise DeKoven Brown and other Chicago reformers blame overwork, commercialized recreation and alcohol for "bringing out natural yearnings and instincts that THEY preferred to see repressed"? Why would these women want to see these instincts repressed? Wouldn't a prominent woman such as Addams OF COURSE have approved of open sexual practices? And why would Dr. Frederick have bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex? Mosher's study wasn't common nor was it published, so why are we assuming today that it was a common thing to ask women about their attitudes towards sex a century ago? And didn't the Mosher survey find that some women didn't have an interest in sex? I'm sure that women's history is a contentious topic but objectivity needs to be maintained and we need to make sure that we don't project our modern day assumptions into history. -schang<br />
<br />
Um, no one’s assuming that it was common practice for women to be interviewed about sex at that time, or really for anyone to be interviewed about it at that time. Nor do I see anyone projecting modern day assumptions. Frederick’s suggesting that “sexual desire is entirely absent in a much larger number of women than is generally supposed" (291) and that any woman who expresses real sexual desire is pretty much a nymphomaniac. I simply pointed out that, despite the impropriety of asking such questions at the time and in particular coming from a man, if he had done ''actual'' scientific research, such as the interviews conducted by Mosher (and from the samples we saw, all of the women often found sex agreeable), that he would have probably disregarded the answers and tried to explain them away because it didn’t jive with his and society’s beliefs about women. A lot of people probably would have done the same. Yet, clearly the Mosher survey shows that there were some women of the period who were more open to sex and recognized that they enjoyed it or even that it was necessary to their health. So, sure, maybe there were women like Jane Addams who preferred to see sex repressed, but there were also women who didn’t want to repress their sexual desires. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I agree with Taylor here. The Mosher survey is an example of dialogue beginning to open, but certainly not the norm. The doctor was not going door to door asking all women these questions; this was just a small sample group. That being said a survey such as this not only reveals that women at this time did harbor sexual desire, it also illustrates that types of marriages that they had. Though some of the women believed that sex was primarily for the purpose of procreation and male sexual satisfaction, others felt that it was a key component to the marriage. This was not a popular conversation at the time so I do not see how any of the former posts were projecting modern ideals onto the study. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
==Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses Discuss the Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930==<br />
<br />
Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses stressed the importance of the sexual relationship between the husband and wife, in order to obtain a fulfilled and happy marriage. Their goals were to make sex education more available to the “average” person and not limited to only professional classes and to show the importance of women’s own active participation in the physical relationship of marriage. They acknowledged that women had recognized themselves as sexual beings in this modern era and needed to be educated to fulfill those roles in a marriage of mutual companionship. I think they were writing for those who restricted this information from getting out. They are showing that by restricting this information that they are impairing (what they called handicapping) women from obtaining that fulfilled happy marriage and encouraging personality conflicts by allowing ignorance on the subject of sex. In general, I don’t think people knew how to react to this information. They probably felt it was needed and wanted but some were afraid to openly acknowledge this but secretly may have wanted to obtain it. There were religious reasons that encouraged people to reject this in fear of being immoral and inappropriate. Some women may have been comfortable with the rigidity of women’s role whereas others felt that it allowed women a more equal partner in the marriage. Blanchard and Manasses were saying that by educating women, they would meet the needs of their own sexual desires and expectations and being more apt to satisfying her partner. These women are liberal in their thoughts on pre-marital sex and emphasized that one should try their partners out sexually before marriage to see if they would be compatible. I don’t think that this was generally accepted though it wouldn’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t being practiced. In the eyes of these two Psychologists, the modern marriage required a larger emphasis on the physical side and this made the importance of educating women about sex and contraceptives even more important. -MHimes<br />
<br />
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be "one vast brothel." The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written. It's amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality. Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the 'slippery slope' argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Carlton C. Fredericks, M.D.’s assessment of what he calls “Nymphomania” was absurd. He even goes as far to propose that women who view sex or masturbation as gratifying automatically classify them as perverts. It seems that any sexual expression that he deemed as improper was in some way perverse. It was such a contrast to the Mosher study because Fredericks views a women’s sexual appetite as “insane or mildly insane”(291) where Mosher is finding that many women feel it is necessary to carry on a healthy marriage. It is interesting as well because the Mosher's study took place at around the same time, the duality between these two school of thought are amazing! –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece. As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves. This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
<br />
I love your comparison, Erin! It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted. Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women. I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a "proper" lady that wasn't particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible. And yet, Dr. Frederick's claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence. I wonder if more readers believed or didn't believe what this man wrote. I laughed at the last line, "the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them" (p. 4). This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
If there was one article I read out loud incredulously as I forced my roommate to listen, it was this one. Fredericks gets the Women's History prize for Official Idiot, and I hope he was recognized as such during his time, although I doubt it. His accusations are not only wildly speculative and libelous, but also unfounded and unsupported by neutral documentation. Even if you took out the ridiculous subject material, his disturbing lack of evidence and wild examples would make for an extremely weak argument. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I wonder if I am finding this thread to be a bit ridiculous because I am a male or if there is just a little hint of a bias in peoples' interpretations of this primary source. First, unless I am mistaken and if I am, then someone please correct me, but I had thought that masturbation by anyone, males or females, was considered a perversion of sorts during this time period. Second, did Mosher find anything contrary to what Frederick did? I don't remember reading any of Mosher's own interpretations of the interview results, the reading is just the interview questions and answers--none of Mosher's own analysis there, unless I forgot something. Differences between results? Where was Frederick based out of? Were Californians more liberal back then as they are now? Even if they weren't, geographical considerations have to be taken into account before a comparison can be made. Why is Frederick's study less convincing? Does it not represent the popular AND professional understanding of femininity and sexuality at the time? And before we dismiss his claim that the numbers and variations of practices were too various to include and such, this was published in a journal, and therefore couldn't include whatever raw data he might or might not have collected. Again, why was Frederick an idiot--for publishing something that was in line with the prevalent medical opinion concerning this issue? Same argument for the other complaints about Frederick. I'm not defending Frederick as a person, I am only arguing for trying to retain some semblance of objectivity when reading primary documents and trying to put them in the context of their time period rather than impose our own conceptions onto history. -schang<br />
<br />
It seems to me that the people finding Frederick’s report ridiculous do recognize that it would have been in line with traditional medical assumptions of the day. You’re right that the survey has none of Mosher’s own analysis, but I think the answers (at least the ones we were able to read and that’s key for anything we say regarding it) speak for themselves. All of the women found sex agreeable, except for one woman who found it agreeable “usually.” All of them said there were times when they desired sex, and some of them said the ideal would be to have sex when both the husband and wife wanted it. The idea of a woman actually ''wanting'' sex, and not being a nympho, is the complete opposite of Frederick’s report. So, to answer your question, yes, the survey contradicts Frederick, and that’s putting it lightly. Reading the Mosher survey right before Frederick’s report really highlights his lack of evidence for his claims, and maybe that’s why people were reacting so harshly towards him in their comments. Wanting scientific evidence isn’t even out of line with the time period either. Frankly, for all of your talk about looking at primary sources within their context, I think you’re ignoring the Mosher survey within its context. To me, the survey (in the parts we read) suggests that perhaps Frederick’s assumptions about women and their sexual desire, or lack thereof, weren’t as prevalent in actual society as believed. Perhaps public assumptions about sex didn’t completely match up with personal assumptions about sex, if that makes any sense. Unfortunately, we don’t have many surveys like Mosher’s. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Again, Taylor I agree. The Fredericks report seems quite frankly, his opinion of women. I understand that this was a popular notion held by many medical professionals at the time, but he shows no objectivity, nor does he express any scientific evidence to back up his claim. The Mosher study, though it does not provide and analysis of the subject matter at the end, still demonstrates how WOMEN viewed sex and sexual satisfaction at the time. The Mosher survey is a sociological study where as the Fredericks Report is an editorialized account. I think when comparing these two primary sources, we have to remember that fact. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I disagree with the implication of Catt's undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it's still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states "Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn't follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men". I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal <br />
<br />
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women. "You won't be so welcome there, but that is the place to be," (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside. I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says "this is the same old struggle but in a new field." She new that just because women had the right to vote didn't mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie<br />
<br />
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights. The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process. Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak. EFritz<br />
<br />
I concur (big word) with EFritz with the acknowledgement that Catt was fully aware of the impending struggles of women. She recognizes the difficulties women will now face as voters. Though they have the right to vote, it does not inherently mean that everything else they desired, namely equality with men, will be achieved. Though suffrage was obtained it does not bring about total reconstruction in societal norms, which have been in place for centuries. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I believe that at the bottom of this article there is a very simple goal for Carrie Chapman Catt, to get recognition from the world of the actual substantiality of women. Since that is a rather large, ambiguous, and (considering it still has not been a completed goal)impossible goal she had to first start aiming that goal toward the women she expected to lead the fight to accomplish it. Although it almost seems as though Catt is talking to women she had already convinced to join her in the fight towards suffrage, I personally believe she is attempting to persuade women who may not understand that they are being oppressed by the lack of societal recognition for their greatness. She is trying to inform them that they were born great women and should fight to be recognized for that, even if that fight means going against the crowd that would rather the women would just shut up and deal with their place in life. I think the people who she wasn't trying to persuade with this message would take it the same way that people in today's society react when they're reminded with the continued inequality of Women in places like the workforce; They'd either not care, not understand why anyone would bother to care, care a lot, or justify the reasoning for the inequalities on arbitrary facts (like women being capable of getting pregnant meaning that they will use that capability to miss out on working and lose the company money, which is why they aren't paid as much). On the other side, people hearing this argument from the other side might find an invigoration for the cause so great that they dedicate their life to changing and fighting for the rights of women. Men might read this article and realize that they have no justification within society for the woman to still be dealing with the same fight she'd been dealing with throughout the entirety of the existence of the United States. That reaction, however, I feel is entirely unlikely and considering the lack of women's equality still existing today to a great extent, it probably was unlikely. Carrie Chapman Catt, however, probably felt that she had to write this article because she had to express to her followers, potential followers and dissenters that she wasn't done fighting just because women finally got the right to vote. To her, that was just the first step. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment. Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society. To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men. Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion. Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true. She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women. She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE'RE EQUAL!! Others didn't quite that stance. It's important to remember that many women approved of women's suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different. She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified. ---jmarshal<br />
<br />
Of the two arguments that Alice Hamilton and Doris Stevens gave I found Steven’s debate to be more influential than Hamilton’s. Steven’s was very straight forward about what she wanted, especially in listing what the Equal Rights Amendment would achieve for women. The list itself is eye-catching because it isn’t part of a paragraph, a radical move by a radical woman I suppose. I think that Doris is the epitome of what younger women didn’t want to be like, as Bromley further suggestes in her article. -Morgan<br />
<br />
Obviously the debate that appeared in The Forum in 1924 would have been written for people who were able to obtain copies-mostly white, middle class, men and some women. Both sides were defending their positions of whether to have an Equal Rights Amendment or not. Doris Stevens basically believed that suffrage alone did not give women full rights as humans and needed more protection of the law and equality. She clearly defined the rights she thought women were due including "Equal Citizenship rights" and "Equal pay for equal rights" (125). Like Morgan, I don't find Hamilton's argument nearly as convincing. I may also be biased, however, because I still find it very unusual for women to not desire the same amount of rights that men had or think that having more rights might even be harmful for women or cause more problems. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
The goals of both authors, Doris Stevens and Alice Hamilton, were to appeal to their affiliations and to persuade readers that their certain cause was more just than the others. Whether this was accomplished is debatable however. I can see why some women, either part of the National Women’s Party or the League of Women’s Voters, may have read this debate and changed side based upon it. Not being part of either I can see both side’s points and the validity behind them. The circumstances under which the debate was written was at a time of the 1920’s when women had achieved suffrage and were looking for something else that they could fight for, as well as bond together over. Most women after being given the right to vote, as well as Congress, didn’t see anything else that women needed. There was so much that could be gained by an Equal Rights Amendment, but the younger generation seemed unwilling to fight for it. Even the white, middle class women who had always had issues with something political or male oriented. I think that the arguments presented between both women were viewed as a good show, but nothing of great importance. -Morgan<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz, "Sexual Geography & Gender Economy" in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
This essay discusses the growing sexual and emotional freedom that women were obtaining in the eartly 20th century. They were able to choose how they wanted to carry themselves sexually in society. However, to me, this essay was also a great paradox. Although these women expressed themselves more feely than in the past, they were also severley tied down to men still. Even in these so-called "furnished-room" districts, there was still sexual oppression and these women were subject to rape, poor conditions and economic dependence. Although they could conceibably choose their different sex partners, they were also very dependent on these men for their business. They need to break away from these districts in order to be truly sexually liberated. Many downplayed these factors, but in order for women to liberated, these constraints must be lifted.-afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn't just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers<br />
<br />
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz's article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, "opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion" (US, 335). This "freedom of urban life" gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal<br />
<br />
Today the women described in this article would be a combination of a prostitute and a “sugar-baby” to a “sugar-daddy”. Like others I found “dating,” “pick-ups,” “occasional prostitution,” and “temporary alliances” (329) as odd names to give to these casual sexual encounters, as if they were nothing at all. I doubt that these women thought anything of it and let it become a way of life though. Instead of going out and finding better jobs or more work, they fell back onto the notion of being a woman could get them what they wanted without the work. “If I did not have a man, I could not get along on my wages.” (330) -Morgan<br />
<br />
What's behind the three different versions of the sexual revolution? Flappers vs independent new women vs working-class rowdy girls. Is there one single interpretation that can explain the revolution or do all three have some merit? Also interesting, it seems as though some people now see prostitution as a good thing, if not a means to get by economically. I recall that most people were shocked and upset when reading about the Chinese prostitutes during the late nineteenth century...so what changed that makes people more comfortable with this idea? The seeming lack of organization insofar as the kind of bookkeeping that we saw with the bills of sales of Chinese prostitutes? Does the lack of that kind of documentation naturally imply that women were no longer coerced into prostitution, even if it was to just get by once in a while? Or were there pimps, perhaps some of the men living with them in these furnished districts that acted in such a capacity but without drawing up bills or contracts since prostitution was illegal now? And if this wasn't the case, which I suspect might have been in at least some shape or form, perhaps societal pressures from their peers coerced them into prostitution, since apparently if a good looking girl didn't sell herself she was considered a fool. What's worse? That kind of social coercion or the kind of legal coercion that we saw in California? -schang<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
Feminism.. "For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman's place in the world..." I enjoyed this line... that's how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I found it interesting how "Feminist-New Style" felt superior to the older women who had enabled them to lead the comfortable, sociable lifestyles they pursued. They felt no gratitude towards these former suffragettes, only contempt. Is this because they felt stronger than them because of their youth, felt more independent because of their economic independence, or just simply thought they were entitled to all of the rights they had? The answer baffles me. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In response to Anna's question, I think it might have a been a combination of the three. Even today, it is obvious in some cases where youths are ungrateful for what they have been given or the privileges they have been born with. For instance, many Americans view the opportunity to vote as a right, not the privilege it is. The same can be said for the women of this particular era. Simultaneously, the economic independence that these women were able to benefit from would give them almost a false sense of self. They would not appreciate the labors their mothers had to endure. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I absolutely loved this article because I think it actually represents alot of the ideals that modern women have today. I think it was really progressive for Bromley to talk about women being able to have both a career AND a family, giving equal attention to both. That is the sort of equality that women have been fighting for, the right to be happy. Bromley is saying that women the new woman, if she balances everything correctly, can be very happy. She has the ability to be a professional and still has the ability to be a mom. She doesn't need to constantly argue that she is as good as a man because she can just simply prove it in her actions. I think its really cool how she sort of brings all the different opinions of what women should be doing together and forms a type of super woman. -- Angie<br />
<br />
My favorite part of this article, other than the ambition of younger women to have a family and a career (as Angie points out) was the reference to war materials. “With a battle-cry still on their lips…still throwing hand grenades,” (128). This article was written in 1927 and “The Great War” had only ended ten years earlier. I believe that tensions in the Us may have still been raw and that may be the reason for such a reference. Bromley effectively suggests that the 1st and 2nd generation women as battle-hardened veterans. As veterans I would expect them to cold and judgmental toward those that they had fought against, men. -Morgan<br />
<br />
While I thought some of the points made by the New Style Feminists were good, I can't help but feel that their mothers and even grandmothers would be sad to see the flippant way they discussed their struggles and triumphs. They seem to have forgotten that these women fought hard so that they their daughters would not have to. While their argument about creating your own identity instead of fighting to keep your maiden name was valid these new style feminists seemed to have overlooked what was at the core of the feminist movement. It was interesting to see how this article shows the differences between generations. Although the New Style idea of the stereotype of feminism has a cause for angry and embittered women has definitely persevered.--Emma<br />
<br />
<br />
The goal of Dorothy Bromley’s “Feminist-New Style” article, of 1927, was to differentiate between the three generations of women that were part of the 1920’s era and to emphasize the younger generation. Obviously Bromley was a strong supporter, defender, of the younger generation and was writing to enhance her reasons for disliking the older generations of women. The young women would have received this article whole heartily as a defense against the older generations, as a response to the criticism they had already received. The older generations probably saw this article as an attack against them and what they had stood for. Possibly an attack on what they had already accomplished insofar as the younger generation not being appreciative of what they had done for them and the freedoms they had created for them. Bromley’s article was written at the end of the 1920’s and the beginning of the sexual revolution of the 1930’s just around the corner, the young generation of women were already showing rebellion towards the traditional behavior of women that was expected. This article may have helped instill in the younger generation that what they were doing was ok and more “modern” women, such as Bromley, understood and accepted them, even if the older generations did not. -Morgan<br />
<br />
Firstly, I agree with Morgan that perhaps Dorothy Bromley was trying to encourage younger women. I also think that this was a sort of defensive piece as well, though. At the time, men probably were not 100% comfortable with women having their own professional lives and this can be seen as her letting everyone know that the new feminist can balance a family as well as a career. She says things like "she will not, however, live for her job alone" (p. 128) and "nor has she become hostile to the other sex" (p. 129). These statements are comforting to those people that have some crazy idea of a cold-hearted feminist. Perhaps there were a few of them during the suffrage days, but Bromley is trying to convince women AND men that that really is not the case. -- Angie<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi<br />
<br />
The anxious mothers were certainly anxious, but who could blame them with a high “maternal and infant” (130) mortality rate. Like the others who have posted I was quite intrigued by both mother number 2 and number 3. The second mother had, what seemed to me, laughable concerns. I have to remember that women were generally clueless about prenatal care at this point, so I could understand that if you crave something so intensely denying yourself would seem detrimental to the baby, but I was unclear as to why touching your face had anything to do with this. The third mother expressed the most valid concerns of the three. The shear idea of justice in a medical malpractice suit must have seemed so far-fetched at the time, considering that medical malpractices suits are hard to prove today! As the third mother recounted, many of the doctors who claimed to be experts, did not provide adequate care to these mothers in both the pre and post natal area. The third mothers call for government regulation of hospital practices must have been quite revolutionary at the time, given the fact that many professionals such as doctors were trusted almost blindly. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys. I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children. Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau's pamphlets. Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women. This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E. is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on. Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women. Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today. Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after. I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one. I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program. It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was 'marking' the baby by her cravings. I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to. In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz<br />
<br />
I found this article shocking, even mildly sad. The desperation of these women to obtain information about their bodies and pregnancy is a stark contrast to today, when all you have to do is log onto the internet to answer any and every question. What is even worse is that I'm sure the postal system did not operate very quickly back then, leaving the women waiting weeks for an answer from the Children's Bureau. However, I liked that the government finally took an interest in women's concerns and created this branch. It clearly was of service to many women of very diverse backgrounds.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I thought this article was really interesting and it was nice to see that the government was giving attention to an area that was obviously in need of federal aid or even just attention. I think sometimes we take for granted how the improvements in modern medicine and healthcare overall have made childbirth significantly safer for women. I was sad to see that the program ended in 1929. Judging by these letters the Bureau was important and helpful to a lot of women. --Emma<br />
<br />
These letters remind us both that women in the 1920s faced very real threats to their lives during pregnancy and childbirth and that the lives of many women throughout the country continued to revolve around their children and families and not political issues like the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment. The authors of the letters want to do everything they can to be good mothers and protect the health of their children and themselves. But it sounds as though discussion of the matters relating to childbearing, despite the Children's Bureau publications, were largely absent from public discourse and women found themselves very isolated. Perhaps, like birth control, pregnancy and childbirth was seen as too crude to be discussed openly or even among friends, as the author of the second letter indicates no one in her immediate circle cares about her questions. And women's issues remained low on the list of priorities of doctors, causing many women to suffer health consequences. One would think that in an age that valued motherhood, especially white middle class motherhood, so extensively, that women like those who wrote the letters would have had more options to keep themselves and their children healthy. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Mary Ann is right on point. Women during this time had little access to health care, especially poor and working class women. I think it is good to keep in mind that it was usually only the mid to upper class who had access to health care and doctors because they could afford for it. Also, since this was the period of Comstock Laws, women were unable to access information about birth control which made pregnancy a very real, yet fearful thing because of the risks that were involved. I believe that these women were writing simply out of need for information they could not access elsewhere. These women display just a snapshot of the reality of pregnancy during this period, while also echoing the concerns of women who were now expected to be completely responsible for both the home and the children. -abratchi<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann as well. We do have also remove ourselves from the modern notions of child birth and child rearing and remember that it was quite life threatening. It was not uncommon for women to have one child after another as well because of the lack of birth control. It must have been very comforting to these women to have a Federal agency such as the Children’s Bureau to guide them. In the aftermath of the Great War, I gather that many women turned to Children’s Bureau for help. I looked up some more information on the Bureau on our favorite Wikipedia and found out that it was created by President Taft In 1912 and that Julia Lathrop was the first head of the Bureau. I wonder if Taft appointed her because he thought that as a woman she was more qualified to run the Bureau or if she was simply THE person for the job. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== Excerpt from "Passing" by Nella Larsen ==<br />
<br />
I remember reading this scene from "Passing" back when my high school class covered the novel, and I was very intrigued by the notion of passing and the possible reasons for it. The story Clare gives for her own experience in passing in this section seems to be one of convenience and opportunity (raised by white aunts that did not advertise her background), deception (she manipulates her husband to run away with her before her aunts could reveal she was black), and a lot of yearning (she seems to resent her aunt's treatment of her and other white people, which makes her passing as a white person ironic). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah about how intriguing this passage was. After reading this excerpt, I think that Nella Larsen's topic was something that had crossed the minds of many African Americans at the time. The idea of "passing" into another life, just to experience the other side, was something that I'm sure, African American men and women all had imagined at some point. It was sad though, how Clare had to hide her race, at the request of her aunts. It was interesting to me that although she lived with her aunts, she was still expected to "doing all the housework, and most of the washing." (P. 140) In the story, Clare even says that she had "Negro blood" and apparently that is why she did all the housework, and it was almost expected of her because of her race. The Harlem Renaissance gave Nella Larsen a way to voice this imaginative idea, to maybe give the rest of the world the idea that African Americans merely wanted to be like everyone else, and she portrayed this by showing how important "passing" was for Clare. -- Alex M.</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-11T03:48:24Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
<br />
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference? How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching. I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so. I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal. -Alice W<br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time. The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l<br />
<br />
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well. I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be "one vast brothel." The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written. It's amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality. Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the 'slippery slope' argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece. As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves. This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
<br />
I love your comparison, Erin! It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted. Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women. I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a "proper" lady that wasn't particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible. And yet, Dr. Frederick's claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence. I wonder if more readers believed or didn't believe what this man wrote. I laughed at the last line, "the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them" (p. 4). This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I disagree with the implication of Catt's undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it's still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states "Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn't follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men". I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal <br />
<br />
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women. "You won't be so welcome there, but that is the place to be," (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside. I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says "this is the same old struggle but in a new field." She new that just because women had the right to vote didn't mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie<br />
<br />
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights. The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process. Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak. EFritz<br />
<br />
I concur (big word) with EFritz with the acknowledgement that Catt was fully aware of the impending struggles of women. She recognizes the difficulties women will now face as voters. Though they have the right to vote, it does not inherently mean that everything else they desired, namely equality with men, will be achieved. Though suffrage was obtained it does not bring about total reconstruction in societal norms, which have been in place for centuries. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment. Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society. To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men. Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion. Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true. She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women. She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE'RE EQUAL!! Others didn't quite that stance. It's important to remember that many women approved of women's suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different. She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified. ---jmarshal<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
This essay discusses the growing sexual and emotional freedom that women were obtaining in the eartly 20th century. They were able to choose how they wanted to carry themselves sexually in society. However, to me, this essay was also a great paradox. Although these women expressed themselves more feely than in the past, they were also severley tied down to men still. Even in these so-called "furnished-room" districts, there was still sexual oppression and these women were subject to rape, poor conditions and economic dependence. Although they could conceibably choose their different sex partners, they were also very dependent on these men for their business. They need to break away from these districts in order to be truly sexually liberated. Many downplayed these factors, but in order for women to liberated, these constraints must be lifted.-afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
<br />
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn't just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz's article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, "opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion" (US, 335). This "freedom of urban life" gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
Feminism.. "For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman's place in the world..." I enjoyed this line... that's how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I found it interesting how "Feminist-New Style" felt superior to the older women who had enabled them to lead the comfortable, sociable lifestyles they pursued. They felt no gratitude towards these former suffragettes, only contempt. Is this because they felt stronger than them because of their youth, felt more independent because of their economic independence, or just simply thought they were entitled to all of the rights they had? The answer baffles me. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I absolutely loved this article because I think it actually represents alot of the ideals that modern women have today. I think it was really progressive for Bromley to talk about women being able to have both a career AND a family, giving equal attention to both. That is the sort of equality that women have been fighting for, the right to be happy. Bromley is saying that women the new woman, if she balances everything correctly, can be very happy. She has the ability to be a professional and still has the ability to be a mom. She doesn't need to constantly argue that she is as good as a man because she can just simply prove it in her actions. I think its really cool how she sort of brings all the different opinions of what women should be doing together and forms a type of super woman. -- Angie<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys. I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children. Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau's pamphlets. Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women. This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E. is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on. Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women. Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today. Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after. I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one. I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program. It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was 'marking' the baby by her cravings. I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to. In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-11T02:51:11Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
<br />
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference? How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal <br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time. The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l<br />
<br />
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be "one vast brothel." The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written. It's amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality. Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the 'slippery slope' argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece. As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves. This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
<br />
I love your comparison, Erin! It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted. Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women. I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a "proper" lady that wasn't particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible. And yet, Dr. Frederick's claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence. I wonder if more readers believed or didn't believe what this man wrote. I laughed at the last line, "the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them" (p. 4). This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I disagree with the implication of Catt's undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it's still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states "Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn't follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men". I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal <br />
<br />
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women. "You won't be so welcome there, but that is the place to be," (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside. I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says "this is the same old struggle but in a new field." She new that just because women had the right to vote didn't mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE'RE EQUAL!! Others didn't quite that stance. It's important to remember that many women approved of women's suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different. She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified. ---jmarshal<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
<br />
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn't just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz's article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, "opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion" (US, 335). This "freedom of urban life" gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal <br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
Feminism.. "For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman's place in the world..." I enjoyed this line... that's how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys. I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children. Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau's pamphlets. Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women. This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E. is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on. Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women. Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today. Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-23T03:43:01Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
==Working Women Write the Jewish Daily Forward==<br />
While this essay was not too long in length I found interesting the early day versions of advice columns in newspapers. Women, specifically Jewish women were able to write about their struggles and stories in search of advice instead of just relying on a diary to record their thoughts. It reminded me of reading American Girl magazine when I was younger and learning about different girls stories and how they expressed any concern with their lives. I found it great that the advice given back to girls, much like today, was for the betterment of women. The advice encouraged women to step forward and have a voice in the workplace and home. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Like Megan, these also just struck as modern-day advice columns. I found it amusing (for me not the girls writing) that the girl wrote so much and they were given very small snippets of a response. Its good to see that there was an outlet/ a way for the girl to get advice without possibly embarrassing herself or worse. - Christine<br />
<br />
The Jewish Daily Forward contained some interesting submissions. The first one written by the teenager who was being sexually harassed struck me because this is something that many women endured (and still endure) during the early part of the 20th century. The advice, though correct, causes me to wonder: would anyone do anything about the foreman? It seems like the circumstances surrounding women, especially immigrant women working in shops/factories at this time were pretty bleak. I wish it weren’t so, but I wonder if any action would have been taken against the foreman at all, she explains that this is a small town so maybe that would have any effect but so many of these cases, if they were even reported, went unresolved. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I liked the essays about the Jewish Daily forward and the Chicago Defender both newspapers seemed to be doing as much as they could for the immigrant and black communities. While in some situations they might not have had the power to do anything it seems like they were a comforting presence in both communities. The arrival of the Chicago Defender especially seemed to be looked forward to by many families. However like Caryn I also wondered if it was likely that any action would be taken against the foreman who harassed the young worker. What were the chances that a young girl without any money would be able to make a successful case against a male employer? Also this is not really a post but the letter from the girl who had lost her fiance? husband? in the shirtwaist factory fire was really depressing. Especially her ending line of " I think everything can be all right for me only in the grave".....I hope she listened to the editor and remarried!--Emma<br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. '''The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity.''' Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These women's lives totally interest me. As plainly as she tells her life story, as pertaining to work, you get a real sense of the pride that she felt in being so industrious and in being so good at what she did. She even mentions the books she read while she used to churn butter. She was constantly occupied and never (except when she taught before she was married, presumably) for a wage. '''But by most measures, she and her husband led very successful lives.''' They provided for their five kids and sent them to school, one even to Cornell. And at 58, it sounds like she even gets to "retire". The values of rural living seem very different than those of urban living. As more and more people moved into urban areas, i wonder how this affected the lifestyles of farm families. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Nothing really stands out in this piece too much, except for how matter-of-factly she tells her story. She lists out her life, her work, everything she's done. She doesn't seem to be boasting or complaining; it's just life to her. I do wonder if she is aware of life outside the farm, if she ever wondered about not being there. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The past couple of class periods we have discussed how women's work on the farm went unaccounted for in census and other data. This really brings that point home. I never truly recognized or grasped the difficulty of women working on the farm. The last paragraph stresses that point: "My husband says, 'You helped earn and save more than I did.' The boys many times say, 'If it had not been for your pushing and helping us to school, we never could have done so well." This encompasses the woman's role on the farm. Not only did she work insanely hard as a farmhand, but a mother still managed to fulfill the role of moral and matriarchal support.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I found this piece fascinating and humbling. '''Maybe it’s because I am the child of a New York City suburb, and yet only two generations back, this woman’s life was my grandmother’s life.''' Not seeing the struggles of farmers anywhere close to me, I could not imagine how much work, strength and faith even it took and takes to lead such a life. Farmers, but especially farm women, are completely under appreciated. However, while I was taken aback by the never ending work load of a farm woman, it was pleasing to see her husband’s and sons’ acknowledgment and gratitude. <br />
On another note, the line “work never kills” (p. 50) jumped out at me immediately and made me ponder the differences between factory workers and farmers at the turn of the century. It is now a well known fact that factory workers toiled in horrendous conditions, like in the NYC Shirtwaist factory fire. However, the introduction reminded me that the hours were longer for a farmer and the conditions more tumultuous. Our nation needed the industry factory workers provided, but even the factory workers needed the sustenance farmers provided. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Buffalobird Woman's Story ==<br />
After reading this excerpt, I found myself extremely frustrated with the government. Why did the government feel the need to tell the Indians how to do things when the Indians had already succeeded before the government came along to tell them what to do? The Indian women of course were open to the new changes, but they still wondered why they could not cultivate as they had in the past. It was probably a lifestyle change for them, because now, they were to grow what they were told, and it was probably disconcerting to the Indian women and men because they had lost control of a part of their lives. -- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
This is another example of how the U.S. government attempted to assimilate the Native Americans, and in the process took away their land and changed their lifestyles. Buffalobird is a strong personality, and remains that way throughout the excerpt. It is a refreshing piece to read because the spirit of so many Native Americans was crushed. Even though many Native American women lost their independence and sense of strength, she seems to have maintained it.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
'''After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind.''' Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on a lot of the points she made. This piece captured my attention because of the harsh conditions that these women were forced to work in. I found in particularly difficult to not feel bad for the girls because stress they had to endure by working in industrial places like a glove factory. Nestor references how the girls tried to find ways to produce more gloves in an hour and would sometimes even work during their breaks just to get more done. She also revealed how the women were afraid of the machine breaking because it meant they could not make more gloves, which meant they would not get their payment. Nestor shows the effect of industry on the working woman and it's effects. ''' I wonder how women at this time dealt with professions like this without getting extremely frustrated.''' -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this article really interesting because it exemplifies one of the main problems for women entering the work force in the early 20th century. This problem was that society, as well as individual families, was not ready to let go of common values for women. These values held that women should work inside the home, so when young girls went outside to work during the day, their family still expected them to perform womanly duties at home when they returned, like they had never been gone at all. Even though these families needed their daughters to work, they still tried to hang on to the idea that women were meant to be inside the home. In the end, this value put even more pressure on women because they were then forced to work hard outside and then just as hard inside when they returned. I really liked the one example of a mother on page 267 that actually understood how important it was for her daughter to work and then rest when she got home so she could work again the next day. It seems like that mother placed more importance on her daughter's well-being than on the societal pressures around her. --Angie<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY?? I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation? -MHimes<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I can't imagine the physical and mental exhaustion these African American woman faced in domestic service jobs. The woman whose story is told was a nurse, among many other things, yet she was still considered "servant class." Were white women who worked in the same type of jobs as nurses or household servants considered to be in the "servant class?" She goes on to say, "I am allowed to go home to my own children, the oldest of whom is a girl of 18 years, only one in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon - even then I'm not permitted to stay all night." (P. 54 MAW) Wasn't there some type of law against keeping this lady at her job all the time? She was not a slave, so shouldn't she have been allowed to go home after work? Or did the rules of her job make her stay there? In my opinion, this free African American woman's job didn't seem that much different from slavery. -- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
One of the most important questions I think women were most concerned with while trying to obtain suffrage is asked by DuBois on page. 276. She claims that women were worried weather or not they could balance their work in the home with that of gaining suffrage. It seems many women were concerned that they could not acheive a balance between the two and that there work towards suffrage would take away their focus from the home front. I beleive that this question was not incredibly worrisome and that a balance was possible. Even if they were in the work force, responsibilities on the home front could still be upheld. Even today, women work and I still beleive they are a central figure at home. Granted it was more difficult back then because women were attempting to accomplish more, but a balance was still possible. -afrisk<br />
<br />
So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status. Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how, on page 273, DuBois talks about how wealthy women first entered the suffragist field in the 1890s because they wanted to make the wealthy class stronger. I previously was under the misconception that women entered into the movement solely on the value that women should have the right to vote, but this was obviously not the case. Wealthy women wanted the vote because they thought they would vote the same way as their wealthy husbands, therefore solidifying the political power of the wealthy. I think this is really important because it shows that many women associated themselves more with their class than with the fact that they were women. -- Angie<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the ''Defender'' was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there. Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South. I'd sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired. -Erin B.''<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the Chicago Defender really emphasizes the deplorable living situations in the South. The letter from a woman who had previously worked in a rural school and was looking for a job in domestic service really stood out to me. The idea that a housekeeping position in the North would pay better then a school teachers pay in the south really shows the desperate situation of black families in the south. Some of the people who wrote in to the newspaper claimed to have good references its sad to think that whatever experience they had previously the only job they would most likely be able to find was one as a domestic servant. --Emma<br />
<br />
These letters to the Chicago Defender are quite desperate as Mary Ann and Erin have both mentioned. But I thought that I would approach this from two different directions: one the difference in the letters themselves. Two of the letters are written by teachers whose school is either closing or wages are too low. These particular letters showcase the difference in education from the other letters. I also found it realistic that the teachers were looking for domestic work, though this work was quite hard, I am sure that the prospect of a room and further opportunities in a bustling city were the motivating factors among the poor wages and general conditions in the south. Second, the letters seem to note a trust that these women had in the Chicago Defender, implying that these women believed that the Defender would help them find these jobs. The reality of this was that thousands upon thousands of black men and women were migrating to Chicago leaving them, as Mary Ann said to compete for positions in domestic service. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
It was almost impossible to keep a straight face while reading this particular article and I had to read a passage to my roomate and he was also laughing hysterically. This is the first intense anti-suffrage argument that I have come accross with this much candor and I found it incredibly interesting. Marie Jenny Howe essentially gives her gender no credit and claims they hardly posses any intellectual capacity and are even incapable of doing something as simple as placing a ballot in a box. She wants to continue with the established order and keep women down in the domestic sphere because "some one must wash the dishes." She continues to take a very conservative approach to women's roles and even mentions the Bible as reason to keep women suppressed. Myself, and others I am sure do not agree with Howe's view of women as an imcompetent gender and beleive women should have never been suppressed like they were. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire, and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly. When phrased this way, it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting, but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause. – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement. "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
Just like all the other posts stated, I found this article more comical than persuasive. Howe tries to argue that women do not need the right to vote using by a lot of (in my opinion) ridiculous points. I particularly liked how she stated "I don't care about facts. I ask for proof." I think that suffragists at this time were trying hard to push for rights for women, and that should be Howe's proof. She seems to really embody the idea that women are passive creatures which is almost, in a sense, degrading to women, especially when she states "I am a creature of impulse, instinct and intuition- and I glory in it." -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike. The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman <br />
<br />
==Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic, Florence Luscomb==<br />
<br />
The one sentence that stood out to me in this essay, "We even reveled in dog-fights; for, as our chief remarked while we were enjoying one such experience, 'After all, there is nothing to draw a crowd like a dog-fight,'...(100). My first thought was Michael Vick and how much the media paid attention to his role in dog-fights yet women suffragists were right at home among dogs and thought of them as admirers. How society has changed over the years...-Megan W.<br />
<br />
A few moments struck me in this passage. The opening “…an American woman can stand in a hall and address American men with dignity and earnestness on her part ….yet presto, remove the roof and the same women is a ranting fanatic” (98) It made me think about an ideal of keeping women inside even though speaking at an indoor engagement is not the domestic sphere, it is certainly less public than speaking in park, hence the male apprehension towards this. Furthermore, it was a radical move that these women were traveling around the country holding these outdoor meetings. It must have rocked the entire foundation of proprietary that had been established during this time. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Though many men and bystanders would see these women as "ranting fanatic[s]" Florence Luscomb still describes as the crusade as a success. That in itself is something to be proud of. The momentum the women's suffrage movement had picked up is reflected in this excerpt. Though they were met with much adversity, they were able to adapt and overcome. Even though men initially viewed their outdoor speeches as too assertive, they were still successful. I was also mildly amused that Luscomb took the time to calculate the averages of all the meetings. It was rather beneficial to her argument.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
==4. The ''New York Times'' Reports on the Tragedy of the Triangle Factory Fire, 1911== <br />
<br />
The death of these 141 women and few men could have been preventable had the owners taken into account that a building cannot be fully "fire-proof" with hundreds of cotton shirts lying around. One fire escape is clearly not enough for 600 employees especially when many were not familiar with the layout of the building. I found it heartbreaking that had it just been a matter of minutes these employees would not of burned nor lept to their death and even more appalling that for hours the bodies were ignored. I understand that firefighters need to do their job and stop the fire but could they not of split the work and tried to move bodies so they could aid workers instead of watching them jump 100 feet to their death? The workers were helpless victims and the fire showed the ignorance of employers to the safety needs of their workers. -Megan W.</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-23T02:47:55Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
==Working Women Write the Jewish Daily Forward==<br />
While this essay was not too long in length I found interesting the early day versions of advice columns in newspapers. Women, specifically Jewish women were able to write about their struggles and stories in search of advice instead of just relying on a diary to record their thoughts. It reminded me of reading American Girl magazine when I was younger and learning about different girls stories and how they expressed any concern with their lives. I found it great that the advice given back to girls, much like today, was for the betterment of women. The advice encouraged women to step forward and have a voice in the workplace and home. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Like Megan, these also just struck as modern-day advice columns. I found it amusing (for me not the girls writing) that the girl wrote so much and they were given very small snippets of a response. Its good to see that there was an outlet/ a way for the girl to get advice without possibly embarrassing herself or worse. - Christine<br />
<br />
The Jewish Daily Forward contained some interesting submissions. The first one written by the teenager who was being sexually harassed struck me because this is something that many women endured (and still endure) during the early part of the 20th century. The advice, though correct, causes me to wonder: would anyone do anything about the foreman? It seems like the circumstances surrounding women, especially immigrant women working in shops/factories at this time were pretty bleak. I wish it weren’t so, but I wonder if any action would have been taken against the foreman at all, she explains that this is a small town so maybe that would have any effect but so many of these cases, if they were even reported, went unresolved. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I liked the essays about the Jewish Daily forward and the Chicago Defender both newspapers seemed to be doing as much as they could for the immigrant and black communities. While in some situations they might not have had the power to do anything it seems like they were a comforting presence in both communities. The arrival of the Chicago Defender especially seemed to be looked forward to by many families. However like Caryn I also wondered if it was likely that any action would be taken against the foreman who harassed the young worker. What were the chances that a young girl without any money would be able to make a successful case against a male employer? Also this is not really a post but the letter from the girl who had lost her fiance? husband? in the shirtwaist factory fire was really depressing. Especially her ending line of " I think everything can be all right for me only in the grave".....I hope she listened to the editor and remarried!--Emma<br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity. Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These women's lives totally interest me. As plainly as she tells her life story, as pertaining to work, you get a real sense of the pride that she felt in being so industrious and in being so good at what she did. She even mentions the books she read while she used to churn butter. She was constantly occupied and never (except when she taught before she was married, presumably) for a wage. But by most measures, she and her husband led very successful lives. They provided for their five kids and sent them to school, one even to Cornell. And at 58, it sounds like she even gets to "retire". The values of rural living seem very different than those of urban living. As more and more people moved into urban areas, i wonder how this affected the lifestyles of farm families. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Nothing really stands out in this piece too much, except for how matter-of-factly she tells her story. She lists out her life, her work, everything she's done. She doesn't seem to be boasting or complaining; it's just life to her. I do wonder if she is aware of life outside the farm, if she ever wondered about not being there. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind. Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on a lot of the points she made. This piece captured my attention because of the harsh conditions that these women were forced to work in. I found in particularly difficult to not feel bad for the girls because stress they had to endure by working in industrial places like a glove factory. Nestor references how the girls tried to find ways to produce more gloves in an hour and would sometimes even work during their breaks just to get more done. She also revealed how the women were afraid of the machine breaking because it meant they could not make more gloves, which meant they would not get their payment. Nestor shows the effect of industry on the working woman and it's effects. I wonder how women at this time dealt with professions like this without getting extremely frustrated. -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY?? I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation? -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
One of the most important questions I think women were most concerned with while trying to obtain suffrage is asked by DuBois on page. 276. She claims that women were worried weather or not they could balance their work in the home with that of gaining suffrage. It seems many women were concerned that they could not acheive a balance between the two and that there work towards suffrage would take away their focus from the home front. I beleive that this question was not incredibly worrisome and that a balance was possible. Even if they were in the work force, responsibilities on the home front could still be upheld. Even today, women work and I still beleive they are a central figure at home. Granted it was more difficult back then because women were attempting to accomplish more, but a balance was still possible. -afrisk<br />
<br />
So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status. Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how, on page 273, DuBois talks about how wealthy women first entered the suffragist field in the 1890s because they wanted to make the wealthy class stronger. I previously was under the misconception that women entered into the movement solely on the value that women should have the right to vote, but this was obviously not the case. Wealthy women wanted the vote because they thought they would vote the same way as their wealthy husbands, therefore solidifying the political power of the wealthy. I think this is really important because it shows that many women associated themselves more with their class than with the fact that they were women. -- Angie<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the ''Defender'' was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there. Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South. I'd sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired. -Erin B.''<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the Chicago Defender really emphasizes the deplorable living situations in the South. The letter from a woman who had previously worked in a rural school and was looking for a job in domestic service really stood out to me. The idea that a housekeeping position in the North would pay better then a school teachers pay in the south really shows the desperate situation of black families in the south. Some of the people who wrote in to the newspaper claimed to have good references its sad to think that whatever experience they had previously the only job they would most likely be able to find was one as a domestic servant. --Emma<br />
<br />
These letters to the Chicago Defender are quite desperate as Mary Ann and Erin have both mentioned. But I thought that I would approach this from two different directions: one the difference in the letters themselves. Two of the letters are written by teachers whose school is either closing or wages are too low. These particular letters showcase the difference in education from the other letters. I also found it realistic that the teachers were looking for domestic work, though this work was quite hard, I am sure that the prospect of a room and further opportunities in a bustling city were the motivating factors among the poor wages and general conditions in the south. Second, the letters seem to note a trust that these women had in the Chicago Defender, implying that these women believed that the Defender would help them find these jobs. The reality of this was that thousands upon thousands of black men and women were migrating to Chicago leaving them, as Mary Ann said to compete for positions in domestic service. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
It was almost impossible to keep a straight face while reading this particular article and I had to read a passage to my roomate and he was also laughing hysterically. This is the first intense anti-suffrage argument that I have come accross with this much candor and I found it incredibly interesting. Marie Jenny Howe essentially gives her gender no credit and claims they hardly posses any intellectual capacity and are even incapable of doing something as simple as placing a ballot in a box. She wants to continue with the established order and keep women down in the domestic sphere because "some one must wash the dishes." She continues to take a very conservative approach to women's roles and even mentions the Bible as reason to keep women suppressed. Myself, and others I am sure do not agree with Howe's view of women as an imcompetent gender and beleive women should have never been suppressed like they were. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire, and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly. When phrased this way, it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting, but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause. – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement. "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
Just like all the other posts stated, I found this article more comical than persuasive. Howe tries to argue that women do not need the right to vote using by a lot of (in my opinion) ridiculous points. I particularly liked how she stated "I don't care about facts. I ask for proof." I think that suffragists at this time were trying hard to push for rights for women, and that should be Howe's proof. She seems to really embody the idea that women are passive creatures which is almost, in a sense, degrading to women, especially when she states "I am a creature of impulse, instinct and intuition- and I glory in it." -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike. The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman <br />
<br />
==Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic, Florence Luscomb==<br />
<br />
The one sentence that stood out to me in this essay, "We even reveled in dog-fights; for, as our chief remarked while we were enjoying one such experience, 'After all, there is nothing to draw a crowd like a dog-fight,'...(100). My first thought was Michael Vick and how much the media paid attention to his role in dog-fights yet women suffragists were right at home among dogs and thought of them as admirers. How society has changed over the years...-Megan W.<br />
<br />
A few moments struck me in this passage. The opening “…an American woman can stand in a hall and address American men with dignity and earnestness on her part ….yet presto, remove the roof and the same women is a ranting fanatic” (98) It made me think about an ideal of keeping women inside even though speaking at an indoor engagement is not the domestic sphere, it is certainly less public than speaking in park, hence the male apprehension towards this. Furthermore, it was a radical move that these women were traveling around the country holding these outdoor meetings. It must have rocked the entire foundation of proprietary that had been established during this time. -Caryn<br />
<br />
==4. The ''New York Times'' Reports on the Tragedy of the Triangle Factory Fire, 1911== <br />
<br />
The death of these 141 women and few men could have been preventable had the owners taken into account that a building cannot be fully "fire-proof" with hundreds of cotton shirts lying around. One fire escape is clearly not enough for 600 employees especially when many were not familiar with the layout of the building. I found it heartbreaking that had it just been a matter of minutes these employees would not of burned nor lept to their death and even more appalling that for hours the bodies were ignored. I understand that firefighters need to do their job and stop the fire but could they not of split the work and tried to move bodies so they could aid workers instead of watching them jump 100 feet to their death? The workers were helpless victims and the fire showed the ignorance of employers to the safety needs of their workers. -Megan W.</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-02-04T01:54:14Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” ==<br />
<br />
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that "Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible" and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word "girls" which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
The welfare activism article notes that a fair amount of the black women involved in welfare were married, and it was more generally acceptable for black women to be involved in public life than white women, which I suppose is partly due to their positions as heads of families during slavery’s heyday and the fact that many black women had to work outside the home due to economic necessity (except these reform women who were pretty well off). However, Anna J. Cooper seemed to believe that black men were not supportive of women outside the home and didn’t recognize their value in politics and reform. What accounts for this disparity? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool how even though black women may not have had the advantages that white women had in the reform movement, they made the best out of it. White women raised money but they also were able to gain support or recognition from people in congress. Black women were not so fortunate but they did not let that stop them; they had bake sales, church dinners, and other such functions to raise money and awareness. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Like Amy, I noticed the differences between how black and white women raised money for their causes. It seems like white women relied far more on their status and privilege to gain access to (mostly white men) policy makers and other influential leaders who could help them. Black women, for the most part, did not have this option. So they turned to their communities for support, in much the same way as they had turned voting and politics into community activities. Black women already had a solid tradition of getting the community to rally around them for a cause, so when the need arose for schools and public health measures and other programs, women again banded to together for the good of the group as a whole. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the most intriguing part, and yet a short piece, of Linda Gordon’s article to be on the Lesbianism and homosexual escapades. Different from black women’s dependence on their community and occasionally their husbands, white women greatly relied on one-another rather than their husbands or families. “The great majority of white women were single-34 percent had ever been married, and only 18 percent remained married during their peak political activity,” (pg. 229). To this effect women Gordon gives the fact that “28 percent were in relationships with other women…called Boston marriages,” (pg. 229). I think that we as a generation think that Lesbianism is a new trend/ideal, and yet these women were practicing it in the 18th-19th century. This was probably not seen as a controversial idea to these women, so why is it such a big issue today when is a part of history? ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that rape was ever "justified" by anyone, and it has always been seen as a barbarism, even when it was performed ritualistically by warring states. Just because a society's dialogue doesn't include rape doesn't mean that it was accepted, by any means. Also, to encapsulate human nature as such is not a dismissal, as is evident even in our so-enlightened society when we "dismiss" the actions of men that is at times chauvinistic or derogatory as "boys will be boys"--does that mean that such behavior, speaking in broad terms, justified? I would think no. Also, while it seems as though black women did not have the kind of access to politicized power as white women did, Gordon points out, perhaps in contradiction to some of her conclusions, that half of the African American women who were married (85%) had influential husbands. I don't really see much difference between what the African American women did in comparison to WASP women, despite Gordon's attempts to highlight them. To me, it seems as though the only thing that really differed, notwithstanding the race issue (which I'm not dismissing), was the time that had elapsed between emancipation and what was then contemporary times. Like WASP women's groups, black women's societies were exclusionary, and it seems that if a few more generations had elapsed then the black women would be just as focused on maintaining social hierarchies as white women were. Perhaps they're concentration in the rural South maintained this as immigrants seldom ventured South and therefore black women would not have a class of "others" to perform activism on. But then again the entire African American community was persecuted against so I'm sure it's not as simplistic as that. I found the "white view" as a class issue, which I agree with and that the WASP women who were single and had a great deal of autonomy assumed that this was a class privilege and something that would not be desirable for poorer women. -schang<br />
<br />
== Judy Yung, "The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in ''Chung Sai Yat Po'', 1900-1911" ==<br />
<br />
It’s ironic that in the early 20th century China was trying to emulate the Western world, including increasing women’s rights, to get out from under the hand of the West, and Chinese Americans emulated those reforms going on in China and not in their own country because they were so excluded from American life that they felt a closer kinship to China. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it was interesting how the reasons why people decided it was a good idea for women to have an education in America paralleled the decision for Chinese women to become educated. On page 263 Yung writes, "Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China." Even though I don't think this should be a number one reason for a woman to be given an education, at the time I would have been happy that women's education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Chinese Americans were witnessing freedoms in America that were not offered to them as Chinese Americans in America or China. Binding the feet was an example of their oppression to that of their husband. It’s interesting that binding of the feet was compared to binding of an American woman corset. They felt education was the key to stop the oppression. Chinese American lineage was to their home where their families were so they naturally felt the need to change things back at home. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
The CSYP was a very effective source to bringing light to the atrocities that Chinese American faced and the changes that needed to take place. Chinese American women could speak out through these journals in order to reach out to others and make changes. As Judy Yung noted though a lot did not read these articles, the news spread. Women talk and share their thoughts with other woman evoking their spirit and that brings change for them. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
Interesting reading, yes--new information, not really, at least to me. Why is it ironic that China saw the way out of Western domination as its emulation? That mentality has been repeated throughout history, from the Egyptians adopting chariots to overthrow the Hyksos to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents being found with US manuals on unconventional warfare. Also, it would seem only natural that the suppression of entry into the political sphere of an immigrant population would foster the desire to interact with the mother country. An aside--my own use of that term, "mother country" fascinates me in that nations have almost always been characterized as feminine and wonder what that kind of gendered language indicates about the pervasiveness of such gendered dichotomies in everyday life. Other things I found "interesting"--the actions of politicians and probably most likely liberal-minded reformers from the Progressive Era directly contributed to the high rate of prostitution among Chinese women as they barred further immigration in California and other western states. Also found significant the direction that these women's reform actions were aimed at--the revitalization of China as a nation, rather than the individualistic aims of many female reformers in America--kind of reminiscent of the African American women from the previous reading and their focus on universal rights etc. than their white female counterparts. -schang<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==<br />
'''Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890'''<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That's not masculine, it's disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
At first reading this article I initially thought, “How did Nellie think that she could actually do this in 1890? Was it even possible then?” Thinking more into it I can see why. She wanted to do something ambitious, that would make for a great story, but also make for a great experience, so why shouldn’t she as a woman be able to travel the world? Like Sarah, I feel bad that Nellie had to travel in one outfit for three months, but as she describes she is able to fit a good amount of clothing into her one hand-satchel, “two traveling caps…a pair of slippers, a dressing gown, tennis blazer…several changes of underwear,” (pg. 7). I would hope that priority number one would be the underwear. At the end of the article, I found that Nellie seems to indicate that she may have some sort of “baggage” in her life and I may be reading too much into it, but the way she speaks of the “the responsibilities and worries I escaped by not having a lot of trunks and boxes to look after,(pg. 7), seems to be a hidden meaning to her own emotional baggage.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
Here is a woman ready to trek around the world, alone, with only the contents of a little bag. She has the gumption to convince her boss that she can make the trip, yet she still falls back on the idea that if she conducts herself 'properly' she will "always find men ready to protect" (pg. 7) her. I don't fault her for wanting this protection, travel always entails a certain degree of danger, but I do wonder at her assumptions as to what constitutes proper behavior. In making the trip, hasn't she already broken several social norms concerning appropriate womanly conduct? And did she believe that men the world over would hold the same ideas about women and their behavior? What of her safety if her conduct was deemed improper? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found this article really interesting because Nellie seems like a very independent and confident woman. That is why it was such a surprise to me that she quit journalism to marry a 72 year old man!! Perhaps she loved him, or maybe she thought that her job couldn't last forever and she needed someone to support her? It did also say that she shed a few years off her age to make herself seem more youthful. Maybe there was a common thought in society that once a woman got too old, she wasn't useful anymore. If that is true, then it must have been quite a strong societal expectation in order to get Nellie to stop what she loved doing. I think its also important to notice that Nellie had to stop her job when she got married. She obviously loved doing because she wanted to go back to it when her husband died, so there must have been some pressure on her to quit and spend her time being a wife. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I was also shocked at ther marriage to the rather old man, thats old today, so I'm sure back then that had to be quite an old guy. I feel that Nellie is a perfect example of this New Woman, out embracing the world without a care or fear in the world, ready to tackle any man's job. Good for her. - Christine L<br />
<br />
'''Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893'''<br />
<br />
I was actually surprised that Bertha Palmer used her speech at the World Fair to both honor women and criticise men's attitudes towards women. Women had been allowed a space at the Fair to display their own creativity, but it was within a well defined and controlled "sphere" designated by men. With Palmer's speech, we are getting to see a woman recognize the inequality of the separate spheres doctrine and publicly push for the inclusion of women in more than restrictive "spheres" constructed by men. After all, how can a woman truly be free when she is being oppressed by men in all that she does? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
'''Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892'''<br />
<br />
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ida B. Wells''' – <br />
<br />
'''Frances Willard'''–<br />
<br />
'''Anzia Yezierska''' – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World<br />
<br />
Immigrant women like Anzia and her fictional heroine Sara faced unique challenges at the turn of the century. They were caught between the growing American emphasis on education and more independence for women and their tradition bound fathers and husbands. Men like Sara's father in the reading probably saw their daughters' rebellious streaks as not only a threat to their patriarchal authority but also to the culture and customs they brought from their countries of origin. When immigrant daughters went to school or moved out on their own they joined an 'American' movement that their parents may not have understood or feared for its ability to remove their daughters from an acceptably ethnic upbringing. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
I strongly agree with Mary Ann, I think fathers especially immigrant fathers wanted the "American Dream" and felt that when they arrived it was hard to achieve so held onto the one stable condition they always knew as being heads of the household. Men, like Sara's father used a different tactic to establish authority through the use of religion,"It says in the Torah, only through a man has a woman an existence." (22) contradicting the idea in America where women were normally seen as morally superior. This made me wonder if the influence of new religions and cultures in America helped bring about the women's movement? Did statements such as the one Sara's father made cause women to rebel more and prove they did not need a man nor his religion to survive. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
'''Edith Eudora Ammons''' – A Woman Homesteader<br />
<br />
When I have pictured manifest destiny, I have hardly pictured Edith Ammons and her sister, two women, moving in to the West alone to build up new lives together. Of course, I would never think of the West in the 19th century as a place of freedom and new beginnings because I know how rough it was from studying history. Ammons herself admits, "This was not the West as I had dreamed it... It was a desolate, forgotten land, without vegetation save for the dry, crackling grass, without visible tokens of fertility" (p. 26). Yet, the sisters toughed it out, taking on hardship after hardship in exchange for their freedom to live where they wanted and do what they wanted. I think that with our comforts of today, it is often hard to imagine women putting themselves through such trials to achieve the freedom they desired. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==<br />
<br />
'''Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)'''<br />
<br />
One thing I really liked about this story was how Molly talked about how she struggled with her studies. I thought this was important because it shows that girls weren't just sent away to learn how to become good wives, but they were actually taught things. They actually had to learn science and practice experiments. Molly seems like a completely modern college girl in the way she complains about her classes! She also talks about her social life quite openly. Girls were willing to dress up like boys in order to go out and have fun. Its nice to see that all girls of that period weren't prim and proper like we are sometimes led to believe. -- Angie<br />
<br />
'''Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)'''<br />
<br />
In class we spoke some of this issue that the “New Woman” faced about what to do after leaving college. Here I found what Jane Addams and Ellen Starr do very admirable, such as creating the famous Hall House. In today’s world you don’t see many women, especially white, moving into “bad” parts of cities to truly help the people there. But these women I found fearless of being in Chicago such as the incident with them leaving the side door left open and “were much pleased in the morning to find that we possessed a fine illustration of the honesty and kindliness of our new neighbors,” (pg. 36). I would have been so upset that I had risked my home and self, just being in a new place for the first night is nerve-racking, but leaving a door open would make me even more paranoid. These women were actually asked to “wash the newborn babies, and to prepare the dead for burial, to nurse the sick, and to ‘mind the children’,” (pg. 36). Where there no others to do these tasks, such as a mortician, hospital, or baby-sitters? I know to remember that these people were of the poorest of the city, but these women were asked to prepare the dead, really? Ew.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)'''<br />
<br />
The first piece of this article I saw was that it parallels to the Jane Addams Article in that Alice Hamilton spent time at the Hull House. In her writing Alice actually mentions the Hull House, other than her biography at the beginning stating that she had spent time there and that she truly learned something from her time at the Hull House gives more evidence to the fact of Jane creating something great. “Life at Hull-House had accustomed me to going straight to the homes of people whom I wished to learn something and talking to them in their own surroundings, where they have courage to speak out what is in their minds,” (pg. 39). The Hull House taught Alice how to relate to people and I can see this consideration being very important, essential, to her profession of being a physician. In addition to her being a physician I think that a certain level of arrogance blossomed as well. Alice tends to look down on people at times, but at the same time being understanding; an example being her take on the reason for immigrants to take jobs to support their families after coming to American; “of course they took the first job they could find and if it proved to be one that weakened and crippled them---well, that was their bad luck!” (pg. 39). I found this a bit uncharacteristic of the women who spent time in the Hull House, but that is entirely my take. I’m sure being a women physician is something to be quite proud of, but to look down on immigrants who you are caring for because they are trying to make the best of the life they have been dealt, seems a bit harsh. ---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) '''<br />
<br />
'''Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)'''<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)'''<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Mother Jones. Her writing is very strong and passionate, and its hard not to have emotions dredged up while reading about this strike. I found it interesting that she went and stayed with the families working in the mine to witness first-hand the hardships they endure. The conditions seemed to be not too far off of what miners dealt with in more recent times which is saddening. - Christine L<br />
<br />
'''Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home'''<br />
<br />
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913'''<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman's husband's boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?<br />
-Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I found this article the most interesting out of all of them. Josephine Conger-Koneko takes a very hard line on the position that women should be paid for their housework. I also found it interesting how she equivocated a woman's life in the home doing housework for her husband as the life of a slave. She seems to be a bit radical in her discussion of women being paid for household duties. I also found it striking that Koneko argues that a husband should go to his employer and ask for wages for his wife at home doing the housework and how men getting married is actually benefical more for the employer because then he will have a continuing work force. Did women during this time believe they should be paid for work, and if after reading this, did woman's groups advocate paid labor for women working in the home? -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn't just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I thought the Sanger article was very interesting. I like how Sanger is able to use the story of Mrs. Sachs to show the rising need and importance for birth control. I think it presents birth control as more of a social issue, rather than just an issue of liberating woman's sexuality. She demonstrates that birth control is a necessity because of all the hurt, poverty and death that is occurring due to a lack of birth control. At this time, one had to have enough money for doctors who they could pay to tell them about birth control options/abortion due to the Comstock Laws, and I think this is important for why Sanger decides to advocate birth control, especially to the poorer classes. -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911'''</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-02-03T23:55:37Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” ==<br />
<br />
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that "Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible" and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word "girls" which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
The welfare activism article notes that a fair amount of the black women involved in welfare were married, and it was more generally acceptable for black women to be involved in public life than white women, which I suppose is partly due to their positions as heads of families during slavery’s heyday and the fact that many black women had to work outside the home due to economic necessity (except these reform women who were pretty well off). However, Anna J. Cooper seemed to believe that black men were not supportive of women outside the home and didn’t recognize their value in politics and reform. What accounts for this disparity? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool how even though black women may not have had the advantages that white women had in the reform movement, they made the best out of it. White women raised money but they also were able to gain support or recognition from people in congress. Black women were not so fortunate but they did not let that stop them; they had bake sales, church dinners, and other such functions to raise money and awareness. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Like Amy, I noticed the differences between how black and white women raised money for their causes. It seems like white women relied far more on their status and privilege to gain access to (mostly white men) policy makers and other influential leaders who could help them. Black women, for the most part, did not have this option. So they turned to their communities for support, in much the same way as they had turned voting and politics into community activities. Black women already had a solid tradition of getting the community to rally around them for a cause, so when the need arose for schools and public health measures and other programs, women again banded to together for the good of the group as a whole. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the most intriguing part, and yet a short piece, of Linda Gordon’s article to be on the Lesbianism and homosexual escapades. Different from black women’s dependence on their community and occasionally their husbands, white women greatly relied on one-another rather than their husbands or families. “The great majority of white women were single-34 percent had ever been married, and only 18 percent remained married during their peak political activity,” (pg. 229). To this effect women Gordon gives the fact that “28 percent were in relationships with other women…called Boston marriages,” (pg. 229). I think that we as a generation think that Lesbianism is a new trend/ideal, and yet these women were practicing it in the 18th-19th century. This was probably not seen as a controversial idea to these women, so why is it such a big issue today when is a part of history? ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that rape was ever "justified" by anyone, and it has always been seen as a barbarism, even when it was performed ritualistically by warring states. Just because a society's dialogue doesn't include rape doesn't mean that it was accepted, by any means. Also, to encapsulate human nature as such is not a dismissal, as is evident even in our so-enlightened society when we "dismiss" the actions of men that is at times chauvinistic or derogatory as "boys will be boys"--does that mean that such behavior, speaking in broad terms, justified? I would think no. Also, while it seems as though black women did not have the kind of access to politicized power as white women did, Gordon points out, perhaps in contradiction to some of her conclusions, that half of the African American women who were married (85%) had influential husbands. I don't really see much difference between what the African American women did in comparison to WASP women, despite Gordon's attempts to highlight them. To me, it seems as though the only thing that really differed, notwithstanding the race issue (which I'm not dismissing), was the time that had elapsed between emancipation and what was then contemporary times. Like WASP women's groups, black women's societies were exclusionary, and it seems that if a few more generations had elapsed then the black women would be just as focused on maintaining social hierarchies as white women were. Perhaps they're concentration in the rural South maintained this as immigrants seldom ventured South and therefore black women would not have a class of "others" to perform activism on. But then again the entire African American community was persecuted against so I'm sure it's not as simplistic as that. I found the "white view" as a class issue, which I agree with and that the WASP women who were single and had a great deal of autonomy assumed that this was a class privilege and something that would not be desirable for poorer women. -schang<br />
<br />
== Judy Yung, "The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in ''Chung Sai Yat Po'', 1900-1911" ==<br />
<br />
It’s ironic that in the early 20th century China was trying to emulate the Western world, including increasing women’s rights, to get out from under the hand of the West, and Chinese Americans emulated those reforms going on in China and not in their own country because they were so excluded from American life that they felt a closer kinship to China. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it was interesting how the reasons why people decided it was a good idea for women to have an education in America paralleled the decision for Chinese women to become educated. On page 263 Yung writes, "Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China." Even though I don't think this should be a number one reason for a woman to be given an education, at the time I would have been happy that women's education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Chinese Americans were witnessing freedoms in America that were not offered to them as Chinese Americans in America or China. Binding the feet was an example of their oppression to that of their husband. It’s interesting that binding of the feet was compared to binding of an American woman corset. They felt education was the key to stop the oppression. Chinese American lineage was to their home where their families were so they naturally felt the need to change things back at home. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
The CSYP was a very effective source to bringing light to the atrocities that Chinese American faced and the changes that needed to take place. Chinese American women could speak out through these journals in order to reach out to others and make changes. As Judy Yung noted though a lot did not read these articles, the news spread. Women talk and share their thoughts with other woman evoking their spirit and that brings change for them. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
Interesting reading, yes--new information, not really, at least to me. Why is it ironic that China saw the way out of Western domination as its emulation? That mentality has been repeated throughout history, from the Egyptians adopting chariots to overthrow the Hyksos to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents being found with US manuals on unconventional warfare. Also, it would seem only natural that the suppression of entry into the political sphere of an immigrant population would foster the desire to interact with the mother country. An aside--my own use of that term, "mother country" fascinates me in that nations have almost always been characterized as feminine and wonder what that kind of gendered language indicates about the pervasiveness of such gendered dichotomies in everyday life. Other things I found "interesting"--the actions of politicians and probably most likely liberal-minded reformers from the Progressive Era directly contributed to the high rate of prostitution among Chinese women as they barred further immigration in California and other western states. Also found significant the direction that these women's reform actions were aimed at--the revitalization of China as a nation, rather than the individualistic aims of many female reformers in America--kind of reminiscent of the African American women from the previous reading and their focus on universal rights etc. than their white female counterparts. -schang<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==<br />
'''Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890'''<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That's not masculine, it's disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
At first reading this article I initially thought, “How did Nellie think that she could actually do this in 1890? Was it even possible then?” Thinking more into it I can see why. She wanted to do something ambitious, that would make for a great story, but also make for a great experience, so why shouldn’t she as a woman be able to travel the world? Like Sarah, I feel bad that Nellie had to travel in one outfit for three months, but as she describes she is able to fit a good amount of clothing into her one hand-satchel, “two traveling caps…a pair of slippers, a dressing gown, tennis blazer…several changes of underwear,” (pg. 7). I would hope that priority number one would be the underwear. At the end of the article, I found that Nellie seems to indicate that she may have some sort of “baggage” in her life and I may be reading too much into it, but the way she speaks of the “the responsibilities and worries I escaped by not having a lot of trunks and boxes to look after,(pg. 7), seems to be a hidden meaning to her own emotional baggage.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
Here is a woman ready to trek around the world, alone, with only the contents of a little bag. She has the gumption to convince her boss that she can make the trip, yet she still falls back on the idea that if she conducts herself 'properly' she will "always find men ready to protect" (pg. 7) her. I don't fault her for wanting this protection, travel always entails a certain degree of danger, but I do wonder at her assumptions as to what constitutes proper behavior. In making the trip, hasn't she already broken several social norms concerning appropriate womanly conduct? And did she believe that men the world over would hold the same ideas about women and their behavior? What of her safety if her conduct was deemed improper? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found this article really interesting because Nellie seems like a very independent and confident woman. That is why it was such a surprise to me that she quit journalism to marry a 72 year old man!! Perhaps she loved him, or maybe she thought that her job couldn't last forever and she needed someone to support her? It did also say that she shed a few years off her age to make herself seem more youthful. Maybe there was a common thought in society that once a woman got too old, she wasn't useful anymore. If that is true, then it must have been quite a strong societal expectation in order to get Nellie to stop what she loved doing. I think its also important to notice that Nellie had to stop her job when she got married. She obviously loved doing because she wanted to go back to it when her husband died, so there must have been some pressure on her to quit and spend her time being a wife. -- Angie<br />
<br />
'''Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893'''<br />
<br />
I was actually surprised that Bertha Palmer used her speech at the World Fair to both honor women and criticise men's attitudes towards women. Women had been allowed a space at the Fair to display their own creativity, but it was within a well defined and controlled "sphere" designated by men. With Palmer's speech, we are getting to see a woman recognize the inequality of the separate spheres doctrine and publicly push for the inclusion of women in more than restrictive "spheres" constructed by men. After all, how can a woman truly be free when she is being oppressed by men in all that she does? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
'''Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892'''<br />
<br />
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ida B. Wells''' – <br />
<br />
'''Frances Willard'''–<br />
<br />
'''Anzia Yezierska''' – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World<br />
<br />
Immigrant women like Anzia and her fictional heroine Sara faced unique challenges at the turn of the century. They were caught between the growing American emphasis on education and more independence for women and their tradition bound fathers and husbands. Men like Sara's father in the reading probably saw their daughters' rebellious streaks as not only a threat to their patriarchal authority but also to the culture and customs they brought from their countries of origin. When immigrant daughters went to school or moved out on their own they joined an 'American' movement that their parents may not have understood or feared for its ability to remove their daughters from an acceptably ethnic upbringing. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''Edith Eudora Ammons''' – A Woman Homesteader<br />
<br />
When I have pictured manifest destiny, I have hardly pictured Edith Ammons and her sister, two women, moving in to the West alone to build up new lives together. Of course, I would never think of the West in the 19th century as a place of freedom and new beginnings because I know how rough it was from studying history. Ammons herself admits, "This was not the West as I had dreamed it... It was a desolate, forgotten land, without vegetation save for the dry, crackling grass, without visible tokens of fertility" (p. 26). Yet, the sisters toughed it out, taking on hardship after hardship in exchange for their freedom to live where they wanted and do what they wanted. I think that with our comforts of today, it is often hard to imagine women putting themselves through such trials to achieve the freedom they desired. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==<br />
<br />
'''Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)'''<br />
<br />
'''Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)'''<br />
<br />
In class we spoke some of this issue that the “New Woman” faced about what to do after leaving college. Here I found what Jane Addams and Ellen Starr do very admirable, such as creating the famous Hall House. In today’s world you don’t see many women, especially white, moving into “bad” parts of cities to truly help the people there. But these women I found fearless of being in Chicago such as the incident with them leaving the side door left open and “were much pleased in the morning to find that we possessed a fine illustration of the honesty and kindliness of our new neighbors,” (pg. 36). I would have been so upset that I had risked my home and self, just being in a new place for the first night is nerve-racking, but leaving a door open would make me even more paranoid. These women were actually asked to “wash the newborn babies, and to prepare the dead for burial, to nurse the sick, and to ‘mind the children’,” (pg. 36). Where there no others to do these tasks, such as a mortician, hospital, or baby-sitters? I know to remember that these people were of the poorest of the city, but these women were asked to prepare the dead, really? Ew.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)'''<br />
<br />
The first piece of this article I saw was that it parallels to the Jane Addams Article in that Alice Hamilton spent time at the Hull House. In her writing Alice actually mentions the Hull House, other than her biography at the beginning stating that she had spent time there and that she truly learned something from her time at the Hull House gives more evidence to the fact of Jane creating something great. “Life at Hull-House had accustomed me to going straight to the homes of people whom I wished to learn something and talking to them in their own surroundings, where they have courage to speak out what is in their minds,” (pg. 39). The Hull House taught Alice how to relate to people and I can see this consideration being very important, essential, to her profession of being a physician. In addition to her being a physician I think that a certain level of arrogance blossomed as well. Alice tends to look down on people at times, but at the same time being understanding; an example being her take on the reason for immigrants to take jobs to support their families after coming to American; “of course they took the first job they could find and if it proved to be one that weakened and crippled them---well, that was their bad luck!” (pg. 39). I found this a bit uncharacteristic of the women who spent time in the Hull House, but that is entirely my take. I’m sure being a women physician is something to be quite proud of, but to look down on immigrants who you are caring for because they are trying to make the best of the life they have been dealt, seems a bit harsh. ---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) '''<br />
<br />
'''Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)'''<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)'''<br />
<br />
'''Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home'''<br />
<br />
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913'''<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman's husband's boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?<br />
-Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I found this article the most interesting out of all of them. Josephine Conger-Koneko takes a very hard line on the position that women should be paid for their housework. I also found it interesting how she equivocated a woman's life in the home doing housework for her husband as the life of a slave. She seems to be a bit radical in her discussion of women being paid for household duties. I also found it striking that Koneko argues that a husband should go to his employer and ask for wages for his wife at home doing the housework and how men getting married is actually benefical more for the employer because then he will have a continuing work force. Did women during this time believe they should be paid for work, and if after reading this, did woman's groups advocate paid labor for women working in the home? -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn't just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I thought the Sanger article was very interesting. I like how Sanger is able to use the story of Mrs. Sachs to show the rising need and importance for birth control. I think it presents birth control as more of a social issue, rather than just an issue of liberating woman's sexuality. She demonstrates that birth control is a necessity because of all the hurt, poverty and death that is occurring due to a lack of birth control. At this time, one had to have enough money for doctors who they could pay to tell them about birth control options/abortion due to the Comstock Laws, and I think this is important for why Sanger decides to advocate birth control, especially to the poorer classes. -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911'''</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-01-27T22:32:41Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me in this article was the paradoxes. This was full of them regarding cherokee values as well as teachings. There seems to be great confusion between the pure bloods and mixed-bloods. For example, there were many mixed-blood instructors, but no traditional cherokee teachers, yet the school was based on cherokee values. Also, many of the teachers repressed Cherokee values, which seems to defeat the purpose of a cherokee boarding school. Also, a girl named Na-Li defended her honor in claiming that both of her parents were full cherokee, but many of the teachers did not teach traditional values so it seems like a frivolous concern. It appears to obtain a traditional cherokee eduaction when there were so many paradoxes between the people.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans. In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones. Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.” Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain. I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included. I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society. Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them. The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary. Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division. I don’t think the teachers helped with that either. These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society. These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie<br />
<br />
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==<br />
<br />
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could "endure childbirth painlessly" (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199). I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries. The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203). These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the 'savages' to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered "traditional" activities, so wouldn't that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in "traditional culture" and "modern labor?" -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
"Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men's dissolution" (p. 199). These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere. When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men's laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families. They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as "tourist attractions" (p. 201). However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork. I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality. Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time. I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples. They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as "field hands,"vanishing Indians" (p.201), tourist attractions, "subjects" for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I was really struck by the way the author said that indigenous women at this time were “dehumanized.” I had never really thought about it in that context, but it is true with the way white women thought about Indians. Because they were closely affiliated with nature and because of the belief that they didn’t feel pain during childbirth, they were no longer women or even really human. This is why it was so easy for white women to treat them as a sort of spectacle as opposed to real people. They acted the complete opposite from how women were supposed to act. - Angie<br />
<br />
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==<br />
<br />
In reading "The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe," I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States. He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it. Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States. The most interesting fact was that "women were expected to defer to men but did not." This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict. It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound. I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met. I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, "They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community's values and habits through a single activity, After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall..."(257) Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman. I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart. She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles. I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some women did of what was expected of them. Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money. If she had been a man we would have never heard about her. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn't just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 "To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise" because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the "(White) Protestants" can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I'd be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers<br />
<br />
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists' animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money "eventually helped elevate her moral character" (253). -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==<br />
<br />
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence. And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren't giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn't get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan's question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I can't speak to Chinese attitudes towards prostitution in the second half of the nineteenth century, but we talked about prostitution and courtesans in my Gender in Chinese History class during the eighteenth century, and they had a different view of it than we do. Certainly, they felt that it was best to be a respectable wife and mother, but courtesans and prostitutes weren't merely sex objects, most were educated and trained in the fine arts. Sometimes they didn't even sleep with their clients, but would just sit down and write poetry or play music with them. Many of these women were famous for their beauty and learning, even their morality. Of course, I'm not by any means trying to glorify prostitution, but still, these immigrant Chinese women may have come to the United States with a different idea of what being a prostitute meant, and that's why they agreed to it, combined with the practical concern of getting themselves to America. - Alice W<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this account after reading "Too Dark to be Angels." To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It's telling that the little girl compares herself to the "young of a wild creature" (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be "fewer real Dakotas" and "more palefaces" (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==<br />
<br />
I think that Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of frontier life is really touching because it is probably an example of what so many other women were going through. Although some probably had the sense of adventure to want to go exploring out west, I’m sure many were perfectly fine staying in the east with their families. Green’s sadness but resolve to put on a happy face for her husband is an example of how women were the rock of their families and despite severe emotional turmoil, they were forced to overcome it and remain the strong person that would hold the family together. - Angie<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse. It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly. It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk<br />
<br />
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn't quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she's also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-01-27T21:44:51Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans. In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones. Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.” Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain. I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included. I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society. Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them. The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary. Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division. I don’t think the teachers helped with that either. These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society. These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie<br />
<br />
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==<br />
<br />
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could "endure childbirth painlessly" (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199). I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries. The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203). These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the 'savages' to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered "traditional" activities, so wouldn't that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in "traditional culture" and "modern labor?" -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==<br />
<br />
In reading "The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe," I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States. He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it. Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States. The most interesting fact was that "women were expected to defer to men but did not." This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict. It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound. I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met. I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, "They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community's values and habits through a single activity, After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall..."(257) Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman. I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart. She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles. I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some women did of what was expected of them. Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money. If she had been a man we would have never heard about her. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn't just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 "To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise" because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the "(White) Protestants" can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I'd be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers<br />
<br />
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists' animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money "eventually helped elevate her moral character" (253). -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==<br />
<br />
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence. And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren't giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn't get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan's question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I can't speak to Chinese attitudes towards prostitution in the second half of the nineteenth century, but we talked about prostitution and courtesans in my Gender in Chinese History class during the eighteenth century, and they had a different view of it than we do. Certainly, they felt that it was best to be a respectable wife and mother, but courtesans and prostitutes weren't merely sex objects, most were educated and trained in the fine arts. Sometimes they didn't even sleep with their clients, but would just sit down and write poetry or play music with them. Many of these women were famous for their beauty and learning, even their morality. Of course, I'm not by any means trying to glorify prostitution, but still, these immigrant Chinese women may have come to the United States with a different idea of what being a prostitute meant, and that's why they agreed to it, combined with the practical concern of getting themselves to America. - Alice W<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this account after reading "Too Dark to be Angels." To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It's telling that the little girl compares herself to the "young of a wild creature" (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be "fewer real Dakotas" and "more palefaces" (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==<br />
<br />
I think that Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of frontier life is really touching because it is probably an example of what so many other women were going through. Although some probably had the sense of adventure to want to go exploring out west, I’m sure many were perfectly fine staying in the east with their families. Green’s sadness but resolve to put on a happy face for her husband is an example of how women were the rock of their families and despite severe emotional turmoil, they were forced to overcome it and remain the strong person that would hold the family together. - Angie<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse. It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly. It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk<br />
<br />
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn't quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she's also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-01-27T21:31:56Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans. In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones. Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.” Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain. I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included. I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society. Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them. The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary. Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division. I don’t think the teachers helped with that either. These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society. These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie<br />
<br />
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==<br />
<br />
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could "endure childbirth painlessly" (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199). I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries. The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203). These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the 'savages' to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered "traditional" activities, so wouldn't that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in "traditional culture" and "modern labor?" -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==<br />
<br />
In reading "The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe," I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States. He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it. Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States. The most interesting fact was that "women were expected to defer to men but did not." This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict. It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound. I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met. I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, "They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community's values and habits through a single activity, After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall..."(257) Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman. I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart. She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles. I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some women did of what was expected of them. Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money. If she had been a man we would have never heard about her. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn't just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 "To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise" because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the "(White) Protestants" can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I'd be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers<br />
<br />
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists' animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money "eventually helped elevate her moral character" (253). -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==<br />
<br />
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence. And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren't giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn't get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan's question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this account after reading "Too Dark to be Angels." To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It's telling that the little girl compares herself to the "young of a wild creature" (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be "fewer real Dakotas" and "more palefaces" (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse. It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly. It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk<br />
<br />
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn't quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she's also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-01-20T21:22:08Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments/questions comparing the articles ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on a paper I wrote on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, this was a very interesting essay to read. Fahs mentions that the war still follows the "masculanized culture" that was in place at the time and through my research I discovered the same things. Much of the standard literature was centered around the fighting and the man's roles on the battlefield, yet women's roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten. It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as "feminist" literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting how she discusses the different type of surrering that women endured. Men endured the horrors of war and their suffering was very physical and visual. Women, however, also suffered but they experienced strictly emotional suffering. They were cut deeply by these emotional wounds of not knowing weather their loved-ones were safe on the battlefield and some argued that these wounds cut deeper than those of men. Where men simply died on the battlefield, women had to endure the death of a loved one, while still remaining strong, and now being forced to provide for themselves. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Civil War literature shifted from a focus on the tribulations of northern women to those of southern women. And despite a strong emphasis on realistic literature, southern women and antebellum plantation life was highly romanticized. This probably came in part from a desire to both remember a time when the nation was united (which can also be seen in the popularity of stories centered around the Revolution)and to try to create a new identity centered around northern and southern reconciliation and "white" ideals. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I can't help but think about "Gone With the Wind" whenever they mentioned southern woman's literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)<br />
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman's role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today's non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think it is important to keep in mind that literature is largely written for an audience, and yet, this literature is what shapes the public memory of an event. The dominant forms of fiction at the outset of the war were women’s domestic novels. This impacts what type of literature was written during the war. It should come as no surprise that during the war, “the literary marketplace supported an outpouring of popular literature portraying women’s domestic participation in the war.” This domestic participation includes working, sacrifice, and loss, some even argue that the women sacrificed more than the men who were fighting. However, there was a shift in literature with the rise of Civil War veterans organizations. This led to a shift in who were the bearers of the war’s memory from women to veterans. It is amazing how the Civil War has become, “a white male conflict, rather than a cataclysmic event that rent and remade the fabric of life for all Americans.” – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Throughout the reading on the Feminized Civil War, I kept asking myself where the women had gone; it was as if their memory of the Civil War had disappeared entirely. I was pleased when I came across Mary Livermore who, in 1887, spoke out against where the literature about the civil war was going. She argued that the story of Northern women was missing. Then, in 1889 Edward Bellamy, stated that, “many pictures of battles have been painted, but no true one yet, for the pictures contain only men. The women are unaccountably left out.” Finally, there was Elizabeth Stuart Phelps who actually “undermined stereotypes of veterans” and “challenged the veteran dominated culture of remembrance itself.” I was just happy to see that women were not entirely forgotten in the decades following the Civil War. I am curious as to how the majority of women felt when their impacts on the war became largely overlooked, especially after all of the pain and loss that they had experienced. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
It seems as time moved on after the Civil War it increasingly became to be defined as a "Man's War", specifically a "White Man's War". All of the domestic issues women faced, such as caring for children, the home, and earning a living, faded with the passage of time. It appears that a romanticized portrait of the war was painted in which much of the heart-ache and problems women faced on an everyday basis were pushed to the wayside in favor of remembering the great battles and generals of the day. This is yet another example of how women were forgotten in the shadow of their men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna Holman's approach that the Civil War had largely (and unfortunately) came to be defined as a "Man's War." I also found it interesting that they begin to recognize the importance of the woman in everyday life, thought the focus was only on the mother initially. On page 133, Fahs points out that, "women especially mothers, personalized the nation, that they link the private and public realms." Not only does Fahs point out that women were in a sense the backbone of the nation, but they were also able to tie together the separate spheres. --MDvorak <br />
<br />
I also completely agree with Erin Sanderson's statement in which she discusses how after men returned from the war, the literature market increasingly became dominated by men's war stories. The interests of women were again pushed away for those of men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find out that the Civil War was so feminized during the war and directly following it. The war has definitely become masculine in the public memory, and it makes me want to take a look at how the public images of other wars have changed. Why was there a focus on the Northern women’s war in Civil War literature in the first place? Was it because they were the only ones around that had the opportunity to read it? Many Northern men would have been fighting, and in the South, both men and women would have had larger concerns than publishing and reading literature. How come when the war once again entered popular memory in the 1880s, it became focused on the masculine aspects of the war? The article mentions a shift away from Victorian feminine literature towards realist literature. Was there some sort of demographic change in readership? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It seems as though the media played a larger role during and after the civil war. From the material read, it seemed to have expressed sadness, pride, and Patriotism of people’s experiences of the War. Women's writing was more prominent because the men were away in war. But when the men came home their stories needed to be told. I think this symbolizes men returning to the public sphere. I think the type of stories told says something about men and women's roles. In these stories about women you see the emotional side and in men's stories they were more about glory and valor. The change from fiction to more non-fiction stories is interesting. Could this have been because people had just dealt with real emotions, those including pain and sorrow, were ready for something real? Was it something they could better relate to? --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I too was initially a little surprised to find that stories about women dominated much of the media at the time, but it really makes sense considering women were the ones remaining home and actually buying and reading the publications of the day. These women understandably wanted stories that they could relate to and that emphasized the importance of their own contributions to the war effort. It also may have been a not so subtle nudge on behalf of the powers-that-be to encourage women, for purely practical reasons, to continue to support the men at war. After all, soldiers who had the support of their families, even if the women believed in the war effort for romanticized reasons, were less likely to desert or to not enlist at all. After the war was over, the pressing need to maintain that support base fell off, and so did the feminized literature. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really liked the Tony Horwitz quote that Fahs included (and not just because he might be one of my favorite authors). She said that in the late nineteenth century Americans "reclaimed a past of their own creation." It's so important for us to remember that collective memory is constantly changing. Perceptions of the Civil War changed with the changing attitudes about war and women of the time. It makes some sense that, postwar, women's stories might be pushed to the side in favor of more masculine stories about the front. Returning veterans were a very visible part of post-war life; women's suffering, while obviously still with them, was no longer front and center. So, perceptions shifted, and they continued to change with the country, eventually colliding with the force-to-be-reckoned-with that was Gone with the Wind. I think it's safe to say that many Americans hold certain ideas about the Civil War based on that novel alone, as well as ideas from all of the other Civil War books and movies produced over the past few decades. Not all of these memories are accurate, maybe most are not, but they represent something very real to the society that holds them as well as an interesting challenge to historians fighting to keep a semblance of reality, as experienced by women and men, both Northern and Southern, in the conversation. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed finally reading something about how women's work and contributions were acknowledged and became part of a major event in US history. The essay said frequently that women's role in the war effort was vital and influential. The literature at the time included feminized literature that "involved a distinctive, sentimentalized patriotism." A good bit of the literature also centered on the woman's responsibility to "sacrifice their men for their country." The stories and articles seemed to focus on either persuading women to act patriotic to support their country or describe the emotions, struggles, and experiences of women or the "woman's war." It was sad to see that once the men came back from war the focus shifted more towards the masculinized war. Maybe it was to showcase the men for their bravery and patriotism for their country. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Before reading this, I had never thought about how much late 19th century Civil War literature focuses on Southern women, and not Northern women. Of course, this is probably mainly due to the fact that I had no idea just how important of a role Northern Women had played during the War. I can understand why their role was overshadowed after the war. After all, the war came to be redefined by the war stories of men and honoring great officers and soldiers. As for literature on Southern Women, I think it was appealing because it was greatly idealized, versus the more realistic literature from the North. However, I think that it is amazing that Historians have also been fooled in to this misconception in their analysis of the both the Civil War and the literature of the time. We are not living in the 19th century, so we should have an objective point of view, right? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with CBrau I myself was very suprised at the lack of literature we typically see for Northern women throughout the Civil War. I have only paid attention to literature from Southern women, due to the amount of fighting in the South and how their lives were completely destroyed, but women's lives in the North were strongly affected as well. The literature and quotes from Northern mothers hit home to me as I have watched my mom proudly tell family members and friends that her son will serve the United States. As stated by New York Times, a mother after shopping with her son for his military equipment said, " This, my son, is all that I can do. I have given you up to serve your country, and may God go with you! It is all a mother can do." I know this was stated by a Northern woman but I wondered if mothers felt this way all over the country and this unified them in their efforts to support not only the "woman's" war but the Civil War as well? ie. through sending supplies, flying flags in faces of opposing generals, etc. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I find it super interesting how quickly the important contributions of women were forgotten. During the actual war it was fine for the media to have such a high percentage of feminized literature because the contributions that women were making were right there in front of them and not easily ignored. This might have also been because women probably dominated the audience, since they were the ones at home and able to get a magazine or paper. It seems that as the years passed after the end of the war, the emotions of the war were forgotten and men wanted to read about their battles and their leaders as opposed to the private and emotional battles that women fought, even if they were just as difficult and important. Fahs talks about how idealized southern white women's literature was more popular, and this was probably because people did not want to face the reality of what really happened in the war. -- Angie<br />
<br />
== Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” ==<br />
<br />
I beleive this is the most important question asked in this essay: After the war, should the enfranchisement of black women, or of all women take place? This question is central to many of the political struggles in the late 19th century. Black women almost seperated themselves into a community to bond, which made overall suffrage more difficult.<br />
-Afrisk<br />
<br />
Going with the question of the enfranchisement of women... I really was encouraged by the fact that although the book explicitly states that Black men also felt that women were inferior to men in their social positions it was later stated that "serious discussion" regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman's suffrage movement. -SSellers<br />
<br />
I thought chapter 10 brought up a good question, which was how the transition from slavery to freedom was expected to function. If I remember correctly the majority of white Americans still viewed African Americans as inferior and it was mainly a small percentage of Northern Radicals that were trying to achieve equality for them in their meaning of freedom. As history shows it would still take a long time for freedom to mean anything for freed slaves. So my question is after the Civil War ended what kind of life could African Americans find without having any rights? ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
African American women saw the vote as a collective possession between men and women based on the belief within the African American community of collective responsibility. Republican black males supported this belief. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but the impression I got was that it wasn’t necessarily because they believed in any kind of “autonomy as one” thing but because the women could help keep black men from voting as Democrats, which helped keep the Republicans in power. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
-Taylor, would the men have voted Democratic if their wives hadn't insisted on Republican? I'm not sure, but I feel like many would have continued to vote Republican because of the party's strong ties to Lincoln. Perhaps the issue would have been whether they voted at all if their wives had not forced them to get to the polls. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The idea of collective responsibility is very interesting. That it takes a whole family sometimes including fictive kin to survive. The idea that when one makes a decision it effects the whole family especially including political decisions. Did the importance of community and family stem from the fact that they had been divided in slavery? --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it really striking that African American women worked so hard to ensure that the men in their lives voted, and voted Republican. And that it was a family vote, not a man's vote on behalf of his family says a lot about the system of community many seemed to operate under. In answer to Mhimes, I would say that yes, a lot of the importance of family probably stemmed from generations of families being torn apart. Now that these individuals could house their families under one roof a strong desire to do everything they could to protect that family meant weighing every decision, including of course the political ones, carefully. And slaves, out of necessity, had long built families out of unrelated community members so I imagine that the same sense of self-preservation felt for blood relatives carried over for the community as a whole. The women did not want to see hard won freedom taken away by a lack of awareness and participation. And, as the author points out, some of the women's involvement was even to ensure the physical safety of the voting men. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting when the essay talked about how even though black men had finally gained rights to vote they still were not completely supportive of women having the right to vote. Maybe it is a stupid assumption but I would think that since they knew how it felt to have less rights than others they would show more sympathy towards women. They didn't think it was as absurd as white men did but why wouldn't they fight for them harder, especially if that meant all African American people would finally have their rights and freedoms? Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The changing narratives following the war was not something that I was aware of. The literature during and just following the war focused a great deal on women's issues, yet changed in the 1880's and 1890's to a more masculinized story. I wonder why the Southern women's narrative has remained as the most compelling story of the Civil War to this day.-efritz<br />
<br />
The author posits that women's suffering was equal to or greater than that of men fighting in the war. Although women suffered great emotional trauma with the loss of their spouses or children, I don't think that you can compare this emotional suffering to what the men were exposed to in battle. They all suffered in their individual way, but the emotional and physical toll the men faced daily cannot be compared to that of women's suffering back home.-efritz<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see African American women's roles in voting before women's suffrage. Before college, we are taught that women were not able to vote, therefore they did not. However, Brown clearly contradicts this in her article. African American women in Richmond were publicly participating in politics, even voting at the community/local level, while others took it upon themselves to view their husband's right to vote as a collective, rather than individual, vote. These women were going to vote, whether or not they were legally able to do so. And yet, historians tend to look at this part of history as black and white; African American women were either able to physically vote in the polling booths, or they were not. Clearly, we need to look at the entire issue differently to understand the importance of African American women in 19th century politics. -- CBrau <br />
<br />
I strongly agree with Amy's point, black men had suffered right alongside women the harsh reality of being a lower citizen in society and yet once they were allowed to vote they did not think it was the right place for a woman. Only men could be responsible for serious and political matters. Is this a reason why black women formed such close knit bonds with others? Were women more capable of supporting one another even if it only involved giving someone a roof over their head? I would have thought black men would of understood women's struggles but that appeared to be a difficult concept once men were able to make a mark. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I also think its really interesting that black women worked hard for their right to vote right after the war ended and also worked behind the scenes. Brown talks about how black women created their own organized groups such as the Rising Daughters of Liberty that played important roles in the political campaigns at the time. They also sent women from their communities to speak on their behalf at political meetings. These women were also willing to literally fight for their rights. Brown says that they took up weapons during political meetings so that their preferred delegates would not be intimidated. I think all of this shows that black women were among the first suffragettes and should be recognized as such. -- Angie</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-01-20T20:57:20Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments/questions comparing the articles ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on a paper I wrote on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, this was a very interesting essay to read. Fahs mentions that the war still follows the "masculanized culture" that was in place at the time and through my research I discovered the same things. Much of the standard literature was centered around the fighting and the man's roles on the battlefield, yet women's roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten. It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as "feminist" literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting how she discusses the different type of surrering that women endured. Men endured the horrors of war and their suffering was very physical and visual. Women, however, also suffered but they experienced strictly emotional suffering. They were cut deeply by these emotional wounds of not knowing weather their loved-ones were safe on the battlefield and some argued that these wounds cut deeper than those of men. Where men simply died on the battlefield, women had to endure the death of a loved one, while still remaining strong, and now being forced to provide for themselves. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Civil War literature shifted from a focus on the tribulations of northern women to those of southern women. And despite a strong emphasis on realistic literature, southern women and antebellum plantation life was highly romanticized. This probably came in part from a desire to both remember a time when the nation was united (which can also be seen in the popularity of stories centered around the Revolution)and to try to create a new identity centered around northern and southern reconciliation and "white" ideals. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I can't help but think about "Gone With the Wind" whenever they mentioned southern woman's literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)<br />
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman's role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today's non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think it is important to keep in mind that literature is largely written for an audience, and yet, this literature is what shapes the public memory of an event. The dominant forms of fiction at the outset of the war were women’s domestic novels. This impacts what type of literature was written during the war. It should come as no surprise that during the war, “the literary marketplace supported an outpouring of popular literature portraying women’s domestic participation in the war.” This domestic participation includes working, sacrifice, and loss, some even argue that the women sacrificed more than the men who were fighting. However, there was a shift in literature with the rise of Civil War veterans organizations. This led to a shift in who were the bearers of the war’s memory from women to veterans. It is amazing how the Civil War has become, “a white male conflict, rather than a cataclysmic event that rent and remade the fabric of life for all Americans.” – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Throughout the reading on the Feminized Civil War, I kept asking myself where the women had gone; it was as if their memory of the Civil War had disappeared entirely. I was pleased when I came across Mary Livermore who, in 1887, spoke out against where the literature about the civil war was going. She argued that the story of Northern women was missing. Then, in 1889 Edward Bellamy, stated that, “many pictures of battles have been painted, but no true one yet, for the pictures contain only men. The women are unaccountably left out.” Finally, there was Elizabeth Stuart Phelps who actually “undermined stereotypes of veterans” and “challenged the veteran dominated culture of remembrance itself.” I was just happy to see that women were not entirely forgotten in the decades following the Civil War. I am curious as to how the majority of women felt when their impacts on the war became largely overlooked, especially after all of the pain and loss that they had experienced. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
It seems as time moved on after the Civil War it increasingly became to be defined as a "Man's War", specifically a "White Man's War". All of the domestic issues women faced, such as caring for children, the home, and earning a living, faded with the passage of time. It appears that a romanticized portrait of the war was painted in which much of the heart-ache and problems women faced on an everyday basis were pushed to the wayside in favor of remembering the great battles and generals of the day. This is yet another example of how women were forgotten in the shadow of their men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna Holman's approach that the Civil War had largely (and unfortunately) came to be defined as a "Man's War." I also found it interesting that they begin to recognize the importance of the woman in everyday life, thought the focus was only on the mother initially. On page 133, Fahs points out that, "women especially mothers, personalized the nation, that they link the private and public realms." Not only does Fahs point out that women were in a sense the backbone of the nation, but they were also able to tie together the separate spheres. --MDvorak <br />
<br />
I also completely agree with Erin Sanderson's statement in which she discusses how after men returned from the war, the literature market increasingly became dominated by men's war stories. The interests of women were again pushed away for those of men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find out that the Civil War was so feminized during the war and directly following it. The war has definitely become masculine in the public memory, and it makes me want to take a look at how the public images of other wars have changed. Why was there a focus on the Northern women’s war in Civil War literature in the first place? Was it because they were the only ones around that had the opportunity to read it? Many Northern men would have been fighting, and in the South, both men and women would have had larger concerns than publishing and reading literature. How come when the war once again entered popular memory in the 1880s, it became focused on the masculine aspects of the war? The article mentions a shift away from Victorian feminine literature towards realist literature. Was there some sort of demographic change in readership? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It seems as though the media played a larger role during and after the civil war. From the material read, it seemed to have expressed sadness, pride, and Patriotism of people’s experiences of the War. Women's writing was more prominent because the men were away in war. But when the men came home their stories needed to be told. I think this symbolizes men returning to the public sphere. I think the type of stories told says something about men and women's roles. In these stories about women you see the emotional side and in men's stories they were more about glory and valor. The change from fiction to more non-fiction stories is interesting. Could this have been because people had just dealt with real emotions, those including pain and sorrow, were ready for something real? Was it something they could better relate to? --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I too was initially a little surprised to find that stories about women dominated much of the media at the time, but it really makes sense considering women were the ones remaining home and actually buying and reading the publications of the day. These women understandably wanted stories that they could relate to and that emphasized the importance of their own contributions to the war effort. It also may have been a not so subtle nudge on behalf of the powers-that-be to encourage women, for purely practical reasons, to continue to support the men at war. After all, soldiers who had the support of their families, even if the women believed in the war effort for romanticized reasons, were less likely to desert or to not enlist at all. After the war was over, the pressing need to maintain that support base fell off, and so did the feminized literature. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really liked the Tony Horwitz quote that Fahs included (and not just because he might be one of my favorite authors). She said that in the late nineteenth century Americans "reclaimed a past of their own creation." It's so important for us to remember that collective memory is constantly changing. Perceptions of the Civil War changed with the changing attitudes about war and women of the time. It makes some sense that, postwar, women's stories might be pushed to the side in favor of more masculine stories about the front. Returning veterans were a very visible part of post-war life; women's suffering, while obviously still with them, was no longer front and center. So, perceptions shifted, and they continued to change with the country, eventually colliding with the force-to-be-reckoned-with that was Gone with the Wind. I think it's safe to say that many Americans hold certain ideas about the Civil War based on that novel alone, as well as ideas from all of the other Civil War books and movies produced over the past few decades. Not all of these memories are accurate, maybe most are not, but they represent something very real to the society that holds them as well as an interesting challenge to historians fighting to keep a semblance of reality, as experienced by women and men, both Northern and Southern, in the conversation. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed finally reading something about how women's work and contributions were acknowledged and became part of a major event in US history. The essay said frequently that women's role in the war effort was vital and influential. The literature at the time included feminized literature that "involved a distinctive, sentimentalized patriotism." A good bit of the literature also centered on the woman's responsibility to "sacrifice their men for their country." The stories and articles seemed to focus on either persuading women to act patriotic to support their country or describe the emotions, struggles, and experiences of women or the "woman's war." It was sad to see that once the men came back from war the focus shifted more towards the masculinized war. Maybe it was to showcase the men for their bravery and patriotism for their country. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Before reading this, I had never thought about how much late 19th century Civil War literature focuses on Southern women, and not Northern women. Of course, this is probably mainly due to the fact that I had no idea just how important of a role Northern Women had played during the War. I can understand why their role was overshadowed after the war. After all, the war came to be redefined by the war stories of men and honoring great officers and soldiers. As for literature on Southern Women, I think it was appealing because it was greatly idealized, versus the more realistic literature from the North. However, I think that it is amazing that Historians have also been fooled in to this misconception in their analysis of the both the Civil War and the literature of the time. We are not living in the 19th century, so we should have an objective point of view, right? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with CBrau I myself was very suprised at the lack of literature we typically see for Northern women throughout the Civil War. I have only paid attention to literature from Southern women, due to the amount of fighting in the South and how their lives were completely destroyed, but women's lives in the North were strongly affected as well. The literature and quotes from Northern mothers hit home to me as I have watched my mom proudly tell family members and friends that her son will serve the United States. As stated by New York Times, a mother after shopping with her son for his military equipment said, " This, my son, is all that I can do. I have given you up to serve your country, and may God go with you! It is all a mother can do." I know this was stated by a Northern woman but I wondered if mothers felt this way all over the country and this unified them in their efforts to support not only the "woman's" war but the Civil War as well? ie. through sending supplies, flying flags in faces of opposing generals, etc. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I find it super interesting how quickly the important contributions of women were forgotten. During the actual war it was fine for the media to have such a high percentage of feminized literature because the contributions that women were making were right there in front of them and not easily ignored. This might have also been because women probably dominated the audience, since they were the ones at home and able to get a magazine or paper. It seems that as the years passed after the end of the war, the emotions of the war were forgotten and men wanted to read about their battles and their leaders as opposed to the private and emotional battles that women fought, even if they were just as difficult and important. Fahs talks about how idealized southern white women's literature was more popular, and this was probably because people did not want to face the reality of what really happened in the war. -- Angie<br />
<br />
== Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” ==<br />
<br />
I beleive this is the most important question asked in this essay: After the war, should the enfranchisement of black women, or of all women take place? This question is central to many of the political struggles in the late 19th century. Black women almost seperated themselves into a community to bond, which made overall suffrage more difficult.<br />
-Afrisk<br />
<br />
Going with the question of the enfranchisement of women... I really was encouraged by the fact that although the book explicitly states that Black men also felt that women were inferior to men in their social positions it was later stated that "serious discussion" regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman's suffrage movement. -SSellers<br />
<br />
I thought chapter 10 brought up a good question, which was how the transition from slavery to freedom was expected to function. If I remember correctly the majority of white Americans still viewed African Americans as inferior and it was mainly a small percentage of Northern Radicals that were trying to achieve equality for them in their meaning of freedom. As history shows it would still take a long time for freedom to mean anything for freed slaves. So my question is after the Civil War ended what kind of life could African Americans find without having any rights? ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
African American women saw the vote as a collective possession between men and women based on the belief within the African American community of collective responsibility. Republican black males supported this belief. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but the impression I got was that it wasn’t necessarily because they believed in any kind of “autonomy as one” thing but because the women could help keep black men from voting as Democrats, which helped keep the Republicans in power. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
-Taylor, would the men have voted Democratic if their wives hadn't insisted on Republican? I'm not sure, but I feel like many would have continued to vote Republican because of the party's strong ties to Lincoln. Perhaps the issue would have been whether they voted at all if their wives had not forced them to get to the polls. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The idea of collective responsibility is very interesting. That it takes a whole family sometimes including fictive kin to survive. The idea that when one makes a decision it effects the whole family especially including political decisions. Did the importance of community and family stem from the fact that they had been divided in slavery? --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it really striking that African American women worked so hard to ensure that the men in their lives voted, and voted Republican. And that it was a family vote, not a man's vote on behalf of his family says a lot about the system of community many seemed to operate under. In answer to Mhimes, I would say that yes, a lot of the importance of family probably stemmed from generations of families being torn apart. Now that these individuals could house their families under one roof a strong desire to do everything they could to protect that family meant weighing every decision, including of course the political ones, carefully. And slaves, out of necessity, had long built families out of unrelated community members so I imagine that the same sense of self-preservation felt for blood relatives carried over for the community as a whole. The women did not want to see hard won freedom taken away by a lack of awareness and participation. And, as the author points out, some of the women's involvement was even to ensure the physical safety of the voting men. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting when the essay talked about how even though black men had finally gained rights to vote they still were not completely supportive of women having the right to vote. Maybe it is a stupid assumption but I would think that since they knew how it felt to have less rights than others they would show more sympathy towards women. They didn't think it was as absurd as white men did but why wouldn't they fight for them harder, especially if that meant all African American people would finally have their rights and freedoms? Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The changing narratives following the war was not something that I was aware of. The literature during and just following the war focused a great deal on women's issues, yet changed in the 1880's and 1890's to a more masculinized story. I wonder why the Southern women's narrative has remained as the most compelling story of the Civil War to this day.-efritz<br />
<br />
The author posits that women's suffering was equal to or greater than that of men fighting in the war. Although women suffered great emotional trauma with the loss of their spouses or children, I don't think that you can compare this emotional suffering to what the men were exposed to in battle. They all suffered in their individual way, but the emotional and physical toll the men faced daily cannot be compared to that of women's suffering back home.-efritz<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see African American women's roles in voting before women's suffrage. Before college, we are taught that women were not able to vote, therefore they did not. However, Brown clearly contradicts this in her article. African American women in Richmond were publicly participating in politics, even voting at the community/local level, while others took it upon themselves to view their husband's right to vote as a collective, rather than individual, vote. These women were going to vote, whether or not they were legally able to do so. And yet, historians tend to look at this part of history as black and white; African American women were either able to physically vote in the polling booths, or they were not. Clearly, we need to look at the entire issue differently to understand the importance of African American women in 19th century politics. -- CBrau</div>Awhite4https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-01-13T22:14:56Z<p>Awhite4: </p>
<hr />
<div>So apparently I'm the first to comment, yay. In "Defining "American Women's History" I really liked the concept on page 6 that "if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on." I found it interesting to think about Women's history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an "inferior" race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers<br />
<br />
Kind of going along with the first statement, it was interesting to see that some historians balk at including race, class, etc., in women's history because they seem to feel that it will ultimately remove the gender aspect from the discipline in favor of a focus on race or another variable. Yet if you're going to study women, don't you have to study real women's lives, as complex or as multifaceted as they may be? To claim that all women can be put into the same category risks losing the richness of understanding that comes with exploring the differences as well as the similarities among groups or individuals, as Leslie M. Alexander points out. And it would also turn many people away from studying the subject, just as women can feel excluded by traditional, male-focused history. -MMackey<br />
<br />
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women's history separate from "men's" history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women's history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men's history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers<br />
<br />
In response to SSellers, I think it is important to remember that up until recently, history has been dominated by men because men were the ones who were literate. Therefore, history came from the male's perspective. I am not sure if that makes women's history inferior, just harder because it takes deeper analysis to find where women fit into history and how they felt. I mean, men and women share the same history. Their roles within it, however, were different and it takes a women's studies course to discover where women fit into the world during any given time. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
The debate between "equality" and "difference" in terms of women in Gisela Bock's article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey<br />
<br />
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, shows how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I found the changing dynamics of women's history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only "notable women" were written about. Even being characterized as a "notable woman" was defined by male terms in a male dominated society. However, there was a great shift in the study of women from these notable women to the everyday woman. Even so, this study of the everyday woman was still dominated by male terms, as Gisela Bock notes. All of women's activities were judged by the male standard, which was deemed valuable. The spheres that the study of women were divided into, suck as Public vs. Private, were still male dominated. It seems that males have dominated almost every aspect of women's history. Males are the standard upon which women are judged, they decide which women are important enough to be studied, and they define all spheres of the women's lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Anna Holman's comment above. It was fascinating to read about the evolution of women's history and made me wonder how it will continue to evolve in the future. Hopefully as we move forward, women's history will be able to be studied without male domination and we can define ourselves. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
Adding onto Erin Sanderson's statement, I found it interesting how Kate Haulman stated that gender was created and fluid. It is fascinating to understand how people identify with the term "woman", and how it intersects the other aspects of their identity, such as their unique race and ethnicity. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As I was reading, I was intrigued by Kate Haulman's statement about the definition of "American." It did seem like the term would be uncomplicated, simply refering to residents of the United States. The fact that "American" could refer (maybe, should refer) to anyone in the Americas was something I had never considered before. --Kokeefe<br />
<br />
In accumulating the readings, I found that they similarly shared underlying factors. Those factors being race and ethnicity, gender, class, and locality. What I thought was interesting was that even though race and gender do not change, but perspectives towards race and gender do change over time. Naturally writings reflect changes in one’s perspective. --MHimes <br />
<br />
I found the same similarities of race, class, culture, community, and sexual orientation throughout the reading. All these factors seem to be the cornerstone for uncovering women's history. I agree with MHimes that perspectives do change over time, as does history. After reading this first chapter I have realized that Women's History is a completely different field of study told differently than other history subjects, both because we now live in a age where women have equality, and that scholars are coming to understand the history of women. ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
In Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American History, under the “gender first” policy, Alexander makes an valid point. I thought it was interesting when she said that you cannot divorce Black Women from the community or you will not understand the Black Woman. Black women had to hurdle racial inequality before they could focus on their own empowerment as a woman. They did not have that same leisure as a white woman. At the same time, you can’t explain women’s history without including black women. Black women were an intricate part of white women’s lives as servants or field laborers. Black Woman slaves relieved a lot of White Women’s duties so they could focus on raising their children. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I was particularly interested in Kate Haulman's idea that identifying factors such as gender and race are created and fluid rather than having a sort of naturally fixed meaning. This notion gives richer meaning to the larger social and cultural narrative of any nation or people. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
The two most interesting articles to me were Kate Haulman's article and Leslie Alexander's. I agree with Erin about Haulman's approach. I found Haulman's article reminiscent of an article written by George Kennan. The article written by Kennan describes the difficulty in describing history because there is no specific beginning or end. I thought that theme was pertinent throughout Haulman's reading. The last reading written by Alexander made some good arguments and had an interesting approach. At first I was surprised by her resistance to grouping both black and white women together as a "homogeneous womanhood," but after pondering for a few minutes it makes sense. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I think equality based on the sameness between men and women versus equality with a recognition of the differences between men and women is an interesting concept, one that was likely very important and dividing as women were defining their expectations of equality. We’ve come to expect that women be treated the same as men, but to what extend is appropriate? Under the equality of sameness sometimes women who are on maternity leave are listed as being on disabled leave. It’s a little insulting to infer that pregnancy is a disability (though I’m sure a few people would argue that it is). -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
All women aren’t united under the cause of women’s rights because they have had different experiences that have resulted from race, class, socio-economic status, and more, which according to Leslie Alexander also extends into the study and interpretation of women’s history by historians. She focuses on the particular issues of race and argues that the feminist movement is only useful as a lens for studying the experiences of white women, not the experiences of black women. While her view certainly has merit, by dismissing feminism’s use to black women in the manner she does it almost seems like she’s suggesting that the feminist movement is useful for considering all white women in general, while I would argue that it is most useful in regards to only a certain group of white women, particularly of the middle-class. Similarly, there is no simple lens to study the experiences of black women, as they are also influenced by a variety of factors beyond that of race alone. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Gisela Bock's essay on dichotomies the most intriguing of all. By using these comparisons, I found that she fantastically described many of the social and political struggles that women face while describing different categories that scholars study women under. My favorite was the dichotomy of Integration vs. Autonomy because I had no idea that there was such argument going on about where Women's History should be included in a course of study as well as what it should include in itself. This argument of whether Women's History should be autonomous or integrated with such things as Gender History seemed like a parallel to feminist controversies in modern day social and work settings. I have often heard the argument that if women want to be integrated with men, then they should be treated the same, no special exceptions. But, if they want to keep things like maternity leave and not getting drafted, then they should remain autonomous with perhaps less benefits than men receive. I think that Bock definitely provided some interesting parallels between womens history controversies and modern social controversies. -- Angie W.<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander puts forth an interesting idea when she says that "the recognition that Black and White women are culturally different opens a Pandora's box..." (p. 20) because it is something that many young feminists never consider, but when they do, they realize that is so very true. If historians and feminists were to recognize this, then their theory of one, strong womanhood would be attacked. Like Alexander said, Black women often name their race as their main identifying factor while most white women, especially feminists, put woman. If women's history scholars were to recognize this, then they would have to take another look at women's history and perhaps separate not just separate women from men, but also from each other based on their class, race, and even sexual orientation. This would put a whole new spin on feminism and women's studies. -- Angie W.</div>Awhite4 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