Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/GlobalFunctions.php on line 2578
Deprecated: Optional parameter $prefix declared before required parameter $code is implicitly treated as a required parameter in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/languages/Language.php on line 4036
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$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
Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/languages/LanguageConverter.php on line 726
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/search/SearchEngine.php on line 1502
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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$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=Bongo282McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-07-12T22:51:18ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-08T07:06:22Z<p>Bongo282: /* Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners ==<br />
<br />
While reading the passages about women doing clerical work, I wondered whether men preferred to have women in their office in order to extend patriarchy into the work place. Did employers like having women employees because they had more authority as a boss over women than men? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
In the passages we learned that many black women were let go because of their race. I wonder why the white managers/owners did not hire the black workers. Wouldn't they get paid a lesser amount, therefore being a smarter financial move? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In Shop Girls and Piece Workers by Helen Campbell, she describes both the lives shop girls and women workers in trades. She describes the Shop Girls as viewing stores as "the high road to fortune." Furthermore, they have "no thought of permanence" for themselves and, rather, expect to marry. These women also try to imitate their rich customers. On the other hand, women in trades work because "there is no one to earn for them," as they are widows, have drunken husbands who demand support themselves, or have children they must take care of. These two sets of women would have wildly different points of view on what is important to them. This idea is important because the document is from 1893, a time of women's rights movements. These groups of women's would likely not have the same ideals concerning women's rights, based on why they earn livings. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Campbell's acknowledgement of horrible conditions in these factories seems to not deter women from continuing to line up for these jobs and jump on any opportunity to acquire the position. It is obvious that poverty can drive people to do things out of desperation and a need to survive. However, there is still a deep-rooted desire in these poor women to join the ranks of wealthy women. Campbell writes: "From her post behind the counter the shop-girl examines every detail of costume, every air and grace of the women she so often despises, even when longing most to be one of them" (294). Marriage for these poor women was viewed as an escape from the harsh reality of poverty they were trapped in. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
Campbell's description of the shop girls imitating their rich customers is significant to the culture of a shop girl aspiring for a better social class and life. The job of "sales lady" is coveted among working women because the occupation is dreamed as a position to elevate themselves socially. Their jobs as shop girls, allow them to see the upper middle class elite lifestyles. While imitating their customers, the shop girls hope that their facade will allow them to become part of the upper middle class. Campbell writes that these imitations, such as, "gilt rings, bracelets and bangles, frizzes,"allow the shop girls to "stimulate the life daily paraded before her and most passionately desired" (415).-- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I found it fascinating that a factory worker included in her list of reasons for NOT being a housekeeper that she wanted to be a good housekeeper of her own home, once she was married. The idea that she would be so disappointed by the house she lived in that she wouldn't want to clean it or cook anything that wasn't a steak in a kitchen that wasn't enormous was surprising to me. I would have assumed that women who were particularly focused on their own roles in the housekeeping and married-life process (which was admittedly many, if not most, women) would want experience with the nicer tools and technologies so that they would be more able to utilize second-tier tools and products in their own homes in the most effective way possible. --Nicole<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
Lucy Maynard Salmon's study of domestic service demonstrates the reasons why few women choose to work as house servants. The chart lists employees' answers to "What reasons can you give why more women do not choose housework as a regular employment?" (419-420). The most prominent answer from domestics is "Pride, social condition, and unwillingness to be called servants." Looking at this answer makes me think that women of this time have more opportunities outside of domestic servitude that are less demeaning. For example, in class we discussed the emergence of other occupations, such as, teaching, nursing, and secretarial work. These jobs grant women with more freedom than domestic servitude through promotions, more free time, or stable working hours. In addition, the quote from a young factory operative points out reasons that I did not think about or necessarily agree with, but her answer is still interesting. She states that, "Then I think shop or factory girls make the best wive... The domestic after she gets married gets careless. She don't take the pride in her home that the shop girl does. She has lived in such fine houses that her small tenement has no beauty for her after the first glow of married life is over" (423). First, this quote resembles Helen Campbell's piece on shop girls who imitate their upper class clients. Since these women work close to the upper class they see and try to imitate that lifestyle. Second, its shows a divide among women workers. There are distinct groups of female workers, and these women judge each other for their occupations. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
While Lucy Maynard Salmon discusses all the reasons why domestic work is not ideal, I thought of two reasons why it may be preferred over factory work. In Helen Campbell's piece, she argues that if ever a position open up, it would quickly get filled and hundreds and thousands of women were in line for factory work. However, from Salmon's piece, there doesn't seem to be many women who would pick domestic jobs over factory. This would ensure for a longer job position. Granted, it isn't the best and many workers were not looking for permanent positions, it did provide stability. Secondly, the domestic job (in regards to Salmon's piece)offered a less dangerous work environment. According to Campbell's writing, some factory women picked diseases and got really sick. This is less likely than in the domestic work. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
The research done by Isabel Eaton brings into the mix the experiences of black women--an overlooked subset. Eaton points out that black women are "ambitious" and desire for upward social mobility (299). Even these women who were trained in specific skills (like teaching) still had to revert to domestic roles because of prejudices. The experience of a black woman in the late 19th century is quite different than that of white women. This makes me wish that the main historical narrative included not only more about the women in America, but also the lives and experiences of the African-American women. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
In Eaton's study, she looks at the impact of race in domestic servitude. She notices that black servants had different struggles than white servants. One of the most prominent struggles, was that black servants are black, and employees did not hire them. In one quote a black domestic said, "If the mistresses has bad luck with one colored girl they won't never have another. They think all colored is a like" (426). Unlike the white women in Salmon's study who did want to work as domestics because of long hours, lack of dignity, and hard work, the black domestics had no other opportunities for employment. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Many of the points made in Eaton's study were pretty familiar, but I had not really thought about the idea that many black women would avoid domestic work because it "savors of slavery". This makes perfect sense, that women would not want to end up doing voluntarily what women of their race had been forced to do for so long. It would seem particularly degrading, in a different way than it would to white girls, to be working as a servant and basically just going back to what their employers might think of as their natural place and all they were capable of. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I found it surprising that light-skinned women who had worked for an extended period of time for an employer would still be fired when it came out that they were black. It seems to me that since there were those preconceptions about black women being less efficient and less desirable workers than white women, it would no longer apply after the employer had had that employee for an extended period of time, because that belief/idea would already have been either debunked (and therefore not an issue) or somehow supported (in which case the servant would have been fired already) BEFORE the servant's race became an issue. It seems to me that clinging to preconceptions that have already been disproven is highly illogical, and yet somehow this huge departure from logic still took place. --Nicole<br />
<br />
This reading made me wonder about black owned businesses. Were there any emerging at this time in the north maybe? <br />
Also, in terms of payment, would black women get paid lower than white women? And if so, wouldn't it be economically feasible to keep the black worker around? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
In the Office Clerk by Clara Lanza, she describes women as going out into the business place to work as clerks. This led the women to see themselves as "pioneers in the business world," because they were moving out of the domestic sphere and having an active role outside of the home. It is interesting because towards the end of the document, it is stated that "the girls make good wives," something associated with the domestic sphere. She asserts that it is because men now admire independence, but it is difficult to determine whether that is true. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
The Office Clerk describes late-nineteeth-century office workers. Lanza states that women are much preferred than men. "Women are much to be preferred for a number of reasons. They are capable and industrious, and, so far as my personal experience goes, absolutely reliable" (301). She said that men make up excuses to get out of working and the women were there everything from January to December. One thing that interested me was the statement about not employing a woman unless she lives at home with her family. It was also said that they must be dressed nicely. Perhaps this was the reason they were to live at home with their parents, to be able to afford nice clothes? Sounds dumb, but that's all I could think of as a reason. I was a bit confused about this. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that these businesses or companies would not hire these women unless they lived with their families. I like Ashley was confused and wondered if they meant women who lived with their parents or their husbands and children or both? I also thought it was interesting that the employers were having problems with men in the jobs. Wasn't this a time of work when you can and where you can and don't complain? I understand why the women were hired, they were stable and willing to work. Then I think about the how the men were off fighting and maybe some of the men thought that this work was beneath them anyway.--- Pam P.<br />
<br />
Like Pam, I was also surprised that women were preferred over men? Some of the reasons they give are practical, but at the same time, it's surprising that the men call off for numerous reasons, and the women work harder. I wonder if it was a sense of comfort for the men to know they have a better chance of a longer career at this. I was also curious as to why the men did not like their jobs too much. I felt that the women were diligent workers and they did so because they had no other option prior to that, and even with the other women working on a factory, they are willing to do this job! --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
To be honest, I thought this was going to be a humorous read when I began reading the first paragraph. What kind of people have a secret labor organization?! Sounds pretty silly to me. I thought these people were going to be lazy when I read "...it was believed, did no productive work" (303) (referring to the people they welcomed into the organization). As I read on I learned just the opposite. Barry organized funds to give women money who were sick and could not work, or to women who experienced death. She supplied women who were in the Knights of Labor, as well as women who were not. She also took children out of the factories and educated them. She was definitely a respectably and honorable woman, even though she admitted the organization made plenty of mistakes. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening. The woman writing was clearly a woman who was educated and who had ambition which is so interesting to read about in her own words. Even though the amount of money she makes is only double what she pays in rent each month (which she shares an apartment in order to afford it)she still manages to save up money. I also thought it was interesting to see the line "But tho I belong to the Union I am not a Socialist or Anarchist" (page 311) because it means that the ideology and fear of being associated with these two groups existed before the red scares that happened later. She talks so supportively of the Union yet is afraid to be associated with the good of the Union for being socialist or anarchist. The not-wanting-to-get-married aspect at the end of the document was pretty interesting as well. I wish she would have explained more about this desire and why. I can't help but wonder if she did ever marry Henry and what became of the money which she had managed to save. --Sara S<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sadie Frome's "Story of a Sweatshop girl" was her independence. From this account, one can assume she got some form of education (did she write this piece or did someone transcribe this for her?), and was conscious enough of her situation to save money. What I especially loved about this piece was her relationship with Henry. Even though he kept insisting that he wanted to get married, she still felt it was necessary to wait awhile, just for the sake of being more mature when they married. By her account, their relationship was well advanced that they could have gotten married and it would have been appropriate, but she still decided to hold off, but continue dating. The relationship Sadie and Henry had just seemed so modern to me! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting. She was very intelligent and independent and wanted to take advantage to everything that the New World had to offer. She did not want to settle by getting married, but rather continue to earn her own way. She bettered herself by going to night classes and she still went out at night after work to “get air” This piece was very different than most material you read from this era because you saw a positive outcome rather than the “I came to America and I work in a sweat shop for the rest of my life”. I loved this piece. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this piece. At first she starts off as most women do, relying on the men in their life for their direction. But then realizing as she did "in an unexpected hour a new light came to me, showing me a world of thought and of character quite beyond the limits within which I had hitherto been content to abide." (358) What a revelation this must have been for her and perhaps the same type of feeling for other women of the time to realize that they have a potential, greater purpose. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in History of Woman Suffrage ==<br />
<br />
I believe this article offers insight into the tension between those who fought for black male suffrage and those who fought for female suffrage. Obviously these women feel betrayed by the men who supposedly were interested in helping gain equality for all. "But with arms folded, Greeley, Curtis, Tilton, Beecher, Higginson, Phillips, Garrison, Frederick Douglass, all calmly watched the struggle from afar, and when defeat came to both propositions, no consoling words were offered for woman's loss, but the women who spoke in the campaign were reproached for having 'killed negro suffrage.'" (page 360-361). It was really bold of these women to directly call out the men they believed were acting against them, even unlady like, but I think it reflects the hurt that these women felt. It's easy to reflect upon society and think that women who chose to fight for woman's rights over black rights were racist, but it's also important to see that these women were wounded and hurt by people who pledged allegiance to acquiring woman's rights before abolition and broke that promise as soon as their original goal was reached and women were no longer needed. This article reads almost like a sibling rivalry and it would be interesting to see the response of the men whose names are listed above. It's easy to write off an act as racist, sexist or bigoted, but no act, value or speak has intrinsic value without the context of it's situation. I also would like to point out that even though Anthony and Stanton urge women to no longer depend on men both of these women were married and Stanton left the activist lifestyle to play the mother/wife role before returning to her work. These actions do not reflect women who reject interaction and dependence upon men. It is important to understand context of expressions before interpreting them. Otherwise these women would be portrayed as man-hating misers by their rejection of male help when they simply wished to state that a woman should not rely on a man to fight her battles for her. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
<br />
What a moving speech! I was struck by the phrase at the beginning, where she says that, as a black woman, she couldn't feel like she was missing the rights white women talked about, because she had so much else to deal with because of her race. It wasn't until gender became an important issue in her life with her husband's death that she thought about gender inequality in the law. The argument about whether racism or sexism is a more pressing concern still goes on in contemporary feminism, and lots of people don't like to talk about it; I can't imagine this speech was received very well! Since she worked against racism first, I wonder how she became so prominent as to be invited to speak alongside Anthony and Stanton before this, and if she was as popular after. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree, this speech was amazing. In class, I found myself agreeing more with the side of Stanton and Anthony. I believed that by women getting a vote, things could be solved. However, after reading this speech, I have found that Harper convinced me to believe the side of the AWSA. Some things that I found particularly striking in this speech was:<br />
"the nation shall be so color blind, as to know no man by the color of his skin or the curl of his hair. It will then have no privileged class, trampling upon and outraging the unprivileged class, but will be then one great privileged nation, whose privilege will be to produce the loftiest manhood and womanhood that humanity can attain."<br />
The only problem with this is that there were unprivileged white classes who felt limited. <br />
One other thing I found interesting was her comment, "the indifferent will vote on the strongest side of the question, with the winning party." I found this especially convincing, and to be a very good point. I think that she was right about that. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
When I was reading this speech, I was trying to understand her perspective more. When we were discussing this in class, I agree with Mary Beth, I was agreeing with Stanton and Anthony more and I am not saying that after reading this speech that I suddenly agree with her but I am able to understand her more. I think she is right that giving women the right to vote would not fix the problems right away but I don’t think that her approach would fix the problem either. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
After reading Harper's speech, I could not help but feel for her and her situation. You most often hear that the men die, because of war, sickness, etc. When women die during this time it was like they were not there and the men go on with life. Like she said in her speech "how different would have been the result! By this time he would have had another wife, it is likely; and no administrator would have gone into his house, broken up his home, and sold his bed, and taken away his means of support." (Woloch, 363-364) I was sitting there imagining both scenarios. No wonder why women had to go to work outside the home. I would also think it would be more difficult for a black women to get work. How could these people do this to her? I think the answer is, because she had very little rights. -- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
What I found to be interesting about this piece was the earnest belief Barr has that women are not competent enough to be politicians. She claims women are flip-floppers and would need to learn to be men to be successful. She also believed that women could have political control through the husband and influence political decisions that way. Since she wrote this in 1896, closer to the point of suffrage for women, I wonder how much of the female populace held an opinion like Barr. Was suffrage still unpopular this late in the ninteenth century? Or were more women open to this idea? -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I read this piece wondering what kind of woman Amelia Barr thought she was. Did she think that she was irrational and incapable? Does she genuinely believe that she, herself, is a "tool"? I imagine that the answer might have been yes, but this strikes me as particularly sad, that she would have been taught to feel this way about herself and other women. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I don't feel that Amelia really looked upon herself as irrational or incapable, I think she was just pointing fingers at those who challenged the "sphere". However, I wonder if she even took into consideration if she was ever in a position where she needed to work, would she? Or would she just be a helpless woman looked down upon for losing her status. I found myself laughing when she mentioned being "left adrift in the world without helpers and protectors." (369) I envisioned her lying in the street trying to keep herself from fainting...poor dear. I thought men weren't much "help" during this time! Kidding, that last part was a joke :) --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
Gilman's argument - that women should be able to work outside the home so they can do more specialized labor and further progress - was surprising, and honestly had me disagreeing with her. I get what she's saying that women need not be in the home for the family to survive and be loved and cared for, but I actually felt she didn't give housewives near enough credit for both the value of the actual labor they do and the emotional labor of raising their children. She's right that they can do that while still working outside the home, but I think the dismissive way she goes about suggesting women leave the home for the good of society would have been very off-putting to women of the time who valued and enjoyed the work they did in the home, even if that wasn't all they wanted to do. --Katie C.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-08T05:41:45Z<p>Bongo282: /* Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners ==<br />
<br />
While reading the passages about women doing clerical work, I wondered whether men preferred to have women in their office in order to extend patriarchy into the work place. Did employers like having women employees because they had more authority as a boss over women than men? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In Shop Girls and Piece Workers by Helen Campbell, she describes both the lives shop girls and women workers in trades. She describes the Shop Girls as viewing stores as "the high road to fortune." Furthermore, they have "no thought of permanence" for themselves and, rather, expect to marry. These women also try to imitate their rich customers. On the other hand, women in trades work because "there is no one to earn for them," as they are widows, have drunken husbands who demand support themselves, or have children they must take care of. These two sets of women would have wildly different points of view on what is important to them. This idea is important because the document is from 1893, a time of women's rights movements. These groups of women's would likely not have the same ideals concerning women's rights, based on why they earn livings. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Campbell's acknowledgement of horrible conditions in these factories seems to not deter women from continuing to line up for these jobs and jump on any opportunity to acquire the position. It is obvious that poverty can drive people to do things out of desperation and a need to survive. However, there is still a deep-rooted desire in these poor women to join the ranks of wealthy women. Campbell writes: "From her post behind the counter the shop-girl examines every detail of costume, every air and grace of the women she so often despises, even when longing most to be one of them" (294). Marriage for these poor women was viewed as an escape from the harsh reality of poverty they were trapped in. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
Campbell's description of the shop girls imitating their rich customers is significant to the culture of a shop girl aspiring for a better social class and life. The job of "sales lady" is coveted among working women because the occupation is dreamed as a position to elevate themselves socially. Their jobs as shop girls, allow them to see the upper middle class elite lifestyles. While imitating their customers, the shop girls hope that their facade will allow them to become part of the upper middle class. Campbell writes that these imitations, such as, "gilt rings, bracelets and bangles, frizzes,"allow the shop girls to "stimulate the life daily paraded before her and most passionately desired" (415).-- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
Lucy Maynard Salmon's study of domestic service demonstrates the reasons why few women choose to work as house servants. The chart lists employees' answers to "What reasons can you give why more women do not choose housework as a regular employment?" (419-420). The most prominent answer from domestics is "Pride, social condition, and unwillingness to be called servants." Looking at this answer makes me think that women of this time have more opportunities outside of domestic servitude that are less demeaning. For example, in class we discussed the emergence of other occupations, such as, teaching, nursing, and secretarial work. These jobs grant women with more freedom than domestic servitude through promotions, more free time, or stable working hours. In addition, the quote from a young factory operative points out reasons that I did not think about or necessarily agree with, but her answer is still interesting. She states that, "Then I think shop or factory girls make the best wive... The domestic after she gets married gets careless. She don't take the pride in her home that the shop girl does. She has lived in such fine houses that her small tenement has no beauty for her after the first glow of married life is over" (423). First, this quote resembles Helen Campbell's piece on shop girls who imitate their upper class clients. Since these women work close to the upper class they see and try to imitate that lifestyle. Second, its shows a divide among women workers. There are distinct groups of female workers, and these women judge each other for their occupations. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
The research done by Isabel Eaton brings into the mix the experiences of black women--an overlooked subset. Eaton points out that black women are "ambitious" and desire for upward social mobility (299). Even these women who were trained in specific skills (like teaching) still had to revert to domestic roles because of prejudices. The experience of a black woman in the late 19th century is quite different than that of white women. This makes me wish that the main historical narrative included not only more about the women in America, but also the lives and experiences of the African-American women. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
In Eaton's study, she looks at the impact of race in domestic servitude. She notices that black servants had different struggles than white servants. One of the most prominent struggles, was that black servants are black, and employees did not hire them. In one quote a black domestic said, "If the mistresses has bad luck with one colored girl they won't never have another. They think all colored is a like" (426). Unlike the white women in Salmon's study who did want to work as domestics because of long hours, lack of dignity, and hard work, the black domestics had no other opportunities for employment. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Many of the points made in Eaton's study were pretty familiar, but I had not really thought about the idea that many black women would avoid domestic work because it "savors of slavery". This makes perfect sense, that women would not want to end up doing voluntarily what women of their race had been forced to do for so long. It would seem particularly degrading, in a different way than it would to white girls, to be working as a servant and basically just going back to what their employers might think of as their natural place and all they were capable of. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
In the Office Clerk by Clara Lanza, she describes women as going out into the business place to work as clerks. This led the women to see themselves as "pioneers in the business world," because they were moving out of the domestic sphere and having an active role outside of the home. It is interesting because towards the end of the document, it is stated that "the girls make good wives," something associated with the domestic sphere. She asserts that it is because men now admire independence, but it is difficult to determine whether that is true. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
The Office Clerk describes late-nineteeth-century office workers. Lanza states that women are much preferred than men. "Women are much to be preferred for a number of reasons. They are capable and industrious, and, so far as my personal experience goes, absolutely reliable" (301). She said that men make up excuses to get out of working and the women were there everything from January to December. One thing that interested me was the statement about not employing a woman unless she lives at home with her family. It was also said that they must be dressed nicely. Perhaps this was the reason they were to live at home with their parents, to be able to afford nice clothes? Sounds dumb, but that's all I could think of as a reason. I was a bit confused about this. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that these businesses or companies would not hire these women unless they lived with their families. I like Ashley was confused and wondered if they meant women who lived with their parents or their husbands and children or both? I also thought it was interesting that the employers were having problems with men in the jobs. Wasn't this a time of work when you can and where you can and don't complain? I understand why the women were hired, they were stable and willing to work. Then I think about the how the men were off fighting and maybe some of the men thought that this work was beneath them anyway.--- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
To be honest, I thought this was going to be a humorous read when I began reading the first paragraph. What kind of people have a secret labor organization?! Sounds pretty silly to me. I thought these people were going to be lazy when I read "...it was believed, did no productive work" (303) (referring to the people they welcomed into the organization). As I read on I learned just the opposite. Barry organized funds to give women money who were sick and could not work, or to women who experienced death. She supplied women who were in the Knights of Labor, as well as women who were not. She also took children out of the factories and educated them. She was definitely a respectably and honorable woman, even though she admitted the organization made plenty of mistakes. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening. The woman writing was clearly a woman who was educated and who had ambition which is so interesting to read about in her own words. Even though the amount of money she makes is only double what she pays in rent each month (which she shares an apartment in order to afford it)she still manages to save up money. I also thought it was interesting to see the line "But tho I belong to the Union I am not a Socialist or Anarchist" (page 311) because it means that the ideology and fear of being associated with these two groups existed before the red scares that happened later. She talks so supportively of the Union yet is afraid to be associated with the good of the Union for being socialist or anarchist. The not-wanting-to-get-married aspect at the end of the document was pretty interesting as well. I wish she would have explained more about this desire and why. I can't help but wonder if she did ever marry Henry and what became of the money which she had managed to save. --Sara S<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sadie Frome's "Story of a Sweatshop girl" was her independence. From this account, one can assume she got some form of education (did she write this piece or did someone transcribe this for her?), and was conscious enough of her situation to save money. What I especially loved about this piece was her relationship with Henry. Even though he kept insisting that he wanted to get married, she still felt it was necessary to wait awhile, just for the sake of being more mature when they married. By her account, their relationship was well advanced that they could have gotten married and it would have been appropriate, but she still decided to hold off, but continue dating. The relationship Sadie and Henry had just seemed so modern to me! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting. She was very intelligent and independent and wanted to take advantage to everything that the New World had to offer. She did not want to settle by getting married, but rather continue to earn her own way. She bettered herself by going to night classes and she still went out at night after work to “get air” This piece was very different than most material you read from this era because you saw a positive outcome rather than the “I came to America and I work in a sweat shop for the rest of my life”. I loved this piece. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this piece. At first she starts off as most women do, relying on the men in their life for their direction. But then realizing as she did "in an unexpected hour a new light came to me, showing me a world of thought and of character quite beyond the limits within which I had hitherto been content to abide." (358) What a revelation this must have been for her and perhaps the same type of feeling for other women of the time to realize that they have a potential, greater purpose. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in History of Woman Suffrage ==<br />
<br />
I believe this article offers insight into the tension between those who fought for black male suffrage and those who fought for female suffrage. Obviously these women feel betrayed by the men who supposedly were interested in helping gain equality for all. "But with arms folded, Greeley, Curtis, Tilton, Beecher, Higginson, Phillips, Garrison, Frederick Douglass, all calmly watched the struggle from afar, and when defeat came to both propositions, no consoling words were offered for woman's loss, but the women who spoke in the campaign were reproached for having 'killed negro suffrage.'" (page 360-361). It was really bold of these women to directly call out the men they believed were acting against them, even unlady like, but I think it reflects the hurt that these women felt. It's easy to reflect upon society and think that women who chose to fight for woman's rights over black rights were racist, but it's also important to see that these women were wounded and hurt by people who pledged allegiance to acquiring woman's rights before abolition and broke that promise as soon as their original goal was reached and women were no longer needed. This article reads almost like a sibling rivalry and it would be interesting to see the response of the men whose names are listed above. It's easy to write off an act as racist, sexist or bigoted, but no act, value or speak has intrinsic value without the context of it's situation. I also would like to point out that even though Anthony and Stanton urge women to no longer depend on men both of these women were married and Stanton left the activist lifestyle to play the mother/wife role before returning to her work. These actions do not reflect women who reject interaction and dependence upon men. It is important to understand context of expressions before interpreting them. Otherwise these women would be portrayed as man-hating misers by their rejection of male help when they simply wished to state that a woman should not rely on a man to fight her battles for her. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
<br />
What a moving speech! I was struck by the phrase at the beginning, where she says that, as a black woman, she couldn't feel like she was missing the rights white women talked about, because she had so much else to deal with because of her race. It wasn't until gender became an important issue in her life with her husband's death that she thought about gender inequality in the law. The argument about whether racism or sexism is a more pressing concern still goes on in contemporary feminism, and lots of people don't like to talk about it; I can't imagine this speech was received very well! Since she worked against racism first, I wonder how she became so prominent as to be invited to speak alongside Anthony and Stanton before this, and if she was as popular after. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree, this speech was amazing. In class, I found myself agreeing more with the side of Stanton and Anthony. I believed that by women getting a vote, things could be solved. However, after reading this speech, I have found that Harper convinced me to believe the side of the AWSA. Some things that I found particularly striking in this speech was:<br />
"the nation shall be so color blind, as to know no man by the color of his skin or the curl of his hair. It will then have no privileged class, trampling upon and outraging the unprivileged class, but will be then one great privileged nation, whose privilege will be to produce the loftiest manhood and womanhood that humanity can attain."<br />
The only problem with this is that there were unprivileged white classes who felt limited. <br />
One other thing I found interesting was her comment, "the indifferent will vote on the strongest side of the question, with the winning party." I found this especially convincing, and to be a very good point. I think that she was right about that. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
When I was reading this speech, I was trying to understand her perspective more. When we were discussing this in class, I agree with Mary Beth, I was agreeing with Stanton and Anthony more and I am not saying that after reading this speech that I suddenly agree with her but I am able to understand her more. I think she is right that giving women the right to vote would not fix the problems right away but I don’t think that her approach would fix the problem either. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
What I found to be interesting about this piece was the earnest belief Barr has that women are not competent enough to be politicians. She claims women are flip-floppers and would need to learn to be men to be successful. She also believed that women could have political control through the husband and influence political decisions that way. Since she wrote this in 1896, closer to the point of suffrage for women, I wonder how much of the female populace held an opinion like Barr. Was suffrage still unpopular this late in the ninteenth century? Or were more women open to this idea? -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I read this piece wondering what kind of woman Amelia Barr thought she was. Did she think that she was irrational and incapable? Does she genuinely believe that she, herself, is a "tool"? I imagine that the answer might have been yes, but this strikes me as particularly sad, that she would have been taught to feel this way about herself and other women. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I don't feel that Amelia really looked upon herself as irrational or incapable, I think she was just pointing fingers at those who challenged the "sphere". However, I wonder if she even took into consideration if she was ever in a position where she needed to work, would she? Or would she just be a helpless woman looked down upon for losing her status. I found myself laughing when she mentioned being "left adrift in the world without helpers and protectors." (369) I envisioned her lying in the street trying to keep herself from fainting...poor dear. I thought men weren't much "help" during this time! Kidding, that last part was a joke :) --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
Gilman's argument - that women should be able to work outside the home so they can do more specialized labor and further progress - was surprising, and honestly had me disagreeing with her. I get what she's saying that women need not be in the home for the family to survive and be loved and cared for, but I actually felt she didn't give housewives near enough credit for both the value of the actual labor they do and the emotional labor of raising their children. She's right that they can do that while still working outside the home, but I think the dismissive way she goes about suggesting women leave the home for the good of society would have been very off-putting to women of the time who valued and enjoyed the work they did in the home, even if that wasn't all they wanted to do. --Katie C.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-01T08:07:01Z<p>Bongo282: /* Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching or comparative questions ==<br />
One thing that was a little surprising was the number of slave accounts where they did not find out that they were freed from their masters. This happened in Clarissa Burdett's account (she just ran away), Fanny Berry's, and Katie Darling's. It's not necessarily surprising that white owners would try to pull that off, but I am wondering what reasons there were for the owners to be able to get away with keeping their slaves for an extended period of time. Was it geographical? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
It seems that I have read multiple times of women having problems with farm equipment, the latest being "Loss of male labor, crumbling equipment..." (Woloch 264) It is not in an actual account of the time but in the Woloch's overview of the ''A Wartime Mistress.'' Why do we see this mentioned so often with women in the South but not the North? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's account, I found it interesting to see the change in gender norms for women. While women were now allowed to work outside the house and in Alcott's case even encouraged, "Shall I stay, Mother?...No, go! and the Lord be with you!" (258). Her mother encouraged her to go and participate, eventhough she would have been hundreds of miles away, but at the same time, her duties while being a nurse, were still part of the expectation for women. She cooked, and cared for the wounded and sick in a "motherly" manner, she wrote letters for them rather than actually do any medical treatment. Even though women had similar tasks while being away from the house, they slightly improved the norms for women by getting society to see them as not just an asset to the household. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
What makes Louisa May Alcott's ''Hospital Sketches'' so valuable to historians today is both the personal and detailed account she provides. Nursing during the Civil War is almost completely different from the modern conception of nursing and was more about bringing emotional comfort to the patients versus physical comfort. What is amazing about Alcott's job is the emotional strength she needed to complete her job effectively. Not many people, men or women, could handle a job which confronts death of a daily basis and the fact that she knew the risks she was putting herself in to do this job shows not only what a great person Alcott was, but how strong all nurses were at this time. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
While describing the men she is taking care of, Alcott betrays her understanding of societal gender norms. In her notes from January of 1963, she mentions a man named John Sulie, who is uncommonly kind and gentle, with "a heart as warm and tender as a woman's, a nature fresh and frank as any child's." (259) Those comparisons imply that a typical man was not expected to be warm- or tender-hearted, and also not frank. That is to say, the average man was cold- or steely-hearted and somewhat devious or deceptive--not a particularly ringing endorsement of men; in a later instance, a doctor caring for Alcott when she falls ill is described as "a motherly little man," solely because he checks up on Alcott and fusses over her in a matter than seems, apparently, feminine. Additionally, her concerns about looking motherly (and her apparent discomfort when he feels she's being viewed in a sexualized way by a man she cares for her in December) reinforce her understanding--and Dix's strong conviction--about the importance of nurses as maternal figures. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
The thing that I found most interesting in this particular passage was Alcott's definition of gender norms throughout the entire thing. She begins this by hoping that she acts "motherly" to the patients (pg 259, 2nd paragraph). However, a couple paragraphs later she distinguishes the types of men by their gendered qualities. For instance, she says, "the men are docile,respectful, and affectionate, with but few exceptions; truly lovable and manly many of them." She goes on: ". . . a Virginia blacksmith, is the prince of patients. . . a common man in education and condition, to me is all I could expect from the first gentleman in the land. Under his plain speech and unpolished manner I seem to see a noble character, a heart as warm and tender as a woman's." This blacksmith was described by both his manliness and also his womanly character--his tender heart. Later, Alcott describes a man as "patient as a woman." It is interesting to me that she uses all of these gendered characterizations to describe her patients and also the people who worked in the ward with her. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
I have read "Hospital Sketches" in it's entirety a couple of times and also Hannah Ropes' diary, and I still am not entirely in agreement that women, as nurses, did not perform medical tasks at all. I do agree that the job was very different from today, when nurses receive medical training, but both Alcott's book and Hannah Ropes' diary say that they provided more than just emotional comfort. Again, not like what we see today, but not entirely hands-off, either. I have to admit, having read so much more in-depth than just this one excerpt from her diary, I feel like there's a lot of information about the role of nurses that's being left out. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
Alcott reveals a noteworthy level of determination in her decision to be a nurse. She recognizes the reality that death could possibly be impending; however, she sees the need in the hospital and decides to go for it. She mentions the word "comfort" a few times in referencing her role as a comforter of these sick and dying men. When Alcott herself is taken ill, she describes it in close detail and gives us a glimpse into the seriousness of diseases back then and the fear they could cause. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
<br />
I rather enjoyed this reading. Mary describes her initial reaction of women in the fields "At first, it displeased me, and I turned away in aversion" (262) yet her curiosity got the best of her. When her carriage had to stop she approached these women and asked them about their work. Instead of completely ignoring and dismissing the women she instead questions them, getting first hand insight to why they would be involved in work for men. This made me think that even though she may not have approved at first, she probably understood and accepted the practice more. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool when she discussed how great of a job the women did in the field. "By and by, I observed how skillfully they drove the horses round and round the wheat-field" and "although they did not keep up with the men, their work was done with more precision and nicety, and their sheaves had an artistic finish that lacked made by men" (262). It goes to show that they truly cared about doing the work and perhaps these women weren't bitter about their husbands not being there to do the work. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
Wow, Mary Livermore writes beautifully. I was impressed by the scale of the efforts she describes, like the 1,000 shirts a day made in Boston - imagine the dedication that would be needed to organize that so quickly and at such a grand scale without Facebook! I also was struck by the seriousness she assigns to things women did like ignoring fashion. That sounds like such a small thing now, but with the amount of fabric needed for bandages and uniforms and the amount of fabric a new dress would have taken at the time, I suppose that actually would have been a significant contribution in and of itself. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I think this has been my favorite reading of the semester. There is so much interesting information. The description of the work clothes that the women were wearing is fantastic, you do not see women dressed like that in photographs of the time period, so it is neat to have the description. Also, I think it was not so much about not following the fashion as it was about common sense. I imagine it would be very hard to plow a field while wearing hoops. I also imagine the women still had a best dress to wear on Sundays and to other nice events and that they did wear hoops with it.<br />
I also found some of her descriptions very powerful and emotionally striking. "It came very hard on us to let the boys go, but we felt we'd no right to hinder'em. The country needed'em more'n we." (263) It shows how much patriotism these women had.<br />
I also loved the when the one girl told "For during the last war in Germany men were so scarce that she had to work three years in a blacksmith's shop." (263) Was this really true? Would the German people really have accepted this of their women? Were women in Germany treated differently, given more freedom than American women? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louticia Jackson's letter to her son, she mentions how she took care of one of her slaves, Willes. Eventhough we've learned that slaves are seen as property and therefore any punishment can't be too harsh because it would then effect the work of the investment. I found it really surprising the way she took care of Willes when he was sick "...he took the fever immediately after wchich lasted some 5 or 6 weeks in which time i attended him closely day and night, bathed and rubbed him with my own hands fearing it would not be faithfully done [otherwise]" (265). Instead of having another female slave take care of Willes, she took it upon herself to take care of him and bath him each night, with her hands. This is probably a rare case, but it was one that surprised me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I agree with Aqsa...Louticia Jackson takes such a personal interest in Willes which seems interesting and out of the norm. However, she was quick to mention at the end of the excerpt that she could "see his evil influence" (265). Obviously, Jackson was still aware of the racial divide and did not see Willes on the same level. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The imagery Eva employed to discuss the experiences of the Confederacy in the postwar period seem to me to be quite liberally applied; her portrayal of the South's struggles in the wake of the war as "little feeble sickly attempts of virtue... [where] we [are] the chained witnesses" (266) by the "robbery and...unwise policy" (266) of the abolishment of slavery. It seems far-fetched to me that someone could actually conceptualize themselves as the victims in such a clearly false way, but it speaks to the culture and history of the South that it really was seen as the North coming in and robbing the good, hardworking whites of the South of their "property." It's amazing that that a cultural divide could be so wide that this sort of worldview could actually be an honestly-held one. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
These letters were very interesting. Eva expresses her annoyance with the loss of the South to the Union. Her narrative keys in on the emotions that many Southern women must have felt at that time. She is frustrated that her previous way of life has disintegrated. I think the most poignant section of her letters is when she is describing how her confederate money is of no value. She states, "strange to say, the Yankees won't take our Confederate money!" Her poverty is almost enforced because the Union government refuses to recognize her money. If the Union had recognized the (valueless) Confederate money would the South have been able to avoid extreme poverty? In addition, how could the Union have given value to the Confederate money in order to maintain classes and status? Would it have been beneficial to maintain these class boundaries to an extent? Or, was it best to completely erase all class and money from the South in order to start over? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 =<br />
<br />
In reading this account along with the other accounts about the new emancipation of slaves, the reader is able to grasp fully what it was like the moment the slave received word of their new found freedom. For many of the slaves, I think their biggest concern was their family. This woman was so elated at the news of her freedom that she proceeded to roll on the ground in excitement, and then she spoke of her husband and children that "can neber be" taken. Among many other obvious reasons, I could never imagine living the life of a slave. One of the hardest things I think many slaves had to endure was the constant fear of being separated from their families at any given moment, including their parents, spouses or even children. It is hard to think that these events were taking place only about 150 years ago. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Harriet and the others allowed these slaves to bring farm animals, such as pigs and chickens, on board. I'm assuming they brought them in order to trade them for money when they reached their destination. If this really is the case, that was very kind of them to allow them aboard, especially when it may have allowed for more humans if they weren't there. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
This was so horrible! I know that not all slave owners were like this, that this was an extreme, but still this was an extreme and horrible. I think that it takes a lot of courage to run away after that treatment and a great deal of courage to go the camp and ask for help. The Union Camp did not have to help her, or even listen to her so to even go and tell her story is incredible. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What really hit me was the thought of imagining living in constant fear of being beaten in such away as Clarissa Burdett describes. I continue to be amazed and disgusted by what humans can and will do to each other. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
I think that this woman had to be strong throughout her life. She knew she was free but continued to stay for the children, her bond with them must have been great. The part of her story I found intriguing was that she used the power to "walk away" in stopping the children from being mistreated from their stepmother. The former master even knew that the children visited their old nanny after she left and gave her food, clothes and money, he must have known how important she was to his children. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy that this Tennessee nanny was a very strong figure and it comes through in the text. When looking back on emancipation the common perception is of slaves getting out as quickly as possible from the horrors of living under their masters. This article defies all of that and shows a slave who not only had a strong connection with the family that owned her (minus the stepmom) but was willing to sacrifice her freedom for a time just to be with them. Through this a unique relationship is defined and is apparent when she talks back to her master and openly acknowledges she knows she is free without fear of repercussions. This is a unique point of view and insightful into the experience of newly found freedom. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
Darling describes a lot of kind of scary things - forced marriages by masters and whippings like we've talked about, even after the war before they were released, but also just how close the front was and how much it frightened her mistress. Imagine what a tense situation that would have been, with violence getting closer every day and the woman who has complete control of your life freaking out about it! -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed these articles because these women existed as outliers in a nation where race is a decisive issue. I especially liked the end of the last letter by Sarah Chase to Mr. May "No matter how strict the rules, and wise and kind the teachers plans, for the comfort, and rights of the black scholar; the ''feeling'' of the whites expressd or not -- ''will'' keep the sensitive African away; though he would willingly bear cold, hunger, and whippings if need be--to 'get a little larning.' (280)" This expression of doubt by Sarah Chase bears a reflection of the tension of race relations in the south and other integrated areas. If I had to choose between feeding and clothing myself or attending college it really would not be a choice. One can talk about the importance of education until they're blue in the face, but basic necessities, including safety for these blacks, are ultimately more important. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
I found this article to be particularly interesting. Taylor is a black woman living in the South who speaks of the prospects of equality for the black man and white man, yet never mentions anything regarding a black woman's equality within this new twentieth century America. Her writings and ideas are definitely ahead of her time and she speaks of a time that will happen soon after her life where the Southland will be more tolerant of blacks and everyone will live equally and sing in harmony. When analyzing the context as to when this article was written, it is intersting that Taylor never makes reference to women deserving equality (considering this was a time when the Women's Suffrage Movement was gaining popularity)but instead only makes reference to black men deserving it. It is almost as if she is focusing on one problem at a time and once the initial problem of race is fixed, then they can focus on the women. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Ada Bacot demonstrates the conflict of ideologies within war. It is not black and white for Bacot. She, a Confederate nurse, helps Yankees because she "cant help feeling pity for them, they are human beings." As she is supporting the Confederate forces, she is forced to take care of the "enemy." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I found this piece to be extremely interesting. Reading her diary entries, you can almost feel the discomfort from having these Union soldiers. But then she writes, “It will be hard to treat them as I do other men but I know that it is my duty.” (pg 202) Her sense of duty won in the end and that seems very remarkable to me. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I was most interested in her observation that "The men are very kind to the two yankees" whereas she finds it very hard to do even the most basic things for them. I disagree with Clare that the other soldiers would just see these Union men as "the enemy". From Bacot's words as well as from many other sources, we often see soldiers recognizing what they have in common with each other. Not every soldier could or would do this, of course, but many did. Knowing what the other side went through, these soldiers may have had real respect for one another. On the other hand, Bacot, who had never fought, would not have had that perspective, and so could not respect or care for the wounded enemy soldiers. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
Maria Daly seems to write about the war in a positive, patriotic light. In that sense, she is very much against the South. She describes, "Southern ladies and gentlemen...are very agreeable people with very finished and courtly manners, but they are a class utterly unsuited and antagonistic to the principles of out government." She sees the South as a tyranny. She also states how the women nurses and volunteers are a comfort to the men. However, I am confused by the last paragraph... - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I wonder how Daly ended up stuck in the South during the war! It sounds like she's writing after the Union had occupied New Orleans, since she describes the Yankees sarcastically as "those barbarous creatures who have done nothing but feed their hungry and clothe their naked since they took their pestilent city." But it seems like the women who volunteered in the hospitals were dealing with both Northern and Southern soldiers. I thought it was interesting how offended she was that the Southern officers had dinner, but then she mentioned that tea was $16 a pound, and I can't imagine how expensive a dinner must have been! Maybe it seemed unreasonably extravagant when they were doing something as serious as waiting for prisoners of war. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
<br />
Morgan's entry demonstrates the support some women gave to the war. She is very excited for the war and wants to join somehow. She thinks of all the ways she can support the Rebel cause with sewing and knitting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this excerpt because at the beginning of the war Sarah Morgan did not agree with the war, but her loyalty to the South is what seems to bring her around. Doing her womanly duties is her way of contributing to the efforts of the war. She was young and easily influenced by the war propaganda so she felt like it was her duty. It was a short entry but influential and to see what she went through made me feel sorry for her situation. –Pam P<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
Caroline Kirkland’s entry was such a great example of North vs. South. I enjoyed the fact that she felt sympathy for the women of the South, and then in the next sentence berated them for not doing everything they could to stop not just their soldier husbands, but also questioned their faith in God. I thought that Kirkland’s selection was notable because she was a woman and very outspoken about what she witnessed, justified or not. – Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==<br />
<br />
Ella Thomas's writing on life as a Southern woman in 1865 brings to life how devastating and traumatic the war really was in the south. Her fury stems from the unjust insanity at the hands of the Union army that is ruining her life as she knows it. She appears to be at the end of her rope with war and death stating," I lose faith in humanity when I see such efforts to sink the nobler better part of man's nature in an effort to exterminate the white race at the South in order to elevate the Negro race to a position which I doubt their ability to fill - The time will come when Southern women will be avenged." This is a deep quote and I believe it sets the tone for how most Southern women felt during and long after the war. In the first place most Southerners honestly did not see their actions towards slavery as being wrong and then then they are punished for it by having everything taken from them and destroyed. This undoubtedly would be a confusing and infuriating time for anyone in the South who had their lives completely destroyed. Thomas's writing reveals an intimate example of the tole that the war took on the South and helps to remind that Southerners were more than just wicked slave holders. --Rachel T.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-01T08:05:50Z<p>Bongo282: /* Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching or comparative questions ==<br />
One thing that was a little surprising was the number of slave accounts where they did not find out that they were freed from their masters. This happened in Clarissa Burdett's account (she just ran away), Fanny Berry's, and Katie Darling's. It's not necessarily surprising that white owners would try to pull that off, but I am wondering what reasons there were for the owners to be able to get away with keeping their slaves for an extended period of time. Was it geographical? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
It seems that I have read multiple times of women having problems with farm equipment, the latest being "Loss of male labor, crumbling equipment..." (Woloch 264) It is not in an actual account of the time but in the Woloch's overview of the ''A Wartime Mistress.'' Why do we see this mentioned so often with women in the South but not the North? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's account, I found it interesting to see the change in gender norms for women. While women were now allowed to work outside the house and in Alcott's case even encouraged, "Shall I stay, Mother?...No, go! and the Lord be with you!" (258). Her mother encouraged her to go and participate, eventhough she would have been hundreds of miles away, but at the same time, her duties while being a nurse, were still part of the expectation for women. She cooked, and cared for the wounded and sick in a "motherly" manner, she wrote letters for them rather than actually do any medical treatment. Even though women had similar tasks while being away from the house, they slightly improved the norms for women by getting society to see them as not just an asset to the household. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
What makes Louisa May Alcott's ''Hospital Sketches'' so valuable to historians today is both the personal and detailed account she provides. Nursing during the Civil War is almost completely different from the modern conception of nursing and was more about bringing emotional comfort to the patients versus physical comfort. What is amazing about Alcott's job is the emotional strength she needed to complete her job effectively. Not many people, men or women, could handle a job which confronts death of a daily basis and the fact that she knew the risks she was putting herself in to do this job shows not only what a great person Alcott was, but how strong all nurses were at this time. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
While describing the men she is taking care of, Alcott betrays her understanding of societal gender norms. In her notes from January of 1963, she mentions a man named John Sulie, who is uncommonly kind and gentle, with "a heart as warm and tender as a woman's, a nature fresh and frank as any child's." (259) Those comparisons imply that a typical man was not expected to be warm- or tender-hearted, and also not frank. That is to say, the average man was cold- or steely-hearted and somewhat devious or deceptive--not a particularly ringing endorsement of men; in a later instance, a doctor caring for Alcott when she falls ill is described as "a motherly little man," solely because he checks up on Alcott and fusses over her in a matter than seems, apparently, feminine. Additionally, her concerns about looking motherly (and her apparent discomfort when he feels she's being viewed in a sexualized way by a man she cares for her in December) reinforce her understanding--and Dix's strong conviction--about the importance of nurses as maternal figures. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
The thing that I found most interesting in this particular passage was Alcott's definition of gender norms throughout the entire thing. She begins this by hoping that she acts "motherly" to the patients (pg 259, 2nd paragraph). However, a couple paragraphs later she distinguishes the types of men by their gendered qualities. For instance, she says, "the men are docile,respectful, and affectionate, with but few exceptions; truly lovable and manly many of them." She goes on: ". . . a Virginia blacksmith, is the prince of patients. . . a common man in education and condition, to me is all I could expect from the first gentleman in the land. Under his plain speech and unpolished manner I seem to see a noble character, a heart as warm and tender as a woman's." This blacksmith was described by both his manliness and also his womanly character--his tender heart. Later, Alcott describes a man as "patient as a woman." It is interesting to me that she uses all of these gendered characterizations to describe her patients and also the people who worked in the ward with her. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
I have read "Hospital Sketches" in it's entirety a couple of times and also Hannah Ropes' diary, and I still am not entirely in agreement that women, as nurses, did not perform medical tasks at all. I do agree that the job was very different from today, when nurses receive medical training, but both Alcott's book and Hannah Ropes' diary say that they provided more than just emotional comfort. Again, not like what we see today, but not entirely hands-off, either. I have to admit, having read so much more in-depth than just this one excerpt from her diary, I feel like there's a lot of information about the role of nurses that's being left out. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
Alcott reveals a noteworthy level of determination in her decision to be a nurse. She recognizes the reality that death could possibly be impending; however, she sees the need in the hospital and decides to go for it. She mentions the word "comfort" a few times in referencing her role as a comforter of these sick and dying men. When Alcott herself is taken ill, she describes it in close detail and gives us a glimpse into the seriousness of diseases back then and the fear they could cause. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
<br />
I rather enjoyed this reading. Mary describes her initial reaction of women in the fields "At first, it displeased me, and I turned away in aversion" (262) yet her curiosity got the best of her. When her carriage had to stop she approached these women and asked them about their work. Instead of completely ignoring and dismissing the women she instead questions them, getting first hand insight to why they would be involved in work for men. This made me think that even though she may not have approved at first, she probably understood and accepted the practice more. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool when she discussed how great of a job the women did in the field. "By and by, I observed how skillfully they drove the horses round and round the wheat-field" and "although they did not keep up with the men, their work was done with more precision and nicety, and their sheaves had an artistic finish that lacked made by men" (262). It goes to show that they truly cared about doing the work and perhaps these women weren't bitter about their husbands not being there to do the work. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
Wow, Mary Livermore writes beautifully. I was impressed by the scale of the efforts she describes, like the 1,000 shirts a day made in Boston - imagine the dedication that would be needed to organize that so quickly and at such a grand scale without Facebook! I also was struck by the seriousness she assigns to things women did like ignoring fashion. That sounds like such a small thing now, but with the amount of fabric needed for bandages and uniforms and the amount of fabric a new dress would have taken at the time, I suppose that actually would have been a significant contribution in and of itself. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I think this has been my favorite reading of the semester. There is so much interesting information. The description of the work clothes that the women were wearing is fantastic, you do not see women dressed like that in photographs of the time period, so it is neat to have the description. Also, I think it was not so much about not following the fashion as it was about common sense. I imagine it would be very hard to plow a field while wearing hoops. I also imagine the women still had a best dress to wear on Sundays and to other nice events and that they did wear hoops with it.<br />
I also found some of her descriptions very powerful and emotionally striking. "It came very hard on us to let the boys go, but we felt we'd no right to hinder'em. The country needed'em more'n we." (263) It shows how much patriotism these women had.<br />
I also loved the when the one girl told "For during the last war in Germany men were so scarce that she had to work three years in a blacksmith's shop." (263) Was this really true? Would the German people really have accepted this of their women? Were women in Germany treated differently, given more freedom than American women? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louticia Jackson's letter to her son, she mentions how she took care of one of her slaves, Willes. Eventhough we've learned that slaves are seen as property and therefore any punishment can't be too harsh because it would then effect the work of the investment. I found it really surprising the way she took care of Willes when he was sick "...he took the fever immediately after wchich lasted some 5 or 6 weeks in which time i attended him closely day and night, bathed and rubbed him with my own hands fearing it would not be faithfully done [otherwise]" (265). Instead of having another female slave take care of Willes, she took it upon herself to take care of him and bath him each night, with her hands. This is probably a rare case, but it was one that surprised me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I agree with Aqsa...Louticia Jackson takes such a personal interest in Willes which seems interesting and out of the norm. However, she was quick to mention at the end of the excerpt that she could "see his evil influence" (265). Obviously, Jackson was still aware of the racial divide and did not see Willes on the same level. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The imagery Eva employed to discuss the experiences of the Confederacy in the postwar period seem to me to be quite liberally applied; her portrayal of the South's struggles in the wake of the war as "little feeble sickly attempts of virtue... [where] we [are] the chained witnesses" (266) by the "robbery and...unwise policy" (266) of the abolishment of slavery. It seems far-fetched to me that someone could actually conceptualize themselves as the victims in such a clearly false way, but it speaks to the culture and history of the South that it really was seen as the North coming in and robbing the good, hardworking whites of the South of their "property." It's amazing that that a cultural divide could be so wide that this sort of worldview could actually be an honestly-held one. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
These letters were very interesting. Eva expresses her annoyance with the loss of the South to the Union. Her narrative keys in on the emotions that many Southern women must have felt at that time. She is frustrated that her previous way of life has disintegrated. I think the most poignant section of her letters is when she is describing how her confederate money is of no value. She states, "strange to say, the Yankees won't take our Confederate money!" Her poverty is almost enforced because the Union government refuses to recognize her money. If the Union had recognized the (valueless) Confederate money would the South have been able to avoid extreme poverty? In addition, how could the Union have given value to the Confederate money in order to maintain classes and status? Would it have been beneficial to maintain these class boundaries to an extent? Or, was it best to completely erase all class and money from the South in order to start over? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 =<br />
<br />
In reading this account along with the other accounts about the new emancipation of slaves, the reader is able to grasp fully what it was like the moment the slave received word of their new found freedom. For many of the slaves, I think their biggest concern was their family. This woman was so elated at the news of her freedom that she proceeded to roll on the ground in excitement, and then she spoke of her husband and children that "can neber be" taken. Among many other obvious reasons, I could never imagine living the life of a slave. One of the hardest things I think many slaves had to endure was the constant fear of being separated from their families at any given moment, including their parents, spouses or even children. It is hard to think that these events were taking place only about 150 years ago. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Harriet and the others allowed these slaves to bring farm animals, such as pigs and chickens, on board. I'm assuming they brought them in order to trade them for money when they reached their destination. If this really is the case, that was very kind of them to allow them aboard, especially when it may have allowed for more humans if they weren't there. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
This was so horrible! I know that not all slave owners were like this, that this was an extreme, but still this was an extreme and horrible. I think that it takes a lot of courage to run away after that treatment and a great deal of courage to go the camp and ask for help. The Union Camp did not have to help her, or even listen to her so to even go and tell her story is incredible. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What really hit me was the thought of imagining living in constant fear of being beaten in such away as Clarissa Burdett describes. I continue to be amazed and disgusted by what humans can and will do to each other. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
I think that this woman had to be strong throughout her life. She knew she was free but continued to stay for the children, her bond with them must have been great. The part of her story I found intriguing was that she used the power to "walk away" in stopping the children from being mistreated from their stepmother. The former master even knew that the children visited their old nanny after she left and gave her food, clothes and money, he must have known how important she was to his children. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy that this Tennessee nanny was a very strong figure and it comes through in the text. When looking back on emancipation the common perception is of slaves getting out as quickly as possible from the horrors of living under their masters. This article defies all of that and shows a slave who not only had a strong connection with the family that owned her (minus the stepmom) but was willing to sacrifice her freedom for a time just to be with them. Through this a unique relationship is defined and is apparent when she talks back to her master and openly acknowledges she knows she is free without fear of repercussions. This is a unique point of view and insightful into the experience of newly found freedom. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
Darling describes a lot of kind of scary things - forced marriages by masters and whippings like we've talked about, even after the war before they were released, but also just how close the front was and how much it frightened her mistress. Imagine what a tense situation that would have been, with violence getting closer every day and the woman who has complete control of your life freaking out about it! -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed these articles because these women existed as outliers in a nation where race is a decisive issue. I especially liked the end of the last letter by Sarah Chase to Mr. May "No matter how strict the rules, and wise and kind the teachers plans, for the comfort, and rights of the black scholar; the ''feeling'' of the whites expressd or not -- ''will'' keep the sensitive African away; though he would willingly bear cold, hunger, and whippings if need be--to 'get a little larning.' (280)" This expression of doubt by Sarah Chase bears a reflection of the tension of race relations in the south and other integrated areas. If I had to choose between feeding and clothing myself or attending college it really would not be a choice. One can talk about the importance of education until they're blue in the face, but basic necessities, including safety for these blacks, are ultimately more important. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
I found this article to be particularly interesting. Taylor is a black woman living in the South who speaks of the prospects of equality for the black man and white man, yet never mentions anything regarding a black woman's equality within this new twentieth century America. Her writings and ideas are definitely ahead of her time and she speaks of a time that will happen soon after her life where the Southland will be more tolerant of blacks and everyone will live equally and sing in harmony. When analyzing the context as to when this article was written, it is intersting that Taylor never makes reference to women deserving equality (considering this was a time when the Women's Suffrage Movement was gaining popularity)but instead only makes reference to black men deserving it. It is almost as if she is focusing on one problem at a time and once the initial problem of race is fixed, then they can focus on the women. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Ada Bacot demonstrates the conflict of ideologies within war. It is not black and white for Bacot. She, a Confederate nurse, helps Yankees because she "cant help feeling pity for them, they are human beings." As she is supporting the Confederate forces, she is forced to take care of the "enemy." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I found this piece to be extremely interesting. Reading her diary entries, you can almost feel the discomfort from having these Union soldiers. But then she writes, “It will be hard to treat them as I do other men but I know that it is my duty.” (pg 202) Her sense of duty won in the end and that seems very remarkable to me. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I was most interested in her observation that "The men are very kind to the two yankees" whereas she finds it very hard to do even the most basic things for them. I disagree with Clare that the other soldiers would just see these Union men as "the enemy". From Bacot's words as well as from many other sources, we often see soldiers recognizing what they have in common with each other. Not every soldier could or would do this, of course, but many did. Knowing what the other side went through, these soldiers may have had real respect for one another. On the other hand, Bacot, who had never fought, would not have had that perspective, and so could not respect or care for the wounded enemy soldiers. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
Maria Daly seems to write about the war in a positive, patriotic light. In that sense, she is very much against the South. She describes, "Southern ladies and gentlemen...are very agreeable people with very finished and courtly manners, but they are a class utterly unsuited and antagonistic to the principles of out government." She sees the South as a tyranny. She also states how the women nurses and volunteers are a comfort to the men. However, I am confused by the last paragraph... - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I wonder how Daly ended up stuck in the South during the war! It sounds like she's writing after the Union had occupied New Orleans, since she describes the Yankees sarcastically as "those barbarous creatures who have done nothing but feed their hungry and clothe their naked since they took their pestilent city." But it seems like the women who volunteered in the hospitals were dealing with both Northern and Southern soldiers. I thought it was interesting how offended she was that the Southern officers had dinner, but then she mentioned that tea was $16 a pound, and I can't imagine how expensive a dinner must have been! Maybe it seemed unreasonably extravagant when they were doing something as serious as waiting for prisoners of war. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
<br />
Morgan's entry demonstrates the support some women gave to the war. She is very excited for the war and wants to join somehow. She thinks of all the ways she can support the Rebel cause with sewing and knitting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this excerpt because at the beginning of the war Sarah Morgan did not agree with the war, but her loyalty to the South is what seems to bring her around. Doing her womanly duties is her way of contributing to the efforts of the war. She was young and easily influenced by the war propaganda so she felt like it was her duty. It was a short entry but influential and to see what she went through made me feel sorry for her situation. –Pam P<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
Caroline Kirkland’s entry was such a great example of North vs. South. I enjoyed the fact that she felt sympathy for the women of the South, and then in the next sentence berated them for not doing everything they could to stop not just their soldier husbands, but also their faith in God. I thought that Kirkland’s selection was notable because she was a woman and very outspoken about what she witnessed, justified or not. – Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==<br />
<br />
Ella Thomas's writing on life as a Southern woman in 1865 brings to life how devastating and traumatic the war really was in the south. Her fury stems from the unjust insanity at the hands of the Union army that is ruining her life as she knows it. She appears to be at the end of her rope with war and death stating," I lose faith in humanity when I see such efforts to sink the nobler better part of man's nature in an effort to exterminate the white race at the South in order to elevate the Negro race to a position which I doubt their ability to fill - The time will come when Southern women will be avenged." This is a deep quote and I believe it sets the tone for how most Southern women felt during and long after the war. In the first place most Southerners honestly did not see their actions towards slavery as being wrong and then then they are punished for it by having everything taken from them and destroyed. This undoubtedly would be a confusing and infuriating time for anyone in the South who had their lives completely destroyed. Thomas's writing reveals an intimate example of the tole that the war took on the South and helps to remind that Southerners were more than just wicked slave holders. --Rachel T.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-01T07:26:44Z<p>Bongo282: /* Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching or comparative questions ==<br />
One thing that was a little surprising was the number of slave accounts where they did not find out that they were freed from their masters. This happened in Clarissa Burdett's account (she just ran away), Fanny Berry's, and Katie Darling's. It's not necessarily surprising that white owners would try to pull that off, but I am wondering what reasons there were for the owners to be able to get away with keeping their slaves for an extended period of time. Was it geographical? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
It seems that I have read multiple times of women having problems with farm equipment, the latest being "Loss of male labor, crumbling equipment..." (Woloch 264) It is not in an actual account of the time but in the Woloch's overview of the ''A Wartime Mistress.'' Why do we see this mentioned so often with women in the South but not the North? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's account, I found it interesting to see the change in gender norms for women. While women were now allowed to work outside the house and in Alcott's case even encouraged, "Shall I stay, Mother?...No, go! and the Lord be with you!" (258). Her mother encouraged her to go and participate, eventhough she would have been hundreds of miles away, but at the same time, her duties while being a nurse, were still part of the expectation for women. She cooked, and cared for the wounded and sick in a "motherly" manner, she wrote letters for them rather than actually do any medical treatment. Even though women had similar tasks while being away from the house, they slightly improved the norms for women by getting society to see them as not just an asset to the household. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
What makes Louisa May Alcott's ''Hospital Sketches'' so valuable to historians today is both the personal and detailed account she provides. Nursing during the Civil War is almost completely different from the modern conception of nursing and was more about bringing emotional comfort to the patients versus physical comfort. What is amazing about Alcott's job is the emotional strength she needed to complete her job effectively. Not many people, men or women, could handle a job which confronts death of a daily basis and the fact that she knew the risks she was putting herself in to do this job shows not only what a great person Alcott was, but how strong all nurses were at this time. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
While describing the men she is taking care of, Alcott betrays her understanding of societal gender norms. In her notes from January of 1963, she mentions a man named John Sulie, who is uncommonly kind and gentle, with "a heart as warm and tender as a woman's, a nature fresh and frank as any child's." (259) Those comparisons imply that a typical man was not expected to be warm- or tender-hearted, and also not frank. That is to say, the average man was cold- or steely-hearted and somewhat devious or deceptive--not a particularly ringing endorsement of men; in a later instance, a doctor caring for Alcott when she falls ill is described as "a motherly little man," solely because he checks up on Alcott and fusses over her in a matter than seems, apparently, feminine. Additionally, her concerns about looking motherly (and her apparent discomfort when he feels she's being viewed in a sexualized way by a man she cares for her in December) reinforce her understanding--and Dix's strong conviction--about the importance of nurses as maternal figures. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
The thing that I found most interesting in this particular passage was Alcott's definition of gender norms throughout the entire thing. She begins this by hoping that she acts "motherly" to the patients (pg 259, 2nd paragraph). However, a couple paragraphs later she distinguishes the types of men by their gendered qualities. For instance, she says, "the men are docile,respectful, and affectionate, with but few exceptions; truly lovable and manly many of them." She goes on: ". . . a Virginia blacksmith, is the prince of patients. . . a common man in education and condition, to me is all I could expect from the first gentleman in the land. Under his plain speech and unpolished manner I seem to see a noble character, a heart as warm and tender as a woman's." This blacksmith was described by both his manliness and also his womanly character--his tender heart. Later, Alcott describes a man as "patient as a woman." It is interesting to me that she uses all of these gendered characterizations to describe her patients and also the people who worked in the ward with her. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
I have read "Hospital Sketches" in it's entirety a couple of times and also Hannah Ropes' diary, and I still am not entirely in agreement that women, as nurses, did not perform medical tasks at all. I do agree that the job was very different from today, when nurses receive medical training, but both Alcott's book and Hannah Ropes' diary say that they provided more than just emotional comfort. Again, not like what we see today, but not entirely hands-off, either. I have to admit, having read so much more in-depth than just this one excerpt from her diary, I feel like there's a lot of information about the role of nurses that's being left out. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
Alcott reveals a noteworthy level of determination in her decision to be a nurse. She recognizes the reality that death could possibly be impending; however, she sees the need in the hospital and decides to go for it. She mentions the word "comfort" a few times in referencing her role as a comforter of these sick and dying men. When Alcott herself is taken ill, she describes it in close detail and gives us a glimpse into the seriousness of diseases back then and the fear they could cause. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
<br />
I rather enjoyed this reading. Mary describes her initial reaction of women in the fields "At first, it displeased me, and I turned away in aversion" (262) yet her curiosity got the best of her. When her carriage had to stop she approached these women and asked them about their work. Instead of completely ignoring and dismissing the women she instead questions them, getting first hand insight to why they would be involved in work for men. This made me think that even though she may not have approved at first, she probably understood and accepted the practice more. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool when she discussed how great of a job the women did in the field. "By and by, I observed how skillfully they drove the horses round and round the wheat-field" and "although they did not keep up with the men, their work was done with more precision and nicety, and their sheaves had an artistic finish that lacked made by men" (262). It goes to show that they truly cared about doing the work and perhaps these women weren't bitter about their husbands not being there to do the work. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
Wow, Mary Livermore writes beautifully. I was impressed by the scale of the efforts she describes, like the 1,000 shirts a day made in Boston - imagine the dedication that would be needed to organize that so quickly and at such a grand scale without Facebook! I also was struck by the seriousness she assigns to things women did like ignoring fashion. That sounds like such a small thing now, but with the amount of fabric needed for bandages and uniforms and the amount of fabric a new dress would have taken at the time, I suppose that actually would have been a significant contribution in and of itself. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I think this has been my favorite reading of the semester. There is so much interesting information. The description of the work clothes that the women were wearing is fantastic, you do not see women dressed like that in photographs of the time period, so it is neat to have the description. Also, I think it was not so much about not following the fashion as it was about common sense. I imagine it would be very hard to plow a field while wearing hoops. I also imagine the women still had a best dress to wear on Sundays and to other nice events and that they did wear hoops with it.<br />
I also found some of her descriptions very powerful and emotionally striking. "It came very hard on us to let the boys go, but we felt we'd no right to hinder'em. The country needed'em more'n we." (263) It shows how much patriotism these women had.<br />
I also loved the when the one girl told "For during the last war in Germany men were so scarce that she had to work three years in a blacksmith's shop." (263) Was this really true? Would the German people really have accepted this of their women? Were women in Germany treated differently, given more freedom than American women? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louticia Jackson's letter to her son, she mentions how she took care of one of her slaves, Willes. Eventhough we've learned that slaves are seen as property and therefore any punishment can't be too harsh because it would then effect the work of the investment. I found it really surprising the way she took care of Willes when he was sick "...he took the fever immediately after wchich lasted some 5 or 6 weeks in which time i attended him closely day and night, bathed and rubbed him with my own hands fearing it would not be faithfully done [otherwise]" (265). Instead of having another female slave take care of Willes, she took it upon herself to take care of him and bath him each night, with her hands. This is probably a rare case, but it was one that surprised me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I agree with Aqsa...Louticia Jackson takes such a personal interest in Willes which seems interesting and out of the norm. However, she was quick to mention at the end of the excerpt that she could "see his evil influence" (265). Obviously, Jackson was still aware of the racial divide and did not see Willes on the same level. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The imagery Eva employed to discuss the experiences of the Confederacy in the postwar period seem to me to be quite liberally applied; her portrayal of the South's struggles in the wake of the war as "little feeble sickly attempts of virtue... [where] we [are] the chained witnesses" (266) by the "robbery and...unwise policy" (266) of the abolishment of slavery. It seems far-fetched to me that someone could actually conceptualize themselves as the victims in such a clearly false way, but it speaks to the culture and history of the South that it really was seen as the North coming in and robbing the good, hardworking whites of the South of their "property." It's amazing that that a cultural divide could be so wide that this sort of worldview could actually be an honestly-held one. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
These letters were very interesting. Eva expresses her annoyance with the loss of the South to the Union. Her narrative keys in on the emotions that many Southern women must have felt at that time. She is frustrated that her previous way of life has disintegrated. I think the most poignant section of her letters is when she is describing how her confederate money is of no value. She states, "strange to say, the Yankees won't take our Confederate money!" Her poverty is almost enforced because the Union government refuses to recognize her money. If the Union had recognized the (valueless) Confederate money would the South have been able to avoid extreme poverty? In addition, how could the Union have given value to the Confederate money in order to maintain classes and status? Would it have been beneficial to maintain these class boundaries to an extent? Or, was it best to completely erase all class and money from the South in order to start over? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 =<br />
<br />
In reading this account along with the other accounts about the new emancipation of slaves, the reader is able to grasp fully what it was like the moment the slave received word of their new found freedom. For many of the slaves, I think their biggest concern was their family. This woman was so elated at the news of her freedom that she proceeded to roll on the ground in excitement, and then she spoke of her husband and children that "can neber be" taken. Among many other obvious reasons, I could never imagine living the life of a slave. One of the hardest things I think many slaves had to endure was the constant fear of being separated from their families at any given moment, including their parents, spouses or even children. It is hard to think that these events were taking place only about 150 years ago. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Harriet and the others allowed these slaves to bring farm animals, such as pigs and chickens, on board. I'm assuming they brought them in order to trade them for money when they reached their destination. If this really is the case, that was very kind of them to allow them aboard, especially when it may have allowed for more humans if they weren't there. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
This was so horrible! I know that not all slave owners were like this, that this was an extreme, but still this was an extreme and horrible. I think that it takes a lot of courage to run away after that treatment and a great deal of courage to go the camp and ask for help. The Union Camp did not have to help her, or even listen to her so to even go and tell her story is incredible. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What really hit me was the thought of imagining living in constant fear of being beaten in such away as Clarissa Burdett describes. I continue to be amazed and disgusted by what humans can and will do to each other. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
I think that this woman had to be strong throughout her life. She knew she was free but continued to stay for the children, her bond with them must have been great. The part of her story I found intriguing was that she used the power to "walk away" in stopping the children from being mistreated from their stepmother. The former master even knew that the children visited their old nanny after she left and gave her food, clothes and money, he must have known how important she was to his children. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy that this Tennessee nanny was a very strong figure and it comes through in the text. When looking back on emancipation the common perception is of slaves getting out as quickly as possible from the horrors of living under their masters. This article defies all of that and shows a slave who not only had a strong connection with the family that owned her (minus the stepmom) but was willing to sacrifice her freedom for a time just to be with them. Through this a unique relationship is defined and is apparent when she talks back to her master and openly acknowledges she knows she is free without fear of repercussions. This is a unique point of view and insightful into the experience of newly found freedom. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
Darling describes a lot of kind of scary things - forced marriages by masters and whippings like we've talked about, even after the war before they were released, but also just how close the front was and how much it frightened her mistress. Imagine what a tense situation that would have been, with violence getting closer every day and the woman who has complete control of your life freaking out about it! -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed these articles because these women existed as outliers in a nation where race is a decisive issue. I especially liked the end of the last letter by Sarah Chase to Mr. May "No matter how strict the rules, and wise and kind the teachers plans, for the comfort, and rights of the black scholar; the ''feeling'' of the whites expressd or not -- ''will'' keep the sensitive African away; though he would willingly bear cold, hunger, and whippings if need be--to 'get a little larning.' (280)" This expression of doubt by Sarah Chase bears a reflection of the tension of race relations in the south and other integrated areas. If I had to choose between feeding and clothing myself or attending college it really would not be a choice. One can talk about the importance of education until they're blue in the face, but basic necessities, including safety for these blacks, are ultimately more important. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
I found this article to be particularly interesting. Taylor is a black woman living in the South who speaks of the prospects of equality for the black man and white man, yet never mentions anything regarding a black woman's equality within this new twentieth century America. Her writings and ideas are definitely ahead of her time and she speaks of a time that will happen soon after her life where the Southland will be more tolerant of blacks and everyone will live equally and sing in harmony. When analyzing the context as to when this article was written, it is intersting that Taylor never makes reference to women deserving equality (considering this was a time when the Women's Suffrage Movement was gaining popularity)but instead only makes reference to black men deserving it. It is almost as if she is focusing on one problem at a time and once the initial problem of race is fixed, then they can focus on the women. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Ada Bacot demonstrates the conflict of ideologies within war. It is not black and white for Bacot. She, a Confederate nurse, helps Yankees because she "cant help feeling pity for them, they are human beings." As she is supporting the Confederate forces, she is forced to take care of the "enemy." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I found this piece to be extremely interesting. Reading her diary entries, you can almost feel the discomfort from having these Union soldiers. But then she writes, “It will be hard to treat them as I do other men but I know that it is my duty.” (pg 202) Her sense of duty won in the end and that seems very remarkable to me. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I was most interested in her observation that "The men are very kind to the two yankees" whereas she finds it very hard to do even the most basic things for them. I disagree with Clare that the other soldiers would just see these Union men as "the enemy". From Bacot's words as well as from many other sources, we often see soldiers recognizing what they have in common with each other. Not every soldier could or would do this, of course, but many did. Knowing what the other side went through, these soldiers may have had real respect for one another. On the other hand, Bacot, who had never fought, would not have had that perspective, and so could not respect or care for the wounded enemy soldiers. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
Maria Daly seems to write about the war in a positive, patriotic light. In that sense, she is very much against the South. She describes, "Southern ladies and gentlemen...are very agreeable people with very finished and courtly manners, but they are a class utterly unsuited and antagonistic to the principles of out government." She sees the South as a tyranny. She also states how the women nurses and volunteers are a comfort to the men. However, I am confused by the last paragraph... - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I wonder how Daly ended up stuck in the South during the war! It sounds like she's writing after the Union had occupied New Orleans, since she describes the Yankees sarcastically as "those barbarous creatures who have done nothing but feed their hungry and clothe their naked since they took their pestilent city." But it seems like the women who volunteered in the hospitals were dealing with both Northern and Southern soldiers. I thought it was interesting how offended she was that the Southern officers had dinner, but then she mentioned that tea was $16 a pound, and I can't imagine how expensive a dinner must have been! Maybe it seemed unreasonably extravagant when they were doing something as serious as waiting for prisoners of war. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
<br />
Morgan's entry demonstrates the support some women gave to the war. She is very excited for the war and wants to join somehow. She thinks of all the ways she can support the Rebel cause with sewing and knitting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this excerpt because at the beginning of the war Sarah Morgan did not agree with the war, but her loyalty to the South is what seems to bring her around. Doing her womanly duties is her way of contributing to the efforts of the war. She was young and easily influenced by the war propaganda so she felt like it was her duty. It was a short entry but influential and to see what she went through made me feel sorry for her situation. –Pam P<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==<br />
<br />
Ella Thomas's writing on life as a Southern woman in 1865 brings to life how devastating and traumatic the war really was in the south. Her fury stems from the unjust insanity at the hands of the Union army that is ruining her life as she knows it. She appears to be at the end of her rope with war and death stating," I lose faith in humanity when I see such efforts to sink the nobler better part of man's nature in an effort to exterminate the white race at the South in order to elevate the Negro race to a position which I doubt their ability to fill - The time will come when Southern women will be avenged." This is a deep quote and I believe it sets the tone for how most Southern women felt during and long after the war. In the first place most Southerners honestly did not see their actions towards slavery as being wrong and then then they are punished for it by having everything taken from them and destroyed. This undoubtedly would be a confusing and infuriating time for anyone in the South who had their lives completely destroyed. Thomas's writing reveals an intimate example of the tole that the war took on the South and helps to remind that Southerners were more than just wicked slave holders. --Rachel T.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-17T08:48:29Z<p>Bongo282: /* American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
Most (all) of these women are Christian and from the North. They condemn the South for having slavery, but I wonder if they see unfair employment, negative stereotypes, and racism in the North as a problem. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
This pamphlet embodies so much of how I've been taught to conceptualize nineteenth-century moral societies; the image of a "respectable" girl from an established family who, in her naivety, trusted someone who turned out to be untrustworthy, and was led unknowingly into a brothel. This story is so reminiscent of all of the ones we've talked about and studied in history classes that I felt I practically could have written it myself. That fact begs the question -- was this a real girl? The number of vague references (she's from "[a] delightful western village;" where she ends up is never stated, nor is her age, name, or any particulars at all) makes me think that this story is almost certainly just that -- a story. Whether or not this was a real societal issue (young women lured into cities and then into prostitution), these overly-generic stories make the entire thing seem fabricated, like lurid stories to keep daughters in line. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I agree with Nicole's point of view of this letter. Was this actually a true occurence that happened to a real girl or was it merely a form of propaganda utilized by the Moral Reform Society to help purify the population and persuade young women to remain devout and true to their "respectable" families? It doesn't suprise me that these situations may have possibly happened, but I would expect that a woman who was led into prostitution would have been one of the group of single women that immigrated to the United States, not one who would have a "respectable" family living with her. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
<br />
"It is the blood of our fathers, and the tears of our brethren that have enriched your soils. AND WE CLAIM OUR RIGHTS." (237) These last few lines stuck out to me. It is one of the strongest arguements I think blacks could have made when it came to being members and citizens of this country. Stewart also mentions how African daughters are being cheated when they do not have the means to be educated and are never given the opportunity. This was a very strong piece, and having been written by a woman, makes it more significant.<br />
---Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The second to last paragraph on pg. 238 reminds me of how the slave owners/masters used Christianity to reiterate that slavery was in fact encouraged by God. Mary P. Abbott does an amazing job defending her view that slavery is condemned by God and Christianity. She goes onto say how slavery goes against everything God says when it comes to marriages, family, equality. This piece was very empowering and had every argument it needed for women, blacks, and slaves in general. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
It is interesting that women found it part of their moral obligation to speak out against slavery. In a world where women's activity is often focused in domestic sphere and with their husbands, or on woman's suffrage, it is refreshing and interesting to see a woman speaking out against slavery in association with her moral duty. Do you think that the author of this letter is using the abolitionist movement as an agency to promote womans rights? In what ways does this change the purpose of this letter? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
I admire Sarah Grimke's spirit and determination to speak her mind, especially to members of the Church who were regarded as highly esteemed members of society. "Men and women were CREATED EQUAL; they are both moral and accountable beings, and whatever is right for man to do, is right for woman to to" (240). I would argue that Sarah Grimke and her sister were true pioneers for the Women's Suffrage Movement and the modern day Women's Rights Movement with the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. It is because of women like these that women in today's world enjoy some of the privileges and rights that we do. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
It mentions that of the 300 participants over the two day meeting, that 40 of them were wen. Being that the convention was to discuss the social, civil and religious rights of women, how common/uncommon is it to have that many men in attendance? - Matt<br />
<br />
What I love about this document is the fact that Stanton took inspiration for this document from the Declaration of Independence. When they held this convention in Seneca Falls NY, these women really were declaring independence for women from society and the subservience they were put under. Although it would take over fifty years for women to obtain the vote, this document still acted as an outline for what women wanted to accomplish with liberation. These women were truly exceptional and forward-thinking for the time they lived in! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I thought this was long overdue, using the words of the very men who seek to oppress women to show that women deserve the same rights as the men. I was interested however when it says, “He has withheld her from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners.” I know they say they are talking about the rights of citizenship, but I imagined that these women would want equality for all women, even the foreign women. Or was that a completely different issue? By calling foreign and native men the most ignorant and degraded, aren’t they using the same justification that men used of women: categorizing them as an exception to the rule. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sara that it was really suprising that women did not take their husbands names during this time period. I wonder why it was common for women not to do so? You would think in a patriarchal society that men would demand that their wives take their name, so that they could reaffirm their manhood or hold power over their wives in this way.--Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I was really surprised when I read this document. I agree that it was nice to see the woman "protest" taking her husband's name but that was the very minimum that she was protesting. The document also goes on to state that she had a problem with her husband having “custody of the wife’s person.” and the control of the children. So while the main thing that is taken away from this her not wanting to take the name, I think that it was much bigger. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
After reading this I feel like Stone and Blackwell really embraced the free and equal lifestyle that they demonstrated through their abolitionist protest. Like many of the women in the Jeffrey's article this one demonstrates the full extent of equality women were able to obtain during this time. It also shows the changing mindset of men as Blackwell encouraged and agreed with all of this which for many men would be seen as a hit on their identity as a man. Although, this example is an extreme it shows the possibilities for women that Jeffreys discussed. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
I found this very inspiring. She was not trying to be eloquent or fancy. She was simply speaking about her experiences and how they had changed her life. I think that it made the speech more power telling the audience what she had accomplished being a slave rather than trying to convince them why women should be given the right to vote. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
Her argument on the last page about how Jesus was from Mary and God, was very clever. This whole time people were using the religious argument belittling women. But she uses it in the defense of women; and noone could argue with her. While she wasn't the most educated, her speech hit hard and was unforgettable. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I also found it quite interesting that there were two different accounts as to what was said. In one aspect the first account from the Antislavery Bugle made her more well spoken than the second account from the Independent. There were many differences from each view point but to me the message was the same - Women do have rights and Sojourner Truth was going to tell these people what was on her mind. -- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
The convention is very religious. There is always scripture and prayer. Also, most of the arguments focus around religious reasons to end slavery. This religious factor probably came to the abolitionist movement because it was dominated by women. In class we discussed women as more moral than men and more involved in the Church. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This reading brought home to me the degree to which women were involved in some contradictory activities. On the one hand, this was considered part of the domestic sphere, and these women were acting within the role prescribed for them. On the other hand, the parliamentary procedures they go through are more reminiscent of the public sphere, and look more like engagement in politics. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
This was a short article about how "solitary vice" or masturbation is the cause for the downfall of society. She does not talk about adults but children doing this act and to me that is a little disturbing. Children doing this act were thought to have no morals and that their religion will save them from masturbation. There are still people out there today that think any kind of sexual act that is not made for procreation is a "body and soul-destroying sin." -- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I wonder if men felt women had this much power over their vote? I doubt it because women were not given the vote because men thought women could not think for themselves. This document shows that some women, actually, think men cannot think for themselves when voting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This just made me think about all the times I've disagreed with my parents about politics. I don't vote the same way they do, even though I appreciate the way they raised me, and I'm not doing it to be spiteful. Hale doesn't seem to consider the idea that some people's sons, even if not hers, aren't going to agree with their parents. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement, 1998. ==<br />
<br />
Jeffrey's essay really brings to light an overlooked side effect of the abolitionist movement, the movement towards more self empowered women. When thinking about the anti-slavery, the focus is always on white people who saw the injustices in slavery and spoke out against it but Jeffrey's goes beyond that to illuminate the complexities of the movement. As the anti-slavery movement was unpopular in comparison to other social movements of the time woman faced a fair amount of adversity that only helped to build their abilities to control the public sphere. The women who participated in this movement were forced to gain the ability to forcefully argue their opinion in order to gain respect that then translated into how they viewed their own lives and the gendered roles they served. Is it fair to assume that the social implications for women during the anti-slavery movement were just as great as the cause they supported? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860, (1992). ==</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-17T08:29:54Z<p>Bongo282: /* Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
Most (all) of these women are Christian and from the North. They condemn the South for having slavery, but I wonder if they see unfair employment, negative stereotypes, and racism in the North as a problem. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
This pamphlet embodies so much of how I've been taught to conceptualize nineteenth-century moral societies; the image of a "respectable" girl from an established family who, in her naivety, trusted someone who turned out to be untrustworthy, and was led unknowingly into a brothel. This story is so reminiscent of all of the ones we've talked about and studied in history classes that I felt I practically could have written it myself. That fact begs the question -- was this a real girl? The number of vague references (she's from "[a] delightful western village;" where she ends up is never stated, nor is her age, name, or any particulars at all) makes me think that this story is almost certainly just that -- a story. Whether or not this was a real societal issue (young women lured into cities and then into prostitution), these overly-generic stories make the entire thing seem fabricated, like lurid stories to keep daughters in line. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I agree with Nicole's point of view of this letter. Was this actually a true occurence that happened to a real girl or was it merely a form of propaganda utilized by the Moral Reform Society to help purify the population and persuade young women to remain devout and true to their "respectable" families? It doesn't suprise me that these situations may have possibly happened, but I would expect that a woman who was led into prostitution would have been one of the group of single women that immigrated to the United States, not one who would have a "respectable" family living with her. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
<br />
"It is the blood of our fathers, and the tears of our brethren that have enriched your soils. AND WE CLAIM OUR RIGHTS." (237) These last few lines stuck out to me. It is one of the strongest arguements I think blacks could have made when it came to being members and citizens of this country. Stewart also mentions how African daughters are being cheated when they do not have the means to be educated and are never given the opportunity. This was a very strong piece, and having been written by a woman, makes it more significant.<br />
---Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The second to last paragraph on pg. 238 reminds me of how the slave owners/masters used Christianity to reiterate that slavery was in fact encouraged by God. Mary P. Abbott does an amazing job defending her view that slavery is condemned by God and Christianity. She goes onto say how slavery goes against everything God says when it comes to marriages, family, equality. This piece was very empowering and had every argument it needed for women, blacks, and slaves in general. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
It is interesting that women found it part of their moral obligation to speak out against slavery. In a world where women's activity is often focused in domestic sphere and with their husbands, or on woman's suffrage, it is refreshing and interesting to see a woman speaking out against slavery in association with her moral duty. Do you think that the author of this letter is using the abolitionist movement as an agency to promote womans rights? In what ways does this change the purpose of this letter? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
I admire Sarah Grimke's spirit and determination to speak her mind, especially to members of the Church who were regarded as highly esteemed members of society. "Men and women were CREATED EQUAL; they are both moral and accountable beings, and whatever is right for man to do, is right for woman to to" (240). I would argue that Sarah Grimke and her sister were true pioneers for the Women's Suffrage Movement and the modern day Women's Rights Movement with the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. It is because of women like these that women in today's world enjoy some of the privileges and rights that we do. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
It mentions that of the 300 participants over the two day meeting, that 40 of them were wen. Being that the convention was to discuss the social, civil and religious rights of women, how common/uncommon is it to have that many men in attendance? - Matt<br />
<br />
What I love about this document is the fact that Stanton took inspiration for this document from the Declaration of Independence. When they held this convention in Seneca Falls NY, these women really were declaring independence for women from society and the subservience they were put under. Although it would take over fifty years for women to obtain the vote, this document still acted as an outline for what women wanted to accomplish with liberation. These women were truly exceptional and forward-thinking for the time they lived in! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I thought this was long overdue, using the words of the very men who seek to oppress women to show that women deserve the same rights as the men. I was interested however when it says, “He has withheld her from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners.” I know they say they are talking about the rights of citizenship, but I imagined that these women would want equality for all women, even the foreign women. Or was that a completely different issue? By calling foreign and native men the most ignorant and degraded, aren’t they using the same justification that men used of women: categorizing them as an exception to the rule. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sara that it was really suprising that women did not take their husbands names during this time period. I wonder why it was common for women not to do so? You would think in a patriarchal society that men would demand that their wives take their name, so that they could reaffirm their manhood or hold power over their wives in this way.--Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I was really surprised when I read this document. I agree that it was nice to see the woman "protest" taking her husband's name but that was the very minimum that she was protesting. The document also goes on to state that she had a problem with her husband having “custody of the wife’s person.” and the control of the children. So while the main thing that is taken away from this her not wanting to take the name, I think that it was much bigger. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
After reading this I feel like Stone and Blackwell really embraced the free and equal lifestyle that they demonstrated through their abolitionist protest. Like many of the women in the Jeffrey's article this one demonstrates the full extent of equality women were able to obtain during this time. It also shows the changing mindset of men as Blackwell encouraged and agreed with all of this which for many men would be seen as a hit on their identity as a man. Although, this example is an extreme it shows the possibilities for women that Jeffreys discussed. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
I found this very inspiring. She was not trying to be eloquent or fancy. She was simply speaking about her experiences and how they had changed her life. I think that it made the speech more power telling the audience what she had accomplished being a slave rather than trying to convince them why women should be given the right to vote. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
Her argument on the last page about how Jesus was from Mary and God, was very clever. This whole time people were using the religious argument belittling women. But she uses it in the defense of women; and noone could argue with her. While she wasn't the most educated, her speech hit hard and was unforgettable. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I also found it quite interesting that there were two different accounts as to what was said. In one aspect the first account from the Antislavery Bugle made her more well spoken than the second account from the Independent. There were many differences from each view point but to me the message was the same - Women do have rights and Sojourner Truth was going to tell these people what was on her mind. -- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
The convention is very religious. There is always scripture and prayer. Also, most of the arguments focus around religious reasons to end slavery. This religious factor probably came to the abolitionist movement because it was dominated by women. In class we discussed women as more moral than men and more involved in the Church. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This reading brought home to me the degree to which women were involved in some contradictory activities. On the one hand, this was considered part of the domestic sphere, and these women were acting within the role prescribed for them. On the other hand, the parliamentary procedures they go through are more reminiscent of the public sphere, and look more like engagement in politics. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I wonder if men felt women had this much power over their vote? I doubt it because women were not given the vote because men thought women could not think for themselves. This document shows that some women, actually, think men cannot think for themselves when voting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This just made me think about all the times I've disagreed with my parents about politics. I don't vote the same way they do, even though I appreciate the way they raised me, and I'm not doing it to be spiteful. Hale doesn't seem to consider the idea that some people's sons, even if not hers, aren't going to agree with their parents. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement, 1998. ==<br />
<br />
Jeffrey's essay really brings to light an overlooked side effect of the abolitionist movement, the movement towards more self empowered women. When thinking about the anti-slavery, the focus is always on white people who saw the injustices in slavery and spoke out against it but Jeffrey's goes beyond that to illuminate the complexities of the movement. As the anti-slavery movement was unpopular in comparison to other social movements of the time woman faced a fair amount of adversity that only helped to build their abilities to control the public sphere. The women who participated in this movement were forced to gain the ability to forcefully argue their opinion in order to gain respect that then translated into how they viewed their own lives and the gendered roles they served. Is it fair to assume that the social implications for women during the anti-slavery movement were just as great as the cause they supported? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860, (1992). ==</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T06:59:41Z<p>Bongo282: /* Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
For Irish families, such as the Conway's, having a family member make the voyage to America was incredibly difficult. The likelihood of that family member returning to Ireland was very low. Mary Ann Sadlier describes this sentiment vividly by saying her family "felt at the moment as if they had left Bessy in the churchyard clay," likening Bessy's voyage to America to being like her death. This separation was not easy for Bessy or other Irish women for that matter. Perhaps this is why when Bessy arrived in New York, her "comrade-girls" assured her they were happy to see her and kind to her. These women want to try and form bonds with each other since they are all in similar situations. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Sadlier wrote out Irish accents was really interesting. At first I thought maybe she was caricaturing the immigrants by exaggerating their accents, but then I found out that she was Irish herself. I also thought the interactions she wrote between the Irish men discussing whether or not selling alcohol was okay seemed really honest. I would have assumed initially that this was written by a white woman trying to scold Irish girls on the dangers of alcohol and men and probably not holding a very high opinion of her readers; After realizing the author had gone through experiences like this herself, I trusted the story she was telling a bit more. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I was kind of amused by the accents, as well, and particularly the use of Irish language phrases, which she spells phonetically. Granted, Irish (Gaelic) is not easy for English speakers to read, so this makes sense, but she doesn't translate them, either, which seems like it would be useless to most readers. I'm learning Irish, and the phrases are basic enough that I mostly knew what they meant, but I wonder how common that knowledge is, or whether the inclusion of foreign words is just meant to give a particular flavor to the dialogue. <br />
On another subject, the beginning of the reading makes it very clear how unprepared immigrants could be for the realities of life in America. The woman who plans to find her son is a perfect example of this, as she is unaware how far apart New York and Ohio are. It makes me think that culture shock must have been particularly bad for people who were arriving with so little idea of life in the US. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
<br />
I think one of the remarkable things about Saehle's letter to her brother is that she has a strong faith. She even remarks that she wasn't even scared on her journey to America and slept peacefully. Her high spirit and faith are really what keeps her going. I wonder how many other women had as positive experience as her in their travels to America? Was she an exception? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I agree, she was incredibly optimistic. I almost think that this is an unrealistic representation of the experience of an young, single woman immigrant. I would be very surprised if every single immigrant felt that much ease when crossing the Atlantic, and I doubt that they would all be so optimistic about the work that they were doing. I was also surprised with the Post Script, where she receives 3 acres of land. Was it common to give somebody doing domestic work land? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
What I found interesting about these bills of sale is how they reflect the situations these women were going through when they had to to be sold. While today a sum of $470, like in Mee Yung's case (page 237) is laughable for four years of service today, we cannot know why or what the money paid for. Most likely this money went to paying for her passage over or to her destitute parents who desperately needed the money or thought her too much the burden to raise. I do wonder where this money went and whether these women survived and moved beyond prostitution. -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I have to say that I knew of Chinese men coming over to work on railroads but I don't know how I missed Chinese women coming over primarily as prostitutes for these men (and white men). I am definitely interested in knowing what these women's lives were like, after their contracts were up. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Why are the owners/masters all women? Chinese women at that, unlike slavery, are the master and the servant are of the same race and background. First off, if majority of the Chinese that immigrated were men, where do these women come from, and how do they have power? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
It strikes me as very strange that Magoffin refers to the noise of soldiers being "shocking to [her] delicate nerves." (234) She's described in the introduction to the Documents section as being a woman who traveled with her merchant husband out West; based on everything we know about the travel West, it was a dangerous, unforgiving trip--and one in which a person with "delicate nerves" would either toughen up or fall apart. Clearly, Magoffin did not fall apart on the trip to NM, which begs the question: why didn't she toughen up? Or was she in some way trying to regain the delicate sensibilities that women of the era were supposed to have? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
When I read this I compared the treatment of the Mexicans to that of the Blacks in the south during slavery. "...make them do it over, and over, and they continue in the same good humour, never mouthing and grumbling because they have too much to do, but remain perfectly submissive..." (234)It made me wonder why the Mexicans were more obedient and complying? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
What I found interesting about this primary document is how the notion of men being in constant search of sex is evolving. Instead of marking the Lieutenants acts of rape as manly and normal, citizens are instead standing up for these "squaws" and are arguing that he should be punished. Although this document still evidences to the prejudice against natives, there is a change in ideals of how men should treat all women and it makes me wonder if this change was drawn out or abrupt and what sparked the need for men's ideals to change.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I wonder what this says about the status of Native Americans in California at this time. Where did Native American women fit on the spectrum of "white women are pure and asexual, black women want sex all the time?" I guess they must have been closer to white women, in that it wasn't considered okay for the Lieutenant to rape her. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
Although Zitkala-Sa was (according to the introduction) legitimately traveling to a school, the fantasy world that was described to her (a place where she could have all the apples she wanted!--and no downsides?) by the "palefaces"--and the idea of a group of white men coming in, gathering up children, and taking them away after only minimally describing what their lives would be like, seemed extremely suspect to me. The whole idea of people coming in, rounding up children or women, feeding them lies or half-truths, and then removing them from their lives is uncomfortably similar to the lies the Chinese women who were later contracted out as prostitutes may have been told. Indeed, those sorts of situations are still used to trap victims for sex trafficking today. So, even if Zitkala-Sa went to school, became highly-educated, and returned to her family as a contributing member of Dakota society, the circumstances for her original removal from her family remain highly sketchy to me. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I absolutely agree with Nicole. This story seemed really sad to me. As soon as the little girl got onto the horse drawn wagon, and she felt that sense of regret immediately, I couldn't help but be sad because I knew how much she regretted her decision, especially when her mom was so uncomfortable with the decision. But, I wondered where they were going in "the east"? And what school they were really going to? Like Nicole said, it all looked very shady and suspect to me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
As I was reading Big Red Apples, I found myself telling the little girl "no you don't want to go with those men" knowing that she was either becoming enslaved or sold for sex. Why didn't these children listen to their parents? I guess because they were so young and impressionable it was easy to get the young kids to want to see the East and what kind of opportunities they were missing out on, when in all reality it was not somewhere they would want to end up. The Mother in Big Red Apples knew that there was something suspicious going on, but also thought that her daughter was going to get an "education" and not knowing that this may be the last time she may see her daughter.-- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
This was so sad. They were talking about what their family was going through and the hardships they had to face like moving west away from everything that they had known into a land that they were not familiar with. While they choose to go through all of this, I still think that it was so sad! –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
I agree Kayle, this was so sad. Moving your family to unknown places without the comforts that you know and possibly your extended family nearby...it must have been heartbreaking! The men went off to work, but the women were left, alone to adjust. Her children being her support to get her through the days. At least in this tale of A.M. Green it seems like she had a caring husband who was concerned with her well-being. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
This was so complicated to get a pension. She had to know all of the information down to dates, people, time, places. I don’t think that I would have been able to keep all of that information straight and all she was trying to do was get money that she was mostly likely entitled to. It is sad that she had to put that much effort into getting something that she deserves. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
This is actually a very typical pension application, from what I've seen of them. I've done quite a bit of research with Civil War pension files in the National Archives, and all of them ask for documentation such as this. Hers does have more dates and personal information than the soldiers' pensions that I've worked with, but all of their files require similar documentation. They must prove when and where they enlisted, that they are unable to support themselves, and that their disability is directly connected to their service. There must be support from others that this is true, and that they are who they say they are. So, it makes sense that she would have to prove when and where she served as well. I think all pension files are this detailed.<br />
I've also worked with pension claims filed by mothers and wives of soldiers, and they are all concerned, as the latter part of Violet Cragg's, with proving the relationship between the claimant and the soldier. Many of these files contain marriage certificates and piles of affidavits verifying that the two were related and that the claimant relied on the soldier for support. I've never been lucky enough to find one which included a picture, as Violet Cragg offers to send, and I wonder whether a picture was ever sent and included in the file. <br />
I agree with Kayle that it does seem harsh to place this huge burden of proof on a person who has served their country, but it also makes sense that the Pension Bureau would guard against fraud, and that they would need all this documentation in order to award pensions to people who had no other means of support. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, San Francisco, 1886==<br />
<br />
When reading the Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, I was surprised by how standard they are. All work for about four years, are paid no wages, and there is no interest on the money. Furthermore, extended periods of sickness add a month to the service. What I thought was most surprising was that the Chinese prostitutes all are contracted with other Chinese people. I had assumed they would be contracted to American people. I wonder why some Chinese did well enough to contract prostitutes while others did poor enough to have to work as prostitutes. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
I actually had a problem with the introduction to this article. It talks about women existing as prostitutes but does not acknowledge why these women were there as prostitutes. This was NOT like the prostitution of white society. First, there were laws prohibiting all asians, but particularly women (who to the whites were of NO use but sexuality). Secondly, It was forbidden for these asian men to fraternize with women who were not asian. Their numbers were not as high as that of blacks in the south so disobeying this law was not common and was severely punishable. The existence of prostitution had nothing to do with one being well-off enough to contract a woman to be a prositute, but had more do to with the fact that these women had to be brought in illegally due to American immigration laws and cost a lot of time and money to do so. It is not mentioned in the introduction to this paragraph and is put immediately after a document about white prostitutes and i feel this is in bad taste. The hardships of Asians in America even until the end of the 1900's are not that easily comparable to the hardships of those who could "pass" as english. --Sara S<br />
<br />
In reading the XIn Jin article what stood out is the fact that 28% of Chinese women were involved in prostitution during this period. Even though this is a significant number it goes against the stereotype of early Chinese immigrants where its assumed that the minimal number of women who did live in the US where all there as prostitutes. It is my guess that the lives these woman were forced to live is what stands out when viewing chinese females in this region. However, I found the experience to Xin Jin to be very similar to the women described in the New York Prostitutes reading where once again men are controlling the sexual lives of these women. Forced into a life where sexual favors are their only means of survival helps to solidify to men and non immigrant women that these immigrant females were inferior in every way. Is that negative stereotype still carried on to todays view of early Chinese immigration, where admittedly I even viewed the majority of these women, to be just prostitutes? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Did these women choose to come to America, or were they forced? Was life in China really that bad? I don't understand why they would put themselves through this when they don't get any benefits from it. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
How sad that she was treated like an item or something you trade. I was also wondering about what four loathsome disease's she could get? Also four and a half years for $524, I guess back then it was a lot of money and the restrictions she had on that loan must have been awful. It also sound like to me that they didn't treat the Chinese women very well and they had no other job skills so they could make their life better. I wonder, like Ashley, did these women come forced or because they wanted to?-- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== New York Prositutes by William Sanger, 1858==<br />
"'When a woman drinks she is lost.' It will be conceded that the habit of intoxication in woman, if not an indication of actual depravity or vice, is a sure precursor of it, for drunkenness and debauchery are inspearable companions, one almost invariably following the other." page 290. I choose this quote to exemplify this document for a couple of reasons. 1. it is actually funny to think about how alcohol was viewed as this causer of evil, not as though the person was evil and alcohol just allowed them to be evil. 2. Because it does not mention the debauchery of men while they drink and is only concerned with women's behavior when the entire prohbition and temperance movement sprung out of woman's desire for men to stop drinking away all of the family's money, sleeping with prostitutes and beating there wives when drunk. 3. I think the sympathy which the doctor had to these prostitutes is remarkable for the time period in which it existed. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This reading exemplifies the other side of the budding female independence that was taking shape during the rise of factories and cities. With previous readings it appeared that by young women stepping outside of the home to work in factories was a viable way for them to financially support themselves until marriage. Here the opposite of that is examined where women attempt to go out in the world but then struggle to survive and thus have to degrade themselves in order to live. With almost every case the reasoning concludes with mans shortcomings as a provider and caretaker for the woman, demonstrating that this view of the independent factory girl was far from being economically stable. Like Sara I found it unique that the doctor showed sympathy towards these girls, yet even with prostitution being a massive issue was there no one else in a position of authority who cared enough to try and help out? Or was the stigma that existed in regards to immigrants standing in the way of "Christianly" behavior to save them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
"Ever sympathetic, Dr. Sanger saw his subjects as victims of the harsh urban environment: of family disorganization or disintegration, and especially of low wages, underemployment, and poverty," (page 288). Dr. Sanger obviously felt bad for these women, 88% of which were of the ages 15-30. I actually began to have sympathy for some of them as well. I hope those women didn't want to be prostitutes, but it was so common that they felt as if it were their only option. Men in their lives died or abandoned them and they had nothing and needed to provide for their children; this was a quick way to make money (not saying I agree with it). I kept having to second guess my feelings of sympathy because I'm sure some of the ladies made their story seem worse than it really was so that she would receive sympathy rather than looks of disgust. So many questions ran through my mind as I read. Did the friends and family they did have know what they were doing? Why didn't anyone try to stop them? What other options were there? --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find that many of these women in this section were once married and deserted. For some reason, I had not considered that even back in the nineteenth century, prostitution was a productive way to support oneself. It is also unfortunate that, as Sanger said, these women were often victim to desertion or adultery by their husbands, and unfortunately felt as though they had to resort to prostitution. I also found it fascinating that in a time where the topic of sex was taboo, the "inclination" category made up one quarter of the causes of prostitution. That does not seem to fit into my schema of the time period. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
This excerpt reveals the sad state of prostitutes in the late nineteenth century. The negative effects of urban life drove many women, the majority of whom were immigrants, to the streets to support themselves and oftentimes their families (because of husbands who had died or had deserted them). I found the studies done by Dr. Sanger to be very interesting. I agree with Mary Beth: how interesting that "inclination" drew nearly the most number of responses when women were asked why they chose prostitution. Definitely an instance that defies the stereotype concerning sex and how it was discussed in society in the late nineteenth century. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that William Sanger spent much of his analysis on the “ill treatment of parents, relatives, or husbands” when “inclination” was much higher on the list. Perhaps Sanger felt that “inclination” was the choice of the women and thus was not worthy of explanation whereas, “ill-treatment of family” was a cause that could not be avoided and thus invokes pity. It is interesting to note the own biases in his writing. Although a sound document, do you think the biases in his work hinder the information being expressed? --Hannah W.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T05:25:50Z<p>Bongo282: /* Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
We talk about how a lot of women's history comes from sources written by men. Therefore, it makes sense for African American sources to come form white owners or other white people. Gayle's diary is a perfect example. Even though she is mostly writing about her experiences, she does describe events and relationships with her slaves. Also, this source provides information not on only about African Americans but on the relationships with mistresses, who they most likely interacted the most. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
While we have talked many times in class about the acceptance of separation between men and women who are no longer happily married, it never seemed real. I was quite intrigued then when I saw in Sarah Haynesworth Gayle diary entry for "Monday 6th July 1835" that "Mr. and Mrs. Matheson have parted." It really brought out the fact that this did actually happen. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
What this text really drove home for me was how commonplace slavery was in the lives of Southerners by the 1820s and '30s. While she makes little quips about her relations with her slaves, these comments are thrown in with her everyday happenings. It also reaffirms that slave resistance was also another common aspect of the relationship between slaves and their owners as evidenced by Sarah's last entry where she comments on how difficult it is for her to control them. -- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I found the back and forth of Gayle's diary to be very telling of the environment in which slave owners were raised in a way that seems to oppose human relationships. It is clear that Gayle views her slaves as property but also provides comments that appear that she has a deeper emotional connection with them than southern society would allow for. However it appears that she doesn't recognize this connection she has with them as she also comments on how she wants to live up to the standards of slave ownership set by her parents. Could it be possible that the world in which people in the south lived totally removed their human compassion? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
While I agree with you, Rachel, that her diary shows how owner's viewed their slaves as property, I don't think it's a matter of how compassionate a white owner is. I honestly believe that many whites did not see the problem with having slaves, and thought all slaves were property. I think it is more about a question of power. Whites are expected to hold all power, so they must dominate and rule over their slaves. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
This is an important source because it shows a woman who is part of a large slave-holding family realizing the atrocity of the slave system. One particularly important realization is that "Men and women are punished when their masters and mistresses are brutes and not when they do wrong..." This notion is related to that of "The Cruel Mistress," in which the mistress would punish at her own whim regardless of whether the slaves had erred. Regardless of this insight, Chesnut still closes with "my countrywomen are as pure as angels - tho surrounded by another race who are -- the social evil!" It seems that Chesnut believes the institution of slavery is wrong but not the idea of racism. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
What is Mary Chesnut referring to when she mentions a car? Is it a carriage? Or a train car? Also, who is she referring to when she says "tho surrounded by another race who are--the social evil!" Is it the slaves? Or the men? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare, it is important (and quite refreshing) to take note that some whites in the south did think slavery was morally wrong. I think this is one of my favorite sources because not only does she discuss the wrong in the men, but also of the women. She mentions how the men and women do wrong, but go unpunished. She says, "...every lady tells you who is the father of all the Mulatto children in every body's house hold, but those in her own, she seems to think drop from the clouds or pretends so to think..." (222). She acknowledges the faults of both men and women in her society but concludes with her claiming her gratefulness for her country women. But I am a bit confused of who those country women are if they are not the ones she complains about earlier? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
<br />
Of all our readings this week, I think this is the one I'm going to be thinking about the longest. The contents were no shock to me; I've taken African American history classes and the substance of Rose Williams' life is a pretty familiar story. It felt different, though, to hear it from the source. The part which really got under my skin was at the end, when she talks about deciding never to marry because "once was enough". Being forced into something her master wanted to call a relationship, but which was only a well-organized rape, would be enough to put anybody off of the idea of marriage, but it still seems particularly sad to me because of how many ways her life might have been different if this had not happened. She also never says whether she had children, as her master wanted, and I wonder how that affected her life, as well. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
This story really captivated me. I was surprised that Rufus stayed away at night when Rose would tell him she didn't want to have relations with him. I know there is still some modesty and respect between the slaves no matter how much of a "bully" rufus was, but that really struck out to me. It was heartbreaking to know she never got married or ever wanted any other relation with a man because like Rebecca said, one time was enough. It was also surprising that from what we know from this account, Master Hawkins never had relations with Rose either to have more slave children, but instead put two slaves together and gave them a "home". Obviously, it is not the best situation, but out of the cases of master-slave rape that we have studied, this sadly seems to be of somewhat better treatment than those. -- Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really liked this excerpt because of the dialect and how it doesn't really seem like the editors took much out of her story. Through Rose's story, it showed me what life was like for slave women on a daily basis. This article also opening my eyes to how many times slaves were threatedened by their masters. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
This story is even more sad because a ninety-year-old woman is recalling her systematic rape/forced cohabitation, and her final comments about one experience being enough show that in all the years that followed her experience, she was never able to truly move past her experiences with Hawkins and Rufus. They denied her the right to choose to have a family, even as a free woman: she was so traumatized that she couldn't, even if she would have wanted to. It seems so indicative of the life of a young slave woman that she was essentially supposed to figure out why Rufus was in there with her; she essentially had to find out what was happening in bits and pieces, and the first time she was told what was actually happening it was as she was being threatened. It's also sad because as a young adult, she had a strong sense of self-preservation, and you can see that that sort of gets stamped out of her through her experiences. I agree with Rebecca, this reading will definitely stay with me most. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This passage is extremely heart breaking. She thought her new master was saving her when he purchased her. If he didn't buy her, she would have been separated from her parents. Little did she know, he wanted her so she could produce more slaves for him. She was so hurt, angry, and traumatized about the situation that she never got married. She took care of others for her entire life, until she was too old and blind to do so. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
What Rebecca said hit the nail on the head; what her new master did was "well-organized rape." I think that's exactly it. We've been talking in class about romantic relationships between slaves, and interracial romance. We've also talked a lot about rape of black women by white men. But this was something I was unprepared for. I was surprised to see not only the rape of Rose Williams by a fellow slave, but also that it was organized by a master that she believed was fairer and had the slaves' interests in mind more than her previous master. This was an interesting read because I had hardly (and this is out of ignorance) even considered the rape of black women by black men. Now that I have read this, it seems as though this was another obvious situation that may have taken place. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
<br />
How sad was this document???!!! A woman receiving her freedom and because she wanted to remain with her husband she asked to be reenslaved with her husband's master! It really makes you think of how detached these slave owners were to the human emotions of their slaves. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
This just shows the bonds that some slave families had. He or she had been sold away from each other and even though she could have made a life for herself in the North she wanted to be with her husband. I think that while this document is sad because it shows how slave families were broken up over plantations it also shows how much love these lave families were able to develop. –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
I am confused as to why she was so adamant and trying to guilt trip them into signing the petitions. What good would an anti-slavery petition do? It would make people aware of how many people were against slavery, but it's not like it would stop it from happening. --Ashley V<br />
<br />
== Mary Still, black abolitionist, along with other Philadelphia free women, forms “Female Publication Society” to promote the moral uplift of free and slave African Americans, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that Still follows the narrative of slaves being wicked and ignorant - isn't that what the masters said to justify slavery? (And explain mistakes made by slaves.) I can't really tell how she thinks that the moral state of slaves and the institution of slavery are linked. Would slaves (or even many free blacks) have access to a publication like the Christian Recorder anyway? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting. It showed the different between two different slaves experiences told from the perspective of one. It allows the reader to gain an understanding of what the slaves saw rather than being told what they went through. I thought that it was interesting point of view. –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
<br />
There were so many disturbing things in this article that it's hard to know where to start. I guess one thing I found particularly striking was the general ignorance about health - it's okay to beat a pregnant woman as long as you dig a hole for her stomach first? Did they really think that did anything at all to protect the fetus? I was also really surprised by the frequent use of the word "breeders." Was that how slave women would have referred to themselves, or how whites would have referred to them, or was that a later term? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
Thelma Jenning's article really had me thinking about how often an occurrence Master and Slave produced children were. I automatically thought about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemming's and the result of their children (never sold and easily escaped). I never realized, however, the issue that was slave breeding. It makes (unfortunate) sense that it occurred because of the economics behind it, but even though this practice was not reportedly common, I wonder how often it really occurred. I also wonder when this practice was actually started, did it come out of the line of thought which included livestock breeding? Or was eugenics really being put into practice?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
This article was disturbing on so many levels. I understand they were telling it like it was, but there is total disregard for a human life. The talk about these slaves like they were livestock, "cow & bull". To breed these slaves was for economic reasons, was money so important back then or were you judged by how many slaves you had? or both? If the white men didn't want to claim their mulatto children then they should have refrained from having sexual relations with these slaves. What did these men think was going to happen if they did have relations with these slaves? or did they even care? Profit was the main goal.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
== "A Reply to Harriet Beecher Stowe" Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening and so interesting. True, she was writing things that by today's standards are offensive and politically incorrect, but this is what primary sources offer to us, someone who isn't ashamed to admit their beliefs. I want to offer a quote from the reading "To Conclude. We have undertaken the defence of slavery in no temporizing vein. We do NOT say it is a necessary evil. We do NOT allow that it is a temporary make-shift to choke the course of Providence for man's convenience. It is NOT 'a sorrow and a wrong to be lived down.' We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless." (page 219). Understanding this statement helps one understand the entire patriarchal society. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Louisa McCords writing, she posed some very good points in comparison to what Ms. Stowe had written in ''Uncle Tom's Cabin''. Such as the fact that Ms. Stowe had never lived in the heart of the South, or that while Mrs. Shelby was suppose to be a strong intelligent woman she was portrayed as almost weak. While Ms. McCord made some very well argued points the one I could never agree with is that the black man is intellectually inferior to the white man. "Mrs. Stowe, in spite of experience, in spite of science, determines that the negro is intellectually the white man's equal." There is not science stating that they are unequal and how can she say that Mrs. Stowe has never experienced the intelligence of a black man? Just because she lived in the north doesn't mean she never came in contact with them. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
The sarcastic tone of this writing really drove me nuts. I realize that comes from a modern perspective, but McCord's alleged appeals to "science" and "common sense", meant to prove that slaves are obviously better off in slavery are just that much more infuriating because of the superior tone she uses. The other thing, more intellectually interesting than annoying, is that her critique of the fictional Mrs. Shelby is very gendered. She excuses Mr. Shelby's actions on the grounds that he is clearly hen-pecked and his crazy abolitionist wife has just driven him nuts. I have never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I wonder what the context for this passage really is- I highly doubt that McCord is an unbiased commentator. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Rebecca wrote, I also was struck by the sarcasm and snide remarks made by L.S.M. It was frustrating to read of how slavery was a HELPFUL institution to the slave race, who were a "blot upon creation" (220). The idea that slavery was an institution motivated by white benevolence is infuriating to read, especially after reading Angelina Weld's account of a cruel slave-owning mistress. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I had an incredibly hard time not skipping the tail end of this article, or, better, ripping it out. The idea that human beings could be viewed as "the homeless, useless negro...[who is] a blot upon creation...[and] a wild man" is deeply disturbing to me. Of course we've studied the institution of slavery itself, and how slaves were viewed in order to enable that institution, but the sarcasm dripping from this article, coupled with the casual nature with which McCord dismisses an entire race of people as a "blot upon creation," was a deeper level of acidity and hatred than I'd really seen before. McCord does not view slavery as a necessary evil, or an evil of any kind; she views it almost, it seems, as a kindness to slaves that just happens to be enormously profitable to white slaveowners. Sara makes an excellent point--that this has to be contextualized in the time period in which it was written--but even then, the fact that McCord denies that it's a necessary evil shows that at the very least, she had some sense of why Stowe wrote what she did, and what Stowe had meant to convey. I truly find it difficult to imagine that she was simply a product of her society, despite what Sara said; it seems to me that her hatred of slaves and championing of slavery hints at perhaps an unusually slavery-positive upbringing; it surprises me that, given her time in the North, she wasn't at least somewhat more neutral... -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I agree with Nicole. I was really upset that she had the nerve to justify slavery and every bad thing that goes with it. When she says "Slavery, even in his own land, is his destiny and his refuge from extinction." I wanted to yell at her, are you so self important that you think that there are humans (black or white) who are beneath you? I think the answer is "yes!" This was their train of thought during this time frame though, and it almost seems like they may have thought they were wrong but they still bought, sold, beat and made the slaves feel inferior. I also fell that God was used as a way to say, hey what we are doing is God's will. They hid behind their religion, like in the document ''The Cruel Mistress''. -- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimke Weld ''The Cruel Mistress'' -- 1839 ==<br />
<br />
In this source we hear the horrid stories of slavery. However, it is different because it does not focus on the oppressive white male but on the mistress. It is interesting to see the fault in white women. Also, it is interesting that Weld pushes on the physically abuse. She has to argue that most slave owners act like this cruel mistress. Even though she hints at slaves with souls, she focuses on the physically abuse. Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I think it is important that Angelina Grimke Weld continually emphasizes the the cruel mistress in question is "at the head of the fashionable elite city of Charleston" and more importantly "at the head of the moral and religious female society there." It is astounding that someone who claims to be of moral and pious authority can be so abusive and uncaring. However, the violence against the slaves is justified by slaveholders because slaves are viewed as property and not actual human beings. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Clare wrote I have to point at that even Grimke ackonledges the belief that "God in his providence had set over them--it was their DUTY to abide in abject submission, and hers to COMPEL them to do so--IT WAS THUS THAT SHE REASONED" (page 216. the Capitalization is in place of italics). This wasn't about cruelty to the woman mistresses, rather a belief that the slave was not a human being (mentioned at the end of the document). i also have to wonder to what extent the women mistresses were so violent and cruel had to do with an inadvert expression of their distaste for their own oppression. The slaves offerred them power so they took full advantage of it. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
While reading this entry I couldn't help but doubt that humans could ever be this cruel. That Angelina Grimke Weld must be exaggerating the cruelness of slave owners, particularly because she is against the whole idea. But when you think about it, the evidence of the cruelty humans are capable of is all around us. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Hypocrisy abounds in Weld's description of a slave-owning mistress and how she treats her slaves yet maintains her role as a religious woman in the Charleston community. The justification that it was a slave's "duty to abide in abject submission" is another reflection of the cruel slave society. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
We always mention the reasoning behind slavery and how Christianity "supported" it. But even with a different mentality from now and back in the time of Angelina Gimke Weld (1839), how could one explain that the same place for prayer and worship, was the same place for punishment (an inhumane and cruel punishment at that). I found it so mind boggling that she "order brothers to whip their own sisters and sisters their own brother, and yet no woman visited among the poor more than she did, or gave more liberally to relieve their wants." (216) I understand slavery was acceptable, but this torture and punishment is almost inexplicable. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
In reading this source the part that struck me the most was when Weld said, in regards to this woman's cruel behavior that, " no disgrace among the slaveholders and did not in the least injure her standing, either as a lady or a christian, in the aristocratic circle in which she moved." It appears that Weld sees that christianity has been tainted by southern views to accommodate the treatment of slaveowners onto their slaves. Could it be assumed that a part of Weld's reaction to the South can be derived from Southerners skewing the ideals of christianity to fit their slave driven lifestyle? For people like this cruel woman she discusses not only inhumanly treat their slaves but devalue a religion that is so important to those in the north. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
I think the most disturbing part of this article was when Weld was describing the mistress as a "Christian." Using the room she prayed in as "the very place in which, when her slaves were to be whipped with the cowhide, they were taken to receive the infliction." The behavior of this woman was absolutely disgusting. How she could carry herself throughout town as a "lady" and treat her slaves in the way she did, it seems unbelievable that this was ignored. We think in our current society if this treatment was going on that we might step in and help whoever was getting abused. Such a sad part of our history. --Remy B.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T04:56:40Z<p>Bongo282: /* "A Reply to Harriet Beecher Stowe" Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, 1853 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
We talk about how a lot of women's history comes from sources written by men. Therefore, it makes sense for African American sources to come form white owners or other white people. Gayle's diary is a perfect example. Even though she is mostly writing about her experiences, she does describe events and relationships with her slaves. Also, this source provides information not on only about African Americans but on the relationships with mistresses, who they most likely interacted the most. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
While we have talked many times in class about the acceptance of separation between men and women who are no longer happily married, it never seemed real. I was quite intrigued then when I saw in Sarah Haynesworth Gayle diary entry for "Monday 6th July 1835" that "Mr. and Mrs. Matheson have parted." It really brought out the fact that this did actually happen. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
What this text really drove home for me was how commonplace slavery was in the lives of Southerners by the 1820s and '30s. While she makes little quips about her relations with her slaves, these comments are thrown in with her everyday happenings. It also reaffirms that slave resistance was also another common aspect of the relationship between slaves and their owners as evidenced by Sarah's last entry where she comments on how difficult it is for her to control them. -- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I found the back and forth of Gayle's diary to be very telling of the environment in which slave owners were raised in a way that seems to oppose human relationships. It is clear that Gayle views her slaves as property but also provides comments that appear that she has a deeper emotional connection with them than southern society would allow for. However it appears that she doesn't recognize this connection she has with them as she also comments on how she wants to live up to the standards of slave ownership set by her parents. Could it be possible that the world in which people in the south lived totally removed their human compassion? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
While I agree with you, Rachel, that her diary shows how owner's viewed their slaves as property, I don't think it's a matter of how compassionate a white owner is. I honestly believe that many whites did not see the problem with having slaves, and thought all slaves were property. I think it is more about a question of power. Whites are expected to hold all power, so they must dominate and rule over their slaves. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
This is an important source because it shows a woman who is part of a large slave-holding family realizing the atrocity of the slave system. One particularly important realization is that "Men and women are punished when their masters and mistresses are brutes and not when they do wrong..." This notion is related to that of "The Cruel Mistress," in which the mistress would punish at her own whim regardless of whether the slaves had erred. Regardless of this insight, Chesnut still closes with "my countrywomen are as pure as angels - tho surrounded by another race who are -- the social evil!" It seems that Chesnut believes the institution of slavery is wrong but not the idea of racism. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
What is Mary Chesnut referring to when she mentions a car? Is it a carriage? Or a train car? Also, who is she referring to when she says "tho surrounded by another race who are--the social evil!" Is it the slaves? Or the men? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare, it is important (and quite refreshing) to take note that some whites in the south did think slavery was morally wrong. I think this is one of my favorite sources because not only does she discuss the wrong in the men, but also of the women. She mentions how the men and women do wrong, but go unpunished. She says, "...every lady tells you who is the father of all the Mulatto children in every body's house hold, but those in her own, she seems to think drop from the clouds or pretends so to think..." (222). She acknowledges the faults of both men and women in her society but concludes with her claiming her gratefulness for her country women. But I am a bit confused of who those country women are if they are not the ones she complains about earlier? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
<br />
Of all our readings this week, I think this is the one I'm going to be thinking about the longest. The contents were no shock to me; I've taken African American history classes and the substance of Rose Williams' life is a pretty familiar story. It felt different, though, to hear it from the source. The part which really got under my skin was at the end, when she talks about deciding never to marry because "once was enough". Being forced into something her master wanted to call a relationship, but which was only a well-organized rape, would be enough to put anybody off of the idea of marriage, but it still seems particularly sad to me because of how many ways her life might have been different if this had not happened. She also never says whether she had children, as her master wanted, and I wonder how that affected her life, as well. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
This story really captivated me. I was surprised that Rufus stayed away at night when Rose would tell him she didn't want to have relations with him. I know there is still some modesty and respect between the slaves no matter how much of a "bully" rufus was, but that really struck out to me. It was heartbreaking to know she never got married or ever wanted any other relation with a man because like Rebecca said, one time was enough. It was also surprising that from what we know from this account, Master Hawkins never had relations with Rose either to have more slave children, but instead put two slaves together and gave them a "home". Obviously, it is not the best situation, but out of the cases of master-slave rape that we have studied, this sadly seems to be of somewhat better treatment than those. -- Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really liked this excerpt because of the dialect and how it doesn't really seem like the editors took much out of her story. Through Rose's story, it showed me what life was like for slave women on a daily basis. This article also opening my eyes to how many times slaves were threatedened by their masters. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
This story is even more sad because a ninety-year-old woman is recalling her systematic rape/forced cohabitation, and her final comments about one experience being enough show that in all the years that followed her experience, she was never able to truly move past her experiences with Hawkins and Rufus. They denied her the right to choose to have a family, even as a free woman: she was so traumatized that she couldn't, even if she would have wanted to. It seems so indicative of the life of a young slave woman that she was essentially supposed to figure out why Rufus was in there with her; she essentially had to find out what was happening in bits and pieces, and the first time she was told what was actually happening it was as she was being threatened. It's also sad because as a young adult, she had a strong sense of self-preservation, and you can see that that sort of gets stamped out of her through her experiences. I agree with Rebecca, this reading will definitely stay with me most. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This passage is extremely heart breaking. She thought her new master was saving her when he purchased her. If he didn't buy her, she would have been separated from her parents. Little did she know, he wanted her so she could produce more slaves for him. She was so hurt, angry, and traumatized about the situation that she never got married. She took care of others for her entire life, until she was too old and blind to do so. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
What Rebecca said hit the nail on the head; what her new master did was "well-organized rape." I think that's exactly it. We've been talking in class about romantic relationships between slaves, and interracial romance. We've also talked a lot about rape of black women by white men. But this was something I was unprepared for. I was surprised to see not only the rape of Rose Williams by a fellow slave, but also that it was organized by a master that she believed was fairer and had the slaves' interests in mind more than her previous master. This was an interesting read because I had hardly (and this is out of ignorance) even considered the rape of black women by black men. Now that I have read this, it seems as though this was another obvious situation that may have taken place. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
<br />
How sad was this document???!!! A woman receiving her freedom and because she wanted to remain with her husband she asked to be reenslaved with her husband's master! It really makes you think of how detached these slave owners were to the human emotions of their slaves. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
This just shows the bonds that some slave families had. He or she had been sold away from each other and even though she could have made a life for herself in the North she wanted to be with her husband. I think that while this document is sad because it shows how slave families were broken up over plantations it also shows how much love these lave families were able to develop. –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
I am confused as to why she was so adamant and trying to guilt trip them into signing the petitions. What good would an anti-slavery petition do? It would make people aware of how many people were against slavery, but it's not like it would stop it from happening. --Ashley V<br />
<br />
== Mary Still, black abolitionist, along with other Philadelphia free women, forms “Female Publication Society” to promote the moral uplift of free and slave African Americans, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that Still follows the narrative of slaves being wicked and ignorant - isn't that what the masters said to justify slavery? (And explain mistakes made by slaves.) I can't really tell how she thinks that the moral state of slaves and the institution of slavery are linked. Would slaves (or even many free blacks) have access to a publication like the Christian Recorder anyway? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting. It showed the different between two different slaves experiences told from the perspective of one. It allows the reader to gain an understanding of what the slaves saw rather than being told what they went through. I thought that it was interesting point of view. –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
<br />
There were so many disturbing things in this article that it's hard to know where to start. I guess one thing I found particularly striking was the general ignorance about health - it's okay to beat a pregnant woman as long as you dig a hole for her stomach first? Did they really think that did anything at all to protect the fetus? I was also really surprised by the frequent use of the word "breeders." Was that how slave women would have referred to themselves, or how whites would have referred to them, or was that a later term? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
Thelma Jenning's article really had me thinking about how often an occurrence Master and Slave produced children were. I automatically thought about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemming's and the result of their children (never sold and easily escaped). I never realized, however, the issue that was slave breeding. It makes (unfortunate) sense that it occurred because of the economics behind it, but even though this practice was not reportedly common, I wonder how often it really occurred. I also wonder when this practice was actually started, did it come out of the line of thought which included livestock breeding? Or was eugenics really being put into practice?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
== "A Reply to Harriet Beecher Stowe" Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening and so interesting. True, she was writing things that by today's standards are offensive and politically incorrect, but this is what primary sources offer to us, someone who isn't ashamed to admit their beliefs. I want to offer a quote from the reading "To Conclude. We have undertaken the defence of slavery in no temporizing vein. We do NOT say it is a necessary evil. We do NOT allow that it is a temporary make-shift to choke the course of Providence for man's convenience. It is NOT 'a sorrow and a wrong to be lived down.' We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless." (page 219). Understanding this statement helps one understand the entire patriarchal society. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Louisa McCords writing, she posed some very good points in comparison to what Ms. Stowe had written in ''Uncle Tom's Cabin''. Such as the fact that Ms. Stowe had never lived in the heart of the South, or that while Mrs. Shelby was suppose to be a strong intelligent woman she was portrayed as almost weak. While Ms. McCord made some very well argued points the one I could never agree with is that the black man is intellectually inferior to the white man. "Mrs. Stowe, in spite of experience, in spite of science, determines that the negro is intellectually the white man's equal." There is not science stating that they are unequal and how can she say that Mrs. Stowe has never experienced the intelligence of a black man? Just because she lived in the north doesn't mean she never came in contact with them. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
The sarcastic tone of this writing really drove me nuts. I realize that comes from a modern perspective, but McCord's alleged appeals to "science" and "common sense", meant to prove that slaves are obviously better off in slavery are just that much more infuriating because of the superior tone she uses. The other thing, more intellectually interesting than annoying, is that her critique of the fictional Mrs. Shelby is very gendered. She excuses Mr. Shelby's actions on the grounds that he is clearly hen-pecked and his crazy abolitionist wife has just driven him nuts. I have never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I wonder what the context for this passage really is- I highly doubt that McCord is an unbiased commentator. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Rebecca wrote, I also was struck by the sarcasm and snide remarks made by L.S.M. It was frustrating to read of how slavery was a HELPFUL institution to the slave race, who were a "blot upon creation" (220). The idea that slavery was an institution motivated by white benevolence is infuriating to read, especially after reading Angelina Weld's account of a cruel slave-owning mistress. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I had an incredibly hard time not skipping the tail end of this article, or, better, ripping it out. The idea that human beings could be viewed as "the homeless, useless negro...[who is] a blot upon creation...[and] a wild man" is deeply disturbing to me. Of course we've studied the institution of slavery itself, and how slaves were viewed in order to enable that institution, but the sarcasm dripping from this article, coupled with the casual nature with which McCord dismisses an entire race of people as a "blot upon creation," was a deeper level of acidity and hatred than I'd really seen before. McCord does not view slavery as a necessary evil, or an evil of any kind; she views it almost, it seems, as a kindness to slaves that just happens to be enormously profitable to white slaveowners. Sara makes an excellent point--that this has to be contextualized in the time period in which it was written--but even then, the fact that McCord denies that it's a necessary evil shows that at the very least, she had some sense of why Stowe wrote what she did, and what Stowe had meant to convey. I truly find it difficult to imagine that she was simply a product of her society, despite what Sara said; it seems to me that her hatred of slaves and championing of slavery hints at perhaps an unusually slavery-positive upbringing; it surprises me that, given her time in the North, she wasn't at least somewhat more neutral... -- Nicole<br />
<br />
I agree with Nicole. I was really upset that she had the nerve to justify slavery and every bad thing that goes with it. When she says "Slavery, even in his own land, is his destiny and his refuge from extinction." I wanted to yell at her, are you so self important that you think that there are humans (black or white) who are beneath you? I think the answer is "yes!" This was their train of thought during this time frame though, and it almost seems like they may have thought they were wrong but they still bought, sold, beat and made the slaves feel inferior. I also fell that God was used as a way to say, hey what we are doing is God's will. They hid behind their religion, like in the document ''The Cruel Mistress''. -- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimke Weld ''The Cruel Mistress'' -- 1839 ==<br />
<br />
In this source we hear the horrid stories of slavery. However, it is different because it does not focus on the oppressive white male but on the mistress. It is interesting to see the fault in white women. Also, it is interesting that Weld pushes on the physically abuse. She has to argue that most slave owners act like this cruel mistress. Even though she hints at slaves with souls, she focuses on the physically abuse. Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I think it is important that Angelina Grimke Weld continually emphasizes the the cruel mistress in question is "at the head of the fashionable elite city of Charleston" and more importantly "at the head of the moral and religious female society there." It is astounding that someone who claims to be of moral and pious authority can be so abusive and uncaring. However, the violence against the slaves is justified by slaveholders because slaves are viewed as property and not actual human beings. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Clare wrote I have to point at that even Grimke ackonledges the belief that "God in his providence had set over them--it was their DUTY to abide in abject submission, and hers to COMPEL them to do so--IT WAS THUS THAT SHE REASONED" (page 216. the Capitalization is in place of italics). This wasn't about cruelty to the woman mistresses, rather a belief that the slave was not a human being (mentioned at the end of the document). i also have to wonder to what extent the women mistresses were so violent and cruel had to do with an inadvert expression of their distaste for their own oppression. The slaves offerred them power so they took full advantage of it. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
While reading this entry I couldn't help but doubt that humans could ever be this cruel. That Angelina Grimke Weld must be exaggerating the cruelness of slave owners, particularly because she is against the whole idea. But when you think about it, the evidence of the cruelty humans are capable of is all around us. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Hypocrisy abounds in Weld's description of a slave-owning mistress and how she treats her slaves yet maintains her role as a religious woman in the Charleston community. The justification that it was a slave's "duty to abide in abject submission" is another reflection of the cruel slave society. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
We always mention the reasoning behind slavery and how Christianity "supported" it. But even with a different mentality from now and back in the time of Angelina Gimke Weld (1839), how could one explain that the same place for prayer and worship, was the same place for punishment (an inhumane and cruel punishment at that). I found it so mind boggling that she "order brothers to whip their own sisters and sisters their own brother, and yet no woman visited among the poor more than she did, or gave more liberally to relieve their wants." (216) I understand slavery was acceptable, but this torture and punishment is almost inexplicable. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
In reading this source the part that struck me the most was when Weld said, in regards to this woman's cruel behavior that, " no disgrace among the slaveholders and did not in the least injure her standing, either as a lady or a christian, in the aristocratic circle in which she moved." It appears that Weld sees that christianity has been tainted by southern views to accommodate the treatment of slaveowners onto their slaves. Could it be assumed that a part of Weld's reaction to the South can be derived from Southerners skewing the ideals of christianity to fit their slave driven lifestyle? For people like this cruel woman she discusses not only inhumanly treat their slaves but devalue a religion that is so important to those in the north. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
I think the most disturbing part of this article was when Weld was describing the mistress as a "Christian." Using the room she prayed in as "the very place in which, when her slaves were to be whipped with the cowhide, they were taken to receive the infliction." The behavior of this woman was absolutely disgusting. How she could carry herself throughout town as a "lady" and treat her slaves in the way she did, it seems unbelievable that this was ignored. We think in our current society if this treatment was going on that we might step in and help whoever was getting abused. Such a sad part of our history. --Remy B.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T01:24:05Z<p>Bongo282: /* Xin Jin's Contract, San Francisco, 1886 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
For Irish families, such as the Conway's, having a family member make the voyage to America was incredibly difficult. The likelihood of that family member returning to Ireland was very low. Mary Ann Sadlier describes this sentiment vividly by saying her family "felt at the moment as if they had left Bessy in the churchyard clay," likening Bessy's voyage to America to being like her death. This separation was not easy for Bessy or other Irish women for that matter. Perhaps this is why when Bessy arrived in New York, her "comrade-girls" assured her they were happy to see her and kind to her. These women want to try and form bonds with each other since they are all in similar situations. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Sadlier wrote out Irish accents was really interesting. At first I thought maybe she was caricaturing the immigrants by exaggerating their accents, but then I found out that she was Irish herself. I also thought the interactions she wrote between the Irish men discussing whether or not selling alcohol was okay seemed really honest. I would have assumed initially that this was written by a white woman trying to scold Irish girls on the dangers of alcohol and men and probably not holding a very high opinion of her readers; After realizing the author had gone through experiences like this herself, I trusted the story she was telling a bit more. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
<br />
I think one of the remarkable things about Saehle's letter to her brother is that she has a strong faith. She even remarks that she wasn't even scared on her journey to America and slept peacefully. Her high spirit and faith are really what keeps her going. I wonder how many other women had as positive experience as her in their travels to America? Was she an exception? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
What I found interesting about these bills of sale is how they reflect the situations these women were going through when they had to to be sold. While today a sum of $470, like in Mee Yung's case (page 237) is laughable for four years of service today, we cannot know why or what the money paid for. Most likely this money went to paying for her passage over or to her destitute parents who desperately needed the money or thought her too much the burden to raise. I do wonder where this money went and whether these women survived and moved beyond prostitution. -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
What I found interesting about this primary document is how the notion of men being in constant search of sex is evolving. Instead of marking the Lieutenants acts of rape as manly and normal, citizens are instead standing up for these "squaws" and are arguing that he should be punished. Although this document still evidences to the prejudice against natives, there is a change in ideals of how men should treat all women and it makes me wonder if this change was drawn out or abrupt and what sparked the need for men's ideals to change.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I wonder what this says about the status of Native Americans in California at this time. Where did Native American women fit on the spectrum of "white women are pure and asexual, black women want sex all the time?" I guess they must have been closer to white women, in that it wasn't considered okay for the Lieutenant to rape her. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
This was so sad. They were talking about what their family was going through and the hardships they had to face like moving west away from everything that they had known into a land that they were not familiar with. While they choose to go through all of this, I still think that it was so sad! –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
This was so complicated to get a pension. She had to know all of the information down to dates, people, time, places. I don’t think that I would have been able to keep all of that information straight and all she was trying to do was get money that she was mostly likely entitled to. It is sad that she had to put that much effort into getting something that she deserves. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, San Francisco, 1886==<br />
<br />
When reading the Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, I was surprised by how standard they are. All work for about four years, are paid no wages, and there is no interest on the money. Furthermore, extended periods of sickness add a month to the service. What I thought was most surprising was that the Chinese prostitutes all are contracted with other Chinese people. I had assumed they would be contracted to American people. I wonder why some Chinese did well enough to contract prostitutes while others did poor enough to have to work as prostitutes. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
I actually had a problem with the introduction to this article. It talks about women existing as prostitutes but does not acknowledge why these women were there as prostitutes. This was NOT like the prostitution of white society. First, there were laws prohibiting all asians, but particularly women (who to the whites were of NO use but sexuality). Secondly, It was forbidden for these asian men to fraternize with women who were not asian. Their numbers were not as high as that of blacks in the south so disobeying this law was not common and was severely punishable. The existence of prostitution had nothing to do with one being well-off enough to contract a woman to be a prositute, but had more do to with the fact that these women had to be brought in illegally due to American immigration laws and cost a lot of time and money to do so. It is not mentioned in the introduction to this paragraph and is put immediately after a document about white prostitutes and i feel this is in bad taste. The hardships of Asians in America even until the end of the 1900's are not that easily comparable to the hardships of those who could "pass" as english. --Sara S<br />
<br />
In reading the XIn Jin article what stood out is the fact that 28% of Chinese women were involved in prostitution during this period. Even though this is a significant number it goes against the stereotype of early Chinese immigrants where its assumed that the minimal number of women who did live in the US where all there as prostitutes. It is my guess that the lives these woman were forced to live is what stands out when viewing chinese females in this region. However, I found the experience to Xin Jin to be very similar to the women described in the New York Prostitutes reading where once again men are controlling the sexual lives of these women. Forced into a life where sexual favors are their only means of survival helps to solidify to men and non immigrant women that these immigrant females were inferior in every way. Is that negative stereotype still carried on to todays view of early Chinese immigration, where admittedly I even viewed the majority of these women, to be just prostitutes? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Did these women choose to come to America, or were they forced? Was life in China really that bad? I don't understand why they would put themselves through this when they don't get any benefits from it. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
How sad that she was treated like an item or something you trade. I was also wondering about what four loathsome disease's she could get? Also four and a half years for $524, I guess back then it was a lot of money and the restrictions she had on that loan must have been awful. It also sound like to me that they didn't treat the Chinese women very well and they had no other job skills so they could make their life better. I wonder, like Ashley, did these women come forced or because they wanted to?-- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== New York Prositutes by William Sanger, 1858==<br />
"'When a woman drinks she is lost.' It will be conceded that the habit of intoxication in woman, if not an indication of actual depravity or vice, is a sure precursor of it, for drunkenness and debauchery are inspearable companions, one almost invariably following the other." page 290. I choose this quote to exemplify this document for a couple of reasons. 1. it is actually funny to think about how alcohol was viewed as this causer of evil, not as though the person was evil and alcohol just allowed them to be evil. 2. Because it does not mention the debauchery of men while they drink and is only concerned with women's behavior when the entire prohbition and temperance movement sprung out of woman's desire for men to stop drinking away all of the family's money, sleeping with prostitutes and beating there wives when drunk. 3. I think the sympathy which the doctor had to these prostitutes is remarkable for the time period in which it existed. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This reading exemplifies the other side of the budding female independence that was taking shape during the rise of factories and cities. With previous readings it appeared that by young women stepping outside of the home to work in factories was a viable way for them to financially support themselves until marriage. Here the opposite of that is examined where women attempt to go out in the world but then struggle to survive and thus have to degrade themselves in order to live. With almost every case the reasoning concludes with mans shortcomings as a provider and caretaker for the woman, demonstrating that this view of the independent factory girl was far from being economically stable. Like Sara I found it unique that the doctor showed sympathy towards these girls, yet even with prostitution being a massive issue was there no one else in a position of authority who cared enough to try and help out? Or was the stigma that existed in regards to immigrants standing in the way of "Christianly" behavior to save them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
"Ever sympathetic, Dr. Sanger saw his subjects as victims of the harsh urban environment: of family disorganization or disintegration, and especially of low wages, underemployment, and poverty," (page 288). Dr. Sanger obviously felt bad for these women, 88% of which were of the ages 15-30. I actually began to have sympathy for some of them as well. I hope those women didn't want to be prostitutes, but it was so common that they felt as if it were their only option. Men in their lives died or abandoned them and they had nothing and needed to provide for their children; this was a quick way to make money (not saying I agree with it). I kept having to second guess my feelings of sympathy because I'm sure some of the ladies made their story seem worse than it really was so that she would receive sympathy rather than looks of disgust. So many questions ran through my mind as I read. Did the friends and family they did have know what they were doing? Why didn't anyone try to stop them? What other options were there? --Ashley V.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-30T01:53:06Z<p>Bongo282: /* Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Answer to your question, I do think women feel that they have more a choice in marriage than the previous generations. According to class and the readings, the romantic notions are beginning to come out and women are looking for Men to fulfill that ideal companionate role in a marriage, women would hold off if they felt like they did not find the right partner. Marriage was still valued and more than desired by most women at this time, but they were definitely getting pickier about who they wanted to marry. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In "Matrimonial Risks," Willard seems to be attempting to warn her sister off of all marriages and all relationships; the advice she gives is so generalized against marriage that it almost seems that she must have been unhappy in her marriage. I started reading this expecting, based on the editors' introduction, for Willard to be essentially warning her sister off of Lincoln. On the contrary, it almost seems that Willard is trying to warn her sister off of any and all marriage. Intriguingly, she then tells her sister she'd love to see Lincoln and visit with him. I got such mixed signals from this letter that I'm really wondering whether Willard disliked Lincoln (if so, why say she'd like to see him?) or the idea of her sister getting married at all (and if that, why? Most women wound up married!) -- Nicole<br />
<br />
Nicole-I got the feeling that Emma Willard wanted to meet her sister's suitor in order to get a better feeling if he really loved her or if he had bad intentions. I think she's bitter about her marriage and therefore is viewing it negatively. --Remy<br />
<br />
This reading was quite depressing how she wrote about how she should question her happiness. This shows how unhappy Emma was herself. I wonder how common this was among most women? --Emma<br />
<br />
Emma Willard was forthright in giving advice to her younger sister Almira in regards to the decision of marriage and finding the proper suitor. In the letter she wrote to Almira, she stated “. . .and we will likewise pass over the possibility of your lover’s seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you, and likewise that you may hereafter discover some imperfection in his character. We will pass this over, and suppose that the sanction of the law has been passed upon your connection, and you are secured to each other for life” (144). It seems as though Emma is trying to think of every situation that could go wrong in a relationship, and she is attempting to discourage her younger sister for marrying for any reason, including for love or for money. Why was the idea of marriage for love considered such a risk? In today’s society, love is considered the fortifying reason for a couple to enter into matrimony together. Could it be possible that Emma was merely jealous of her younger sister because she had found a wealthy suitor that wanted to marry her, whereas Emma was once happily married and living comfortably until her husband’s finances collapsed? Emma is clearly unhappy in her own life, and in reading this excerpt, I detected a bit of jealousy towards her sisters potential happiness and wealth. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
In response to Lindsey--I understand Catherine's response, but according to the reading, her second husband took all of her money and spent it with his gambling issue. Obviously, she will begin to question marriage and the idea of love. I honestly do not think that Emma was jealous of her sister, but rather she was heartbroken and concerned for her sister. I thought it was interesting that in all of these marriage readings, parental advice has not really been shown. --Aqsa Z. <br />
<br />
I think the idea of marrying someone because you loved them was so risky because if the person you loved couldn't provide for you, how would that make you look in society? The purpose of marriage was so that the husband could provide for his wife and children. I think that Emma may have been jealous of her sister for finding a husband, but I also think that she was unhappy because she couldn't marry for love. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I think Willard is caught in a time when the idea of marriage is changing. Unfortunately, she is getting stuck between love and marriage for providing. She is having contemplating if love is necessary and also if she even wants love. I also wonder if she knows what kind of love she wants. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
In answer to the above question. I think that in the early 1800s we are starting to see more papers and magazines geared towards women in the homes and plantation. At this time we start to see magazines such as Sarah Hales "Ladies Magazine," and Catharine Beecher's writings on "System and Order". These are just a few of the many self help books that started being published at this time, as well as the development of new magazines for women. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I also wonder if magazines and publications aimed towards women weren't as likely to be preserved? A lady's magazine might have been more likely to be thrown away or cut up for sewing patterns or whatever than publications aimed at men. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Katie, I don't think in the beginning women's publications were viewed as important as ones written by men. Gradually I do think they see the importance and they become more accepted. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with all of your comments above and I also think we see a little bit of romance on her part. In the beginning of her marriage they were very loving to each other but as life got in the way she was growing miserable and upset that he didn’t want to spend that time with her anymore. Her romantic feelings for him were still there and you see that when she is hoping to spend time with him alone and he comes home with a friend and they talk about work all night. The “honeymoon phase” was over and her marriage became a product of the society for this period. – Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
In response to Hannah, this schedule does seem a little strict to modern day women, who are accustomed to having a routine at home. The women that Beecher was writing to had no systems at all (at least none that were acceptable for the new middle class). Whenever you begin a new system or routine, you have to begin by being very strict and regimented, and once they (in this case, Beecher's audience) get the hang of it, people are free to make their own judgment calls and make adjustments as needed. Plus, when laundry takes 4 days in a week, there's only so many ways you can change the schedule. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Hannah-I agree the schedule does seem strict but I think Beecher might have been giving it as an example to follow. With so much to do on a daily basis I think that having a system probably helped housewives do everything neccessary by themselves! (As much as we don't like it) --Remy B.<br />
<br />
The two things that interested me the most in Catharine Beecher's "System and Order" was here description of how to manage work within the week and the mode of "systematizing, [relating] to providing proper supplies of conveniences." The details for arranging a week seem quite logical and in fact are similar to actually accounts I have read that follow a similar outline. It does not seem That Catharine's ideas on this front could have been that new. As for the arranging items in particular places, did women really have the extra rooms just for doing laundry? And why, for the trunks full of extra supplies, were they kept locked? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer S, I think that Beecher asserts that women should have extra rooms solely for laundry so as to make the household even more organized. Her whole document is called "System and Order," so to do laundry in any other place in the home besides the room devoted specifically to it would disrupt the order and cleanliness of the household. Also, perhaps the trunks full of extra supplies were kept locked so that children could not get into them and disrupt the order the wife had put them in. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
But did families at that time actually have rooms devoted to laundry? Were houses built with laundry rooms in mind? Or was this just an ideal that Catharine Beecher writes about? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I would assume that most of the women reading the book did not have extra rooms for laundry. I think Beecher is talking about an ideal. But, I think it is interesting that today we have just that a "laundry room" in most houses. --- Michelle .<br />
<br />
I agree. if Beecher is talking about people with extra room just for laundry, she's writing to a very small audience of rather wealthy women. Her experience of running a household probably isn't like the experiences of poorer women; they were more likely to have other work to do too, I imagine. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Remy, yes I also felt that she was pretty unhappy. The last line of the essay stood out to me, "I do hope...to order my house for that better world where self may lose something of its engrossing power." This read to me, "things will be better when I'm dead." Pretty sad. A certain amount of risk accompanies any choice. If women have more freedom to choose their marital partners, they also have to accept the consequences of their decisions. In Sedgwick's case, she rejected a few suitors because they didn't meet her expectations. Because she only has herself to blame (instead of blaming her parents or society, or just accepting an unpleasant marriage without question, as would have happened in the past), it seems like it makes her loneliness more painful. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Like Emma, Catherine seems unhappy about her life, only she is not married. It was interesting to see how women felt about their decision to not marry. Once again, I wonder how common this unhappiness is. Is it more common to be unhappy as an unmarried woman or a married woman? -- Emma<br />
<br />
In responnse to Emma I feel as though the women writing are pretty bold to be expressing their unhappiness at all. After all, it is rather unlady like to complain about the situation these women were in, and the ones who were writing were obviously educated. It is more common for women even today, regardless of marital status, with educations to be more discontent with societies impositions upon them. I think the fact of marriage or not is irrelevant because both types of women were unhappy. --Sara<br />
<br />
I agree with you, Remy - and with all of you, actually - that it certainly seems that Catharine was pretty unhappy. It really stands out to me that she discusses her writings, and all writings, as a way of being honest. She says that, and seems to have good intentions in terms of being honest, and perhaps either due to shame about being unhappy, or due to the social constraints that Sara mentions against expressing dissatisfaction with one's life. More depressing than her pretty obvious unhappiness is how she tried to mask that--I can't imagine how lonely that must have felt. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I feel that religion was the one constant thing in Ayer's life. I think she relied on it greatly to get her through all the deaths that she experienced. I think that through these deaths, if anything, her trust in God increased. Religion was something that she could always rely on no matter where she was and I think she found a little peace in her beliefs. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
For most people religion is a constant in their lives. It is comforting to know that it is usually stable. However, the question of why bad things happen to good people can push away from religion. Ayer did not do that. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Ellen-As sad as Sarah Connell Ayers life was I believe her faith in God made her stronger. Death might have pulled her closer into her dependence on her religion to get through the rough times in her life. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Jennifer, I agree that she felt that religion was the constant thing in her life, but we also see that her spirit was starting to break a little. When she had to go live with her husbands family, I am sure that she felt like life was beating her down. When she practiced her religion you could tell it gave her hope, but there was always this nagging feeling that another bad thing was going to happen. --Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
(Reply to Katie): What (it seems to me) the rules say about the girls is that they were not trusted. It seems to me that if everyone at the institution truly believed that each and every young lady at the school were sufficiently Godly that the thought of Judgment Day would be enough to stop them from breaking rules or skipping sabbath, all of their "superiors" would be able to go home and take a nap, certain of the impeccable behavior of all of the girls there. --Nicole<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
My feeling is that the girls didn't know they were being "oppresed". I think during this time period, (some) young girls followed the rules because they knew that they had duties to be the moral authority in the household. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
In an answer to your questions, I think that women started becoming more involved with religion in the United States when the ideals of Republican Motherhood came about. Religion was a great source for social morality for these people and since women were taking the moral roles in society, they would want to turn to the church to show both their children and their community that they were upholding moral beliefs.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
"A more advanced institution than the academy, the antebellum female seminary sought to imitate some features of the male college curriculum. Seminaries required or taught classical languages, eschewed polite accomplishments, and admitted only older students who passed examinations...The very name "seminary," usually associated with the ministry, implied some type of professional training." (Woloch 161) I don't think that these female seminaries were strictly theological schools, like seminaries are today. It appears that religion was integrated more into the fabric of everyday life (see the mill rules)than now, so perhaps the schools were religious in that way, but I don't think that equates to a clergy-training school. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
I found this reading very interesting. Very young girls were forced to leave their families, and wear European clothing, speak English, and learn the bible. I assume some girls even starved to death because the food was so different than what they were used to. My question is, after returning home from this school, how had the girls' relationships with their native people and families changed? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
In response to Catherine I think that the relationship between the teachers and the individual natives' relationship would be a strong one, but overall, they would still view "Natives" as savage and ungodly. All of the teachers' documents we read mention the godlessness, lack of churches, lack of interest in pursuing the religion by the natives or lack of honoring of the Sabbath. This means that even if they felt better about the individual girls they taught, they probably felt as though they "saved" them. Not respected them --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This passage was indeed interesting. One section that I found especially interesting was the one about the family who walked 55 miles to bring the girls to the school and then walked them 55 miles back when they heard a rumor about the missionaries taking land. THEN they took them 55 miles back to the school because the girls were unhappy at home. Once sent home, I question whether or not the girls from the schools were bullied or even excommunicated for their new way of life. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These letters are really pitiful, and it's amazing to me that we have a public school system at all, considering its origins. One thing that really stands out to me is the sense of moral duty/religious obligation that keeps these teachers working, even though (much of the time) they weren't being paid. Is this a continuation of the ideals (and responsibilities) of republican motherhood, that women are responsible for the moral uplift of the entire nation? --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I found these letters to be quite interesting. First, the fact that these new teachers were so concerned about the religion and morals of the people in the community. Religion seemed to be one of the biggest concerns of these new teachers. Why was that? Second, it was interesting to see the these two very different experiences. The first teacher seemed to have some real problems with the community excepting her. It almost seemed as if they though education was silly, possibly because they were more concerned about the success of their farms, of surviving, instead of reading and writing. Where as the second teacher seemed to have real success in her bringing her community together. I am quite amazed by what she was able to accomplish.It would be interesting to know exactly where these women went to do this teaching. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Chatharine Beecher sounded like an inspirational woman. She truly cared about education. One thing I did find weird was her promotion of teaching as a woman's profession. What if a man were to teach and step forward and ask for her help. Was a male teacher completely unheard of? Would she deny him? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
This letter struck me as being so propagandized, I would not have been surprised if it turned out that it had been written by an overseer. The small complaints ("these rooms are kept very warm, and are disagreeably scented"..."it makes my feet ache and swell") serve to give the letter an air of respectability, and make it seem like a legitimate letter, but the emphasis on the positive and lack of emphasis on negative aspects (If my feet were painful and swelling, I'd factor it much more into my overall sense of happiness!) makes the letter seem utterly false--which of course it is. I can't help but wonder whether Harriet and her compatriots truly felt this was an accurate representation of their lives? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
The movement which is the subject of this article was conducted entirely or almost entirely by women, who recognized a "sisterhood" of workers. How might the tactics used by movement leaders have been influenced by the gender roles of their day? Might they have faced any particular difficulties in negotiating with male management? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
In response to Pam P, I think that Knight endured the hardships of westward movement so that her child could have a better life. The introduction states that the migrations were "made by people who were neither extremely rich nor extremely poor." Perhaps, since Knight would have been somewhere in the middle, a westward movement could have provided new opportunities for her child. --Clare O<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
--in response to Pam's question: I felt the same way, but her husbands part was mentioned very briefly in the story. I almost felt that she did more work? The letter was to her son, not to another friend or someone she would lie too. Although this gold rush did ask for women who specialized in domestic duties, her husband came along. But, he didnt really get much mention. Either he works outside of the house or he doesn't do much. Or maybe he is the one to look for gold while she works all day, ensuring that they may stay and continue in their search. --Aqsa Z. <br />
<br />
Reading "A Woman's View of the Gold Rush," I almost felt that Ballou was trying to cover up her sadness by discussing all that she was doing for the miners at the boarding house. It seemed that she was upholding that notion of keeping home as a refuge for her husband by doing all of that cooking! I wonder if her discussing her cooking in her letter was her way of keeping herself from badmouthing her poor situation to her son? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In response to Heather's post, I agree that Ballou seemed to be purposely omitting the sad aspects of her life caring for these miners in the boarding house. This seems to be a common trend in letters from the West back East, overlooking the tough circumstances because they chose to focus on the good aspects. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
Hopefully in answering your question (or trying to at least, because it was a bit confusing to me as well) the Cherokee Nation was actually considered a sovereign nation, which also meant they had their own constitution and their own laws. The leader of their nation or tribe was a man named John Ross, who in fact was not 100% Cherokee, but he was considered the "Moses of the Cherokee Nation." He was a representative for the Cherokee people to the United States government and he would basically be considered their President (or father...I think). "There are some white men among us who have been raised in this country from their youth, are connected with us by marriage, and have considerable families, who are very active in encouraging the emigration of our nation" (201. John Ross would have been in this category, as he was white and married to a Cherokee woman. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I assumed she meant god. Perhaps some clarification in class would help. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think the most important thing I took away from this reading is how children of the Paiutes are taught to be good, and to love everybody. So when the white settlers first arrived, Sarah's grandfather, the chief, tried to make them feel welcome. However, later in her account, Sarah writes of how unhappy her people are. Mothers begin to fear getting pregnant, because they do not think they would be able to provide for their young. Religion plays a large role in this tribe, and war is not a favorable decision when two tribes are in conflict. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of this reading, Sara Winnemucca comments that "If women could go into your Congress I think justice would soon be done to the Indians." In what ways did her culture encourage this belief? What aspects of her own life supported these egalitarian views? My other question would be, are these views totally separate from the Euro-American belief that women were more spiritually and morally pure? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
In response to Rebecca's first question, Winnemucca's culture viewed women as a more central part of the dynamics. They exercised greater political power and so Sara's comment would insinuate that she felt women could fix the ill Indian relations that existed. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.yy <br />
<br />
I loved all of the supernatural elements to this tale. I felt that it amplified the morals that the story was trying to convey (don't kill others for your own gain, especially family members). However, since this is technically a part of oral history, despite it being written down, I wonder how much of this story is the original tale? If there is more, which characters would have more of a presence?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I would have to agree also with Remy and Aqsa...this was definitely my favorite reading so far! My father's side of the family is actually all Sioux Native Americans and it is intersting to be able to read one of their stories. Typically, most native stories and legends were passed through oral tradition, and it is exciting to be able to read one of their stories. I wonder how old this story actually is, considering the fact that they are passed down over the years and they typically were never written. I would think that most of their stories and legends had some kind of moral value or lesson to be learned from it, and considering this, I wonder if this was a common occurence amongst the tribe. It is unfathomable to me to think that a girl's mother could actually be ruthless enough to commit the atrocites this woman did to her own daughter. It was a great story but it very much resembled a skit one would see on the Jerry Springer show in today's world. -- Lindsey S.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-30T01:28:16Z<p>Bongo282: /* Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Answer to your question, I do think women feel that they have more a choice in marriage than the previous generations. According to class and the readings, the romantic notions are beginning to come out and women are looking for Men to fulfill that ideal companionate role in a marriage, women would hold off if they felt like they did not find the right partner. Marriage was still valued and more than desired by most women at this time, but they were definitely getting pickier about who they wanted to marry. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In "Matrimonial Risks," Willard seems to be attempting to warn her sister off of all marriages and all relationships; the advice she gives is so generalized against marriage that it almost seems that she must have been unhappy in her marriage. I started reading this expecting, based on the editors' introduction, for Willard to be essentially warning her sister off of Lincoln. On the contrary, it almost seems that Willard is trying to warn her sister off of any and all marriage. Intriguingly, she then tells her sister she'd love to see Lincoln and visit with him. I got such mixed signals from this letter that I'm really wondering whether Willard disliked Lincoln (if so, why say she'd like to see him?) or the idea of her sister getting married at all (and if that, why? Most women wound up married!) -- Nicole<br />
<br />
Nicole-I got the feeling that Emma Willard wanted to meet her sister's suitor in order to get a better feeling if he really loved her or if he had bad intentions. I think she's bitter about her marriage and therefore is viewing it negatively. --Remy<br />
<br />
This reading was quite depressing how she wrote about how she should question her happiness. This shows how unhappy Emma was herself. I wonder how common this was among most women? --Emma<br />
<br />
Emma Willard was forthright in giving advice to her younger sister Almira in regards to the decision of marriage and finding the proper suitor. In the letter she wrote to Almira, she stated “. . .and we will likewise pass over the possibility of your lover’s seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you, and likewise that you may hereafter discover some imperfection in his character. We will pass this over, and suppose that the sanction of the law has been passed upon your connection, and you are secured to each other for life” (144). It seems as though Emma is trying to think of every situation that could go wrong in a relationship, and she is attempting to discourage her younger sister for marrying for any reason, including for love or for money. Why was the idea of marriage for love considered such a risk? In today’s society, love is considered the fortifying reason for a couple to enter into matrimony together. Could it be possible that Emma was merely jealous of her younger sister because she had found a wealthy suitor that wanted to marry her, whereas Emma was once happily married and living comfortably until her husband’s finances collapsed? Emma is clearly unhappy in her own life, and in reading this excerpt, I detected a bit of jealousy towards her sisters potential happiness and wealth. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
In response to Lindsey--I understand Catherine's response, but according to the reading, her second husband took all of her money and spent it with his gambling issue. Obviously, she will begin to question marriage and the idea of love. I honestly do not think that Emma was jealous of her sister, but rather she was heartbroken and concerned for her sister. I thought it was interesting that in all of these marriage readings, parental advice has not really been shown. --Aqsa Z. <br />
<br />
I think the idea of marrying someone because you loved them was so risky because if the person you loved couldn't provide for you, how would that make you look in society? The purpose of marriage was so that the husband could provide for his wife and children. I think that Emma may have been jealous of her sister for finding a husband, but I also think that she was unhappy because she couldn't marry for love. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I think Willard is caught in a time when the idea of marriage is changing. Unfortunately, she is getting stuck between love and marriage for providing. She is having contemplating if love is necessary and also if she even wants love. I also wonder if she knows what kind of love she wants. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
In answer to the above question. I think that in the early 1800s we are starting to see more papers and magazines geared towards women in the homes and plantation. At this time we start to see magazines such as Sarah Hales "Ladies Magazine," and Catharine Beecher's writings on "System and Order". These are just a few of the many self help books that started being published at this time, as well as the development of new magazines for women. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I also wonder if magazines and publications aimed towards women weren't as likely to be preserved? A lady's magazine might have been more likely to be thrown away or cut up for sewing patterns or whatever than publications aimed at men. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Katie, I don't think in the beginning women's publications were viewed as important as ones written by men. Gradually I do think they see the importance and they become more accepted. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with all of your comments above and I also think we see a little bit of romance on her part. In the beginning of her marriage they were very loving to each other but as life got in the way she was growing miserable and upset that he didn’t want to spend that time with her anymore. Her romantic feelings for him were still there and you see that when she is hoping to spend time with him alone and he comes home with a friend and they talk about work all night. The “honeymoon phase” was over and her marriage became a product of the society for this period. – Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
In response to Hannah, this schedule does seem a little strict to modern day women, who are accustomed to having a routine at home. The women that Beecher was writing to had no systems at all (at least none that were acceptable for the new middle class). Whenever you begin a new system or routine, you have to begin by being very strict and regimented, and once they (in this case, Beecher's audience) get the hang of it, people are free to make their own judgment calls and make adjustments as needed. Plus, when laundry takes 4 days in a week, there's only so many ways you can change the schedule. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Hannah-I agree the schedule does seem strict but I think Beecher might have been giving it as an example to follow. With so much to do on a daily basis I think that having a system probably helped housewives do everything neccessary by themselves! (As much as we don't like it) --Remy B.<br />
<br />
The two things that interested me the most in Catharine Beecher's "System and Order" was here description of how to manage work within the week and the mode of "systematizing, [relating] to providing proper supplies of conveniences." The details for arranging a week seem quite logical and in fact are similar to actually accounts I have read that follow a similar outline. It does not seem That Catharine's ideas on this front could have been that new. As for the arranging items in particular places, did women really have the extra rooms just for doing laundry? And why, for the trunks full of extra supplies, were they kept locked? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer S, I think that Beecher asserts that women should have extra rooms solely for laundry so as to make the household even more organized. Her whole document is called "System and Order," so to do laundry in any other place in the home besides the room devoted specifically to it would disrupt the order and cleanliness of the household. Also, perhaps the trunks full of extra supplies were kept locked so that children could not get into them and disrupt the order the wife had put them in. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
But did families at that time actually have rooms devoted to laundry? Were houses built with laundry rooms in mind? Or was this just an ideal that Catharine Beecher writes about? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I would assume that most of the women reading the book did not have extra rooms for laundry. I think Beecher is talking about an ideal. But, I think it is interesting that today we have just that a "laundry room" in most houses. --- Michelle .<br />
<br />
I agree. if Beecher is talking about people with extra room just for laundry, she's writing to a very small audience of rather wealthy women. Her experience of running a household probably isn't like the experiences of poorer women; they were more likely to have other work to do too, I imagine. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Remy, yes I also felt that she was pretty unhappy. The last line of the essay stood out to me, "I do hope...to order my house for that better world where self may lose something of its engrossing power." This read to me, "things will be better when I'm dead." Pretty sad. A certain amount of risk accompanies any choice. If women have more freedom to choose their marital partners, they also have to accept the consequences of their decisions. In Sedgwick's case, she rejected a few suitors because they didn't meet her expectations. Because she only has herself to blame (instead of blaming her parents or society, or just accepting an unpleasant marriage without question, as would have happened in the past), it seems like it makes her loneliness more painful. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Like Emma, Catherine seems unhappy about her life, only she is not married. It was interesting to see how women felt about their decision to not marry. Once again, I wonder how common this unhappiness is. Is it more common to be unhappy as an unmarried woman or a married woman? -- Emma<br />
<br />
In responnse to Emma I feel as though the women writing are pretty bold to be expressing their unhappiness at all. After all, it is rather unlady like to complain about the situation these women were in, and the ones who were writing were obviously educated. It is more common for women even today, regardless of marital status, with educations to be more discontent with societies impositions upon them. I think the fact of marriage or not is irrelevant because both types of women were unhappy. --Sara<br />
<br />
I agree with you, Remy - and with all of you, actually - that it certainly seems that Catharine was pretty unhappy. It really stands out to me that she discusses her writings, and all writings, as a way of being honest. She says that, and seems to have good intentions in terms of being honest, and perhaps either due to shame about being unhappy, or due to the social constraints that Sara mentions against expressing dissatisfaction with one's life. More depressing than her pretty obvious unhappiness is how she tried to mask that--I can't imagine how lonely that must have felt. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I feel that religion was the one constant thing in Ayer's life. I think she relied on it greatly to get her through all the deaths that she experienced. I think that through these deaths, if anything, her trust in God increased. Religion was something that she could always rely on no matter where she was and I think she found a little peace in her beliefs. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
For most people religion is a constant in their lives. It is comforting to know that it is usually stable. However, the question of why bad things happen to good people can push away from religion. Ayer did not do that. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Ellen-As sad as Sarah Connell Ayers life was I believe her faith in God made her stronger. Death might have pulled her closer into her dependence on her religion to get through the rough times in her life. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
(Reply to Katie): What (it seems to me) the rules say about the girls is that they were not trusted. It seems to me that if everyone at the institution truly believed that each and every young lady at the school were sufficiently Godly that the thought of Judgment Day would be enough to stop them from breaking rules or skipping sabbath, all of their "superiors" would be able to go home and take a nap, certain of the impeccable behavior of all of the girls there. --Nicole<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
My feeling is that the girls didn't know they were being "oppresed". I think during this time period, (some) young girls followed the rules because they knew that they had duties to be the moral authority in the household. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
In an answer to your questions, I think that women started becoming more involved with religion in the United States when the ideals of Republican Motherhood came about. Religion was a great source for social morality for these people and since women were taking the moral roles in society, they would want to turn to the church to show both their children and their community that they were upholding moral beliefs.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
"A more advanced institution than the academy, the antebellum female seminary sought to imitate some features of the male college curriculum. Seminaries required or taught classical languages, eschewed polite accomplishments, and admitted only older students who passed examinations...The very name "seminary," usually associated with the ministry, implied some type of professional training." (Woloch 161) I don't think that these female seminaries were strictly theological schools, like seminaries are today. It appears that religion was integrated more into the fabric of everyday life (see the mill rules)than now, so perhaps the schools were religious in that way, but I don't think that equates to a clergy-training school. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
I found this reading very interesting. Very young girls were forced to leave their families, and wear European clothing, speak English, and learn the bible. I assume some girls even starved to death because the food was so different than what they were used to. My question is, after returning home from this school, how had the girls' relationships with their native people and families changed? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
In response to Catherine I think that the relationship between the teachers and the individual natives' relationship would be a strong one, but overall, they would still view "Natives" as savage and ungodly. All of the teachers' documents we read mention the godlessness, lack of churches, lack of interest in pursuing the religion by the natives or lack of honoring of the Sabbath. This means that even if they felt better about the individual girls they taught, they probably felt as though they "saved" them. Not respected them --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This passage was indeed interesting. One section that I found especially interesting was the one about the family who walked 55 miles to bring the girls to the school and then walked them 55 miles back when they heard a rumor about the missionaries taking land. THEN they took them 55 miles back to the school because the girls were unhappy at home. Once sent home, I question whether or not the girls from the schools were bullied or even excommunicated for their new way of life. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These letters are really pitiful, and it's amazing to me that we have a public school system at all, considering its origins. One thing that really stands out to me is the sense of moral duty/religious obligation that keeps these teachers working, even though (much of the time) they weren't being paid. Is this a continuation of the ideals (and responsibilities) of republican motherhood, that women are responsible for the moral uplift of the entire nation? --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I found these letters to be quite interesting. First, the fact that these new teachers were so concerned about the religion and morals of the people in the community. Religion seemed to be one of the biggest concerns of these new teachers. Why was that? Second, it was interesting to see the these two very different experiences. The first teacher seemed to have some real problems with the community excepting her. It almost seemed as if they though education was silly, possibly because they were more concerned about the success of their farms, of surviving, instead of reading and writing. Where as the second teacher seemed to have real success in her bringing her community together. I am quite amazed by what she was able to accomplish.It would be interesting to know exactly where these women went to do this teaching. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Chatharine Beecher sounded like an inspirational woman. She truly cared about education. One thing I did find weird was her promotion of teaching as a woman's profession. What if a man were to teach and step forward and ask for her help. Was a male teacher completely unheard of? Would she deny him? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
This letter struck me as being so propagandized, I would not have been surprised if it turned out that it had been written by an overseer. The small complaints ("these rooms are kept very warm, and are disagreeably scented"..."it makes my feet ache and swell") serve to give the letter an air of respectability, and make it seem like a legitimate letter, but the emphasis on the positive and lack of emphasis on negative aspects (If my feet were painful and swelling, I'd factor it much more into my overall sense of happiness!) makes the letter seem utterly false--which of course it is. I can't help but wonder whether Harriet and her compatriots truly felt this was an accurate representation of their lives? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
The movement which is the subject of this article was conducted entirely or almost entirely by women, who recognized a "sisterhood" of workers. How might the tactics used by movement leaders have been influenced by the gender roles of their day? Might they have faced any particular difficulties in negotiating with male management? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
In response to Pam P, I think that Knight endured the hardships of westward movement so that her child could have a better life. The introduction states that the migrations were "made by people who were neither extremely rich nor extremely poor." Perhaps, since Knight would have been somewhere in the middle, a westward movement could have provided new opportunities for her child. --Clare O<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
--in response to Pam's question: I felt the same way, but her husbands part was mentioned very briefly in the story. I almost felt that she did more work? The letter was to her son, not to another friend or someone she would lie too. Although this gold rush did ask for women who specialized in domestic duties, her husband came along. But, he didnt really get much mention. Either he works outside of the house or he doesn't do much. Or maybe he is the one to look for gold while she works all day, ensuring that they may stay and continue in their search. --Aqsa Z. <br />
<br />
Reading "A Woman's View of the Gold Rush," I almost felt that Ballou was trying to cover up her sadness by discussing all that she was doing for the miners at the boarding house. It seemed that she was upholding that notion of keeping home as a refuge for her husband by doing all of that cooking! I wonder if her discussing her cooking in her letter was her way of keeping herself from badmouthing her poor situation to her son? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In response to Heather's post, I agree that Ballou seemed to be purposely omitting the sad aspects of her life caring for these miners in the boarding house. This seems to be a common trend in letters from the West back East, overlooking the tough circumstances because they chose to focus on the good aspects. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
Hopefully in answering your question (or trying to at least, because it was a bit confusing to me as well) the Cherokee Nation was actually considered a sovereign nation, which also meant they had their own constitution and their own laws. The leader of their nation or tribe was a man named John Ross, who in fact was not 100% Cherokee, but he was considered the "Moses of the Cherokee Nation." He was a representative for the Cherokee people to the United States government and he would basically be considered their President (or father...I think). "There are some white men among us who have been raised in this country from their youth, are connected with us by marriage, and have considerable families, who are very active in encouraging the emigration of our nation" (201. John Ross would have been in this category, as he was white and married to a Cherokee woman. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I assumed she meant god. Perhaps some clarification in class would help. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think the most important thing I took away from this reading is how children of the Paiutes are taught to be good, and to love everybody. So when the white settlers first arrived, Sarah's grandfather, the chief, tried to make them feel welcome. However, later in her account, Sarah writes of how unhappy her people are. Mothers begin to fear getting pregnant, because they do not think they would be able to provide for their young. Religion plays a large role in this tribe, and war is not a favorable decision when two tribes are in conflict. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of this reading, Sara Winnemucca comments that "If women could go into your Congress I think justice would soon be done to the Indians." In what ways did her culture encourage this belief? What aspects of her own life supported these egalitarian views? My other question would be, are these views totally separate from the Euro-American belief that women were more spiritually and morally pure? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
In response to Rebecca's first question, Winnemucca's culture viewed women as a more central part of the dynamics. They exercised greater political power and so Sara's comment would insinuate that she felt women could fix the ill Indian relations that existed. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.yy <br />
<br />
I loved all of the supernatural elements to this tale. I felt that it amplified the morals that the story was trying to convey (don't kill others for your own gain, especially family members). However, since this is technically a part of oral history, despite it being written down, I wonder how much of this story is the original tale? If there is more, which characters would have more of a presence?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I would have to agree also with Remy and Aqsa...this was definitely my favorite reading so far! My father's side of the family is actually all Sioux Native Americans and it is intersting to be able to read one of their stories. Typically, most native stories and legends were passed through oral tradition, and it is exciting to be able to read one of their stories. I wonder how old this story actually is, considering the fact that they are passed down over the years and they typically were never written. I would think that most of their stories and legends had some kind of moral value or lesson to be learned from it, and considering this, I wonder if this was a common occurence amongst the tribe. It is unfathomable to me to think that a girl's mother could actually be ruthless enough to commit the atrocites this woman did to her own daughter. It was a great story but it very much resembled a skit one would see on the Jerry Springer show in today's world. -- Lindsey S.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-27T05:16:03Z<p>Bongo282: /* Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B. <br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-27T04:49:49Z<p>Bongo282: /* Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B. <br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life?<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-20T07:09:31Z<p>Bongo282: /* Overarching Questions */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Questions ==<br />
<br />
In many of the readings, I was surprised to read that women tended to leave possessions in unequal amounts to their heirs whereas men tended to split up what was theirs equally. I would have assumed that men would favor their sons over their daughters, but they tended to leave their offspring relatively equal shares (although in the form of land for sons and movable things for daughters). It is interesting that women favored their daughters in wills. Perhaps this is because women did not have many rights of ownership so the women wanted to aid their female relatives in any way possible. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Why were these men deserting these women? I see some men just couldn’t live with their wives and some were out at sea (vessel or company?). I guess some men could have also gone hunting and went missing during their trips, but how come there were so many women without husbands who disappeared without a trace? “In the eighteenth century, deserted wives continued to predominate among the colony’s divorce petitioners, but the number of husbands complaining of desertion increased as did the numbers of wives who cited adultery in their petitions.”(Woloch, 72) Most women who went for these divorces did not know where their husbands could have gone or their said husbands admitted to committing adultery.-- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
<br />
When reading the divorce laws of Connecticut, I expected the reasons for granting of divorces to be things such as adultery or desertion. What I did not expect was the long periods of time a spouse has to be away before the law considers the absence desertion. Three years with a total neglect of duty or seven years of providential absence seems like an extremely long amount of time, particularly for the wife being deserted. Especially since the woman cannot get married to another before the period is up and the divorce is granted, likely leaving the woman in very poor economical standing. In the case of Bridget Baxter, after the divorce was granted, the court allowed her to sell her husbands estate to pay off debts but I can imagine this would not be enough in the case of many women, especially if they were becoming indebted for the years their husbands were gone. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the divorce laws, I was surprised at how much they made marriage sound like slavery. The laws included words like "sett her free from her said husband," or "be free from her conjugall bonds." Even in the case of Robert Wade, the law said that he was "free from Joanne Wade." At first I thought that it was a negative portrayal of marriage, but I have reconsidered the possibility that they mean "bonds" in the best way, as marriage was a bond between people. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I read the New England Divorce notices and was really surprised and appalled by the 1662 "whereas the estate that her husband Baxter left with her is sold to pay debts, all excepting a bed and her wearing aparell" meaning they took EVERYTHING BUT THE SHIRT OFF HER BACK. I thought this was just an expression, but apparently it was not. So strange that they would be so harsh to a woman when the debt was her husbands and not her owns. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I found it ironic that women in New England were the only ones permitted a full divorce as compared to the rest of the colonies. Even though the women were granted divorces on very valid reasons it seems contradictory to the other laws would allow for severe punishments for premarital sex or coming to church dirty. How is it a woman could exercise enough power to end a marriage but could be reprimanded for offenses that seem trivial to divorce? For a relationship that was based in the church it seems that it should be much harder to break it and especially by the woman who was viewed as morally and spiritually weaker than her husband. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
I thought the most interesting part of this section was the case of Elizabeth Griswould. It was ten years between the initial trial and the trial for child support. The court seemed to be especially sympathetic towards Elizabeth. Their sympathy appears to be based upon the fact that her ex-husband, John Rogers, spoke against religion during the first trial. The court is so sympathetic that they make sure that Rogers can pay his child support and require that he give Elizabeth his piece of land if he cannot pay the twenty pound sum. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
<br />
I was really surprised by the Feme Sole Trader Acts in South Carolina. Obviously these women still had to have permission from their hubsands to be labeled as Feme Sole, but once they got that label they were free to do as they wished as far as their business went. It seems far outside of "progressive" for the time period. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
So, pre-marital sex was a big no-no. I'd imagine that the only way the courts found out would be if a) you had a "bastard child" (Mary Chelson) or b) actually told the courts (William and Mary Backway)? So they were both whipped and fined. However, when Rebecca Auborne admits to having a child with Samuel Kemble, she is whipped and he is just ordered to pay child support - why wouldn't he have been whipped like William Backway? - Matt<br />
<br />
I kind of enjoyed reading this section, in the same way you enjoy reading the police blotter. It was like a tabloid with odd spelling- but the punishments kind of appalled me. I realize that lashings were a very common punishment in this time, but some of the sentences seemed extreme for the crime committed. The sentence given to the Backways, for example- by the time of this writing, they were already married. Why was the court still punishing them for something they had done a while back? There was no mention made of a child, so I wonder how they ended up confessing in court to pre-marital sex. I was also startled by the sentence given to Margaret Brewster, which says she is to "strip to the waist" before being whipped. That they would ask a woman to take off clothing seems like it would be very unusual, and none of the other cases mention the woman being told to take off her clothing before being whipped, so this seems like a departure from the norm. - Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
When Woloch mentions women serving as an extension of their husbands in the courts, does she mean as a "deputy husband?" Also, I found the case of Margaret Brewster extremely interesting. As a woman who disguised herself in wearing black face and teaching the Word of God, she is definitely an exception. What was even more surprising than her actions was her extremely severe punishment for such a crime. "to bee stripped unto the waste and to bee tied to a cart's tayle and whip't out of the Town with twenty stripes, beginning at the said meeting house." Harsh. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that there was a different standard based on where you live. Each of these women receive something from there husband but the Virginia will did not care whether or not she remarried. She was still the woman that had been his wife while he was alive. Was this because of the location or simply because of the customs? –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
<br />
This will stuck out to me more then the others. After reading a few, I am sitting here thinking about how their wills were written, compared to how wills are written today. They were literally leaving everything they owned to someone. A dozen napkins? Nowadays if that was left to you, I feel it would be more of an insult and/or a cruel joke. It really just shows you how much stock they put into what they owned. - Matt<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that being an administrator/executor of a will would jump-start a business career for women. Lebsock describes that "as the executors of administrators of their deceased husbands' estates. . .the administrator was obliged to dissolve partnerships, to collect and pay debts, to pursue litigation, to distribute the estate to the proper heirs, and to manage it in the meantime." It seems that women more or less got a crash-course in conducting business and would find some prosperity in their loss. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
It seems women's roles in the church and charity pushed them to make decisions to give their wealth to people in need. Women usually gave to other women, which makes sense because many poor people were widows and orphans. However, women did choose favorites when sharing their good fortune. Women had favorite slaves, daughters, or other women. For women dividing wills was rarely equal. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Women used their wealth and good fortune based on their own value systems that differed from men's values. Lebsock calls this "persistent personalism."And, this "persistent personalism" drove women to give to charity and the church. Also, to use their money for themselves or to certain individuals. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I liked the difference the author established between the dominant narrative of women's passivity and their caution in investing. Women had every reason to be cautious - they often had less experience, and less resources at their disposal. But that didn't mean that the decisions they were making with their estates and their families estates weren't just as active and thoughtful. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
This essay was certainly not without its own biases. I was with Lebsock up until her explanation of women using their wills to free their slaves. According to Lebsock, the vast majority of southern women were really opposed to slavery deep down, and showed it in their wills, and slavery was really perpetuated by all those evil men. I buy her explanations (personalization) for wills, administration, etc, but this is a little too romanticized for me. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
As Lebsock notes, "Women, more than men, noticed and responded to the needs and merits of particular persons." (142) Throughout this reading, Lebsock emphasized this point. What I find most interesting about the reading, though, is the manner in which it seemed (to me, anyway) that Lebsock almost danced around a fairly obvious point while describing attitudes about slavery and slaves, without coming out and saying it. For me, after reading Mary Cumming's description of her specific slaves ("...Mary is a pretty good worker at her needle, she is now sitting beside me making a slip for herself" (139)) it seemed so patently obvious to me that women's more individualistic approach to slaves was due to their far greater and more meaningful interactions with slaves. While Lebsock goes part of the way--discussing, as Stef mentions, women's increasing likelihood to personalize their wills relative to their actual relationships, not custom or law--she fails to explore why that was the case. While men would interact with slaves more fleetingly, while in transit, overseeing work, or giving orders, it was not--as far as I know--uncommon for white women and their slaves to be performing household tasks at the same time, and in the same location. That is the exact set of circumstances that can lead to regular discussion, to feelings of intimacy, and to a meaningful individual relationship. That seemed even clearer to me when compared with men like Edmund Ruffin, the proslavery apologist who--almost intentionally, it seems--omitted any mention of his slaves from his otherwise intensely personal writings. For Ruffin, his interactions with slaves ("...yanking off his boots, one imagines, stirring up his woodstove, serving his suppers"(140)) tended to be shorter, single-action based interactions, unlike the prolongued interactions between white women and their slaves (as with Cummings, sitting beside her slave while one wrote a letter and the other sewed). -- Nicole<br />
<br />
In this article I found it interesting that Mary Bolling was able to pick and choose who she wanted her estate to go to. I thought that the first male would get everything, boy was I wrong. I also thought that she was a smart lady by investing in many different things to grow her estate for her children and her grandchildren. Not only was she making money she also knew the law and tried to have a stipulation in her will saying that if the Shore’s bring suit against her, her daughter Ann would receive nothing. I also was amused to know that even in the early 1800’s (around 1819) people were still getting swindled out of their money. Then it was tradesmen and slaves on women, and now its telemarketers and mail order items on elderly people. I also felt for Mary Read Anderson. She was never taught the ins and outs of business, so she always relied on a man and she “was to emphasize womanly weakness in order to justify her dependence on a male protector.”(Women Alone, 119)--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Malefactors and Complainants ==<br />
<br />
After reading these complaints, I was struck by the fact that all of these read “after she confessed”. Did all of these women really stand up in court and say yes it was me. I did this horrible thing that you are accusing me of. Were these women force to say these things, simply to get a more bearable punishment? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in many of these complaints, women were being charged with "fornication" and some with "fornication and having a bastard child." Why is it that only women are being convicted and punished for having sex out of wedlock? Is it all the womans fault? I'm pretty sure it definitely takes two and I highly doubt that these women were just so overpowering and forceful that they made these men have sex with them. It's absolutely outrageous. In the case of Rebecca Auborne and Samuel Kemble, the courts at least charged both of them for fornication and producing a bastard child; however, only Rebecca receives a physical punishment ("whip't with Fifteen Stripes", along with a monetary payment of 5 pounds and court fees) whereas Samuel Kemble (who actively participated in their fornication as well) was only sentenced to pay court fees and child support. Also, I agree with Kayle in her point she made about all of these women confessing. William Backway and his wife Mary were convicted "by theire own confession in court of committing fornication" (79). How exactly did the court find out about this fornication before their marriage? The text mentions no child involved as other passages do. In another example, Elizabeth Langberry was committed to prison and forced to pay court fees for becoming too drunk and allowing Thomas Ockerby to pull her into his lap. Why would she be punished for something that was not her fault? -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I too wondered about the women being charged with having sex before marriage and having a child. Unless you have a child, how would one find out and charge you with fornication before marriage? I wonder if they were ashamed and told on themselves, or if someone who knew about the act told someone else to get her in trouble. Also, does the man get in trouble for this? I was most shocked by the "Backway Sentence." A husband and wife confessed to having sex before marriage and they were both punished with being whipped or his wife could pay fifty shillings instead of receiving her whippings. I seriously blows my mind that they were punished even though they ended up getting married!<br />
This section also shows how little respect the court had for women. They often whipped the women as a punishment. This may sound sexist, but being whipped seems more like a punishment for a man, not a woman. --Ashley V.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-20T05:50:40Z<p>Bongo282: /* Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Questions ==<br />
<br />
In many of the readings, I was surprised to read that women tended to leave possessions in unequal amounts to their heirs whereas men tended to split up what was theirs equally. I would have assumed that men would favor their sons over their daughters, but they tended to leave their offspring relatively equal shares (although in the form of land for sons and movable things for daughters). It is interesting that women favored their daughters in wills. Perhaps this is because women did not have many rights of ownership so the women wanted to aid their female relatives in any way possible. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
<br />
When reading the divorce laws of Connecticut, I expected the reasons for granting of divorces to be things such as adultery or desertion. What I did not expect was the long periods of time a spouse has to be away before the law considers the absence desertion. Three years with a total neglect of duty or seven years of providential absence seems like an extremely long amount of time, particularly for the wife being deserted. Especially since the woman cannot get married to another before the period is up and the divorce is granted, likely leaving the woman in very poor economical standing. In the case of Bridget Baxter, after the divorce was granted, the court allowed her to sell her husbands estate to pay off debts but I can imagine this would not be enough in the case of many women, especially if they were becoming indebted for the years their husbands were gone. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the divorce laws, I was surprised at how much they made marriage sound like slavery. The laws included words like "sett her free from her said husband," or "be free from her conjugall bonds." Even in the case of Robert Wade, the law said that he was "free from Joanne Wade." At first I thought that it was a negative portrayal of marriage, but I have reconsidered the possibility that they mean "bonds" in the best way, as marriage was a bond between people. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I read the New England Divorce notices and was really surprised and appalled by the 1662 "whereas the estate that her husband Baxter left with her is sold to pay debts, all excepting a bed and her wearing aparell" meaning they took EVERYTHING BUT THE SHIRT OFF HER BACK. I thought this was just an expression, but apparently it was not. So strange that they would be so harsh to a woman when the debt was her husbands and not her owns. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I found it ironic that women in New England were the only ones permitted a full divorce as compared to the rest of the colonies. Even though the women were granted divorces on very valid reasons it seems contradictory to the other laws would allow for severe punishments for premarital sex or coming to church dirty. How is it a woman could exercise enough power to end a marriage but could be reprimanded for offenses that seem trivial to divorce? For a relationship that was based in the church it seems that it should be much harder to break it and especially by the woman who was viewed as morally and spiritually weaker than her husband. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
I thought the most interesting part of this section was the case of Elizabeth Griswould. It was ten years between the initial trial and the trial for child support. The court seemed to be especially sympathetic towards Elizabeth. Their sympathy appears to be based upon the fact that her ex-husband, John Rogers, spoke against religion during the first trial. The court is so sympathetic that they make sure that Rogers can pay his child support and require that he give Elizabeth his piece of land if he cannot pay the twenty pound sum. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
<br />
I was really surprised by the Feme Sole Trader Acts in South Carolina. Obviously these women still had to have permission from their hubsands to be labeled as Feme Sole, but once they got that label they were free to do as they wished as far as their business went. It seems far outside of "progressive" for the time period. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
So, pre-marital sex was a big no-no. I'd imagine that the only way the courts found out would be if a) you had a "bastard child" (Mary Chelson) or b) actually told the courts (William and Mary Backway)? So they were both whipped and fined. However, when Rebecca Auborne admits to having a child with Samuel Kemble, she is whipped and he is just ordered to pay child support - why wouldn't he have been whipped like William Backway? - Matt<br />
<br />
I kind of enjoyed reading this section, in the same way you enjoy reading the police blotter. It was like a tabloid with odd spelling- but the punishments kind of appalled me. I realize that lashings were a very common punishment in this time, but some of the sentences seemed extreme for the crime committed. The sentence given to the Backways, for example- by the time of this writing, they were already married. Why was the court still punishing them for something they had done a while back? There was no mention made of a child, so I wonder how they ended up confessing in court to pre-marital sex. I was also startled by the sentence given to Margaret Brewster, which says she is to "strip to the waist" before being whipped. That they would ask a woman to take off clothing seems like it would be very unusual, and none of the other cases mention the woman being told to take off her clothing before being whipped, so this seems like a departure from the norm. - Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
When Woloch mentions women serving as an extension of their husbands in the courts, does she mean as a "deputy husband?" Also, I found the case of Margaret Brewster extremely interesting. As a woman who disguised herself in wearing black face and teaching the Word of God, she is definitely an exception. What was even more surprising than her actions was her extremely severe punishment for such a crime. "to bee stripped unto the waste and to bee tied to a cart's tayle and whip't out of the Town with twenty stripes, beginning at the said meeting house." Harsh. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that there was a different standard based on where you live. Each of these women receive something from there husband but the Virginia will did not care whether or not she remarried. She was still the woman that had been his wife while he was alive. Was this because of the location or simply because of the customs? –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
<br />
This will stuck out to me more then the others. After reading a few, I am sitting here thinking about how their wills were written, compared to how wills are written today. They were literally leaving everything they owned to someone. A dozen napkins? Nowadays if that was left to you, I feel it would be more of an insult and/or a cruel joke. It really just shows you how much stock they put into what they owned. - Matt<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that being an administrator/executor of a will would jump-start a business career for women. Lebsock describes that "as the executors of administrators of their deceased husbands' estates. . .the administrator was obliged to dissolve partnerships, to collect and pay debts, to pursue litigation, to distribute the estate to the proper heirs, and to manage it in the meantime." It seems that women more or less got a crash-course in conducting business and would find some prosperity in their loss. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
It seems women's roles in the church and charity pushed them to make decisions to give their wealth to people in need. Women usually gave to other women, which makes sense because many poor people were widows and orphans. However, women did choose favorites when sharing their good fortune. Women had favorite slaves, daughters, or other women. For women dividing wills was rarely equal. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Women used their wealth and good fortune based on their own value systems that differed from men's values. Lebsock calls this "persistent personalism."And, this "persistent personalism" drove women to give to charity and the church. Also, to use their money for themselves or to certain individuals. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I liked the difference the author established between the dominant narrative of women's passivity and their caution in investing. Women had every reason to be cautious - they often had less experience, and less resources at their disposal. But that didn't mean that the decisions they were making with their estates and their families estates weren't just as active and thoughtful. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
This essay was certainly not without its own biases. I was with Lebsock up until her explanation of women using their wills to free their slaves. According to Lebsock, the vast majority of southern women were really opposed to slavery deep down, and showed it in their wills, and slavery was really perpetuated by all those evil men. I buy her explanations (personalization) for wills, administration, etc, but this is a little too romanticized for me. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
As Lebsock notes, "Women, more than men, noticed and responded to the needs and merits of particular persons." (142) Throughout this reading, Lebsock emphasized this point. What I find most interesting about the reading, though, is the manner in which it seemed (to me, anyway) that Lebsock almost danced around a fairly obvious point while describing attitudes about slavery and slaves, without coming out and saying it. For me, after reading Mary Cumming's description of her specific slaves ("...Mary is a pretty good worker at her needle, she is now sitting beside me making a slip for herself" (139)) it seemed so patently obvious to me that women's more individualistic approach to slaves was due to their far greater and more meaningful interactions with slaves. While Lebsock goes part of the way--discussing, as Stef mentions, women's increasing likelihood to personalize their wills relative to their actual relationships, not custom or law--she fails to explore why that was the case. While men would interact with slaves more fleetingly, while in transit, overseeing work, or giving orders, it was not--as far as I know--uncommon for white women and their slaves to be performing household tasks at the same time, and in the same location. That is the exact set of circumstances that can lead to regular discussion, to feelings of intimacy, and to a meaningful individual relationship. That seemed even clearer to me when compared with men like Edmund Ruffin, the proslavery apologist who--almost intentionally, it seems--omitted any mention of his slaves from his otherwise intensely personal writings. For Ruffin, his interactions with slaves ("...yanking off his boots, one imagines, stirring up his woodstove, serving his suppers"(140)) tended to be shorter, single-action based interactions, unlike the prolongued interactions between white women and their slaves (as with Cummings, sitting beside her slave while one wrote a letter and the other sewed). -- Nicole<br />
<br />
In this article I found it interesting that Mary Bolling was able to pick and choose who she wanted her estate to go to. I thought that the first male would get everything, boy was I wrong. I also thought that she was a smart lady by investing in many different things to grow her estate for her children and her grandchildren. Not only was she making money she also knew the law and tried to have a stipulation in her will saying that if the Shore’s bring suit against her, her daughter Ann would receive nothing. I also was amused to know that even in the early 1800’s (around 1819) people were still getting swindled out of their money. Then it was tradesmen and slaves on women, and now its telemarketers and mail order items on elderly people. I also felt for Mary Read Anderson. She was never taught the ins and outs of business, so she always relied on a man and she “was to emphasize womanly weakness in order to justify her dependence on a male protector.”(Women Alone, 119)--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Malefactors and Complainants ==<br />
<br />
After reading these complaints, I was struck by the fact that all of these read “after she confessed”. Did all of these women really stand up in court and say yes it was me. I did this horrible thing that you are accusing me of. Were these women force to say these things, simply to get a more bearable punishment? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in many of these complaints, women were being charged with "fornication" and some with "fornication and having a bastard child." Why is it that only women are being convicted and punished for having sex out of wedlock? Is it all the womans fault? I'm pretty sure it definitely takes two and I highly doubt that these women were just so overpowering and forceful that they made these men have sex with them. It's absolutely outrageous. In the case of Rebecca Auborne and Samuel Kemble, the courts at least charged both of them for fornication and producing a bastard child; however, only Rebecca receives a physical punishment ("whip't with Fifteen Stripes", along with a monetary payment of 5 pounds and court fees) whereas Samuel Kemble (who actively participated in their fornication as well) was only sentenced to pay court fees and child support. Also, I agree with Kayle in her point she made about all of these women confessing. William Backway and his wife Mary were convicted "by theire own confession in court of committing fornication" (79). How exactly did the court find out about this fornication before their marriage? The text mentions no child involved as other passages do. In another example, Elizabeth Langberry was committed to prison and forced to pay court fees for becoming too drunk and allowing Thomas Ockerby to pull her into his lap. Why would she be punished for something that was not her fault? -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I too wondered about the women being charged with having sex before marriage and having a child. Unless you have a child, how would one find out and charge you with fornication before marriage? I wonder if they were ashamed and told on themselves, or if someone who knew about the act told someone else to get her in trouble. Also, does the man get in trouble for this? I was most shocked by the "Backway Sentence." A husband and wife confessed to having sex before marriage and they were both punished with being whipped or his wife could pay fifty shillings instead of receiving her whippings. I seriously blows my mind that they were punished even though they ended up getting married!<br />
This section also shows how little respect the court had for women. They often whipped the women as a punishment. This may sound sexist, but being whipped seems more like a punishment for a man, not a woman. --Ashley V.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_7_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 7 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-13T05:53:54Z<p>Bongo282: </p>
<hr />
<div>The diary of Martha Ballard was an insightful view into the world of midwifery by helping to clarify the deep connection women had to this responsibility. In last week's readings there was discussion of male doctors replacing the role of midwifes during child delivery and the resentment that was harbored by these women because of it. By reading Martha's diary, it becomes clear that being a midwife was much more than just a job but to women like her it was a way of life. Martha constantly discusses delivering babies and attending to the mothers in a very passionate way, displaying her own personal drive to help her community. Being a midwife appears to be what defines Ballard as a person, more so than her husband or religion, helping to clarify how dramatic the lifestyle change was for these women who were forced out of the delivery room by medical professionals. Being a midwife is what gave women power and social standing, and Martha appears to use her abilities as a successful midwife to obtain just that. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Martha Ballard had a terrible life. I also did my document paper on part of her diary and it seems like all she ever did was take care of other people and her family. That is just awful. She also spent a week or so in the portion of her diary that I worked with ill because of all the sick people she takes care of. It made me really sad. I do have to agree with Rachel, however, that she was defined by her status as a midwife. Probably because that is all she ever did, but still, at least it is a defining trait. Most women didn't have that. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
When reading Martha Ballard's diary, I was surprised by how many times she was called to help with births as well as care for the sick. At the end of the diary in Woloch, she states that shes assisted in twenty eight births for the past year. This seems like a high number from our perspective, but this was relatively normal in the late 1700s as women tended to have larger families, especially in New England. Furthermore, I thought it was interesting that she clarified seventeen of the children were daughters. I would have thought she would be more likely to state how many were sons, but perhaps this shows the beginning of a shift. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
I also was struck by the manner in which Martha Ballard recorded the events in her life. It is evident that her role as a midwife was her identity and that becomes evident by looking at the amount of time she spends relaying information concerning this matter. Like Rachel said, the life of a midwife gave Ballard a sense of purpose and status within the community. Her ability to constantly be helping others and sacrificing her own sleep ("I have lost 42 nights' sleep this year past") is an admirable trait. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
The Purrington Murders entires read like CSI: 18th Century New England, complete with lots of people coming to see the scene and the bodies - she writes that a hundred people came to see the corpses laid out, and it sounds like several different families responded at the scene! It sounded like it was both a very large community and a very close-knit one, or perhaps Martha just knew everyone because it seemed someone was sick nearly every day and they always came to her for help. She mentions later around the same time that another man had nearly killed his wife, and that didn't receive nearly so much concern or comment as the Purrington family's situation did; I wonder how much she or her community were influenced by the changing views of domestic violence among wealthier urban people. (Where would they have fallen in terms of location and class, anyway? It certainly sounds like it wasn't always easy to make ends meet.) I also wish she'd given more hint as to his motive; she only mentions that his wife had been quite ill, which hardly seems to be a good reason to murder her and his children. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I also did part of my last paper on her, and I too agree with Clare that it seemed like she had a terrible life. She was always home, always taking care of everyone and everything and just seemed sad in her writings. While I understand she was a midwife and this was part of her responsibility, it just seems like she was unhappy. - Matt<br />
<br />
The premarital pregnancy shows how Ballard's society felt about it. When Martha asks who the father is, it is law to ask a woman during labor because she will tell the truth at that time. I find it interesting that women "can't" lie while in labor. This was their testimony. Also, most of the women married the father's of their children. If not, then they stayed with their parents and married someone else. I believe there had to be some stigma, but in some parts of society today women are shunned for pregnancies outside of marriage. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Ok, wiki please save my comments this time. Maybe I don't have the emotional depth of Sara and Matt, but I didn't detect any sadness in her writing, only pragmatism. She seems to find her identity in her contribution to her community, rather than in her own feelings, which was pretty typical at the time. Introspection/self-pity are relatively new. I really enjoyed reading about the wide variety of medical emergencies that Ballard addressed. I guess I assumed that midwifery was delivery of babies exclusively, but Ballard seems to be a general practitioner. Are the doctors she refers to in the diary medical doctors or otherwise? --Stef<br />
I <br />
<br />
Like Stef, I was also intrigued by how Martha Ballard did more than help women give birth. It appears that she was very much relied on for her advice and was a well known and respected midwife which is portrayed by her constantly going to houses in need of aid. However, I disagree with the notion that she had a terrible life. Not once does she personally complain about her work and her constantly going out to help others in itself reflects the value she put on her work. If she truly began to get worn down, I am sure she would have been fine in giving herself a vacation. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
On the 19th she mentioned that she attended a lecture but didn’t say what it was about. Was it a medical lecture, how modern doctors are always traveling around to go to lectures? On the 21st she said she went to a meeting on Sunday, I’m assuming that means a church service? On September 6th she mentioned going to the town (how far I wonder is that?) meeting to hire Mr. Noble. “Voted to hire him till March.” Does this mean that she voted herself? On Sunday the 11th, she mentions that she had to inform a woman that her child had deceased. I’m sure she had gotten very used to this and desensitized to death, but I wish she could have given a hint to her feelings. She seems very passive in that entry mentioning telling the mother and the funeral is the following day. I was surprised that she mentioned things like people stubbing their foots or a bruised toe. I suppose maybe these could have been more serious during that time, but to me a bruised to seems to be such a small problem I’d be embarrassed to even ask for the doctor. On the 13th what did she mean by “Watched at the Fort this night”? -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I didn’t get the feeling from her journal that she hated her life. I think, in fact, that she greatly valued her profession and herself for that matter. She worked very hard and lost sleep and witnessed death, but what she did was important to people, she was making a difference and I think she loved it. From her writing, she seems very desensitized but I don’t think that means she hated her life, I think she is desensitized as a result of her profession. I’ve met many surgeons and doctors that have seen too much and can not allow horrible things to effect their day to day activities, or sanity… -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I'm going to weigh in on the side of everyone who doesn't think that she was particularly unhappy with her life. She was busy, certainly, but I didn't detect moroseness in her entries at all, just brevity. There are not many details, but I don't think that's a sign of depression. I think if she had not been happy doing what she was doing, she wouldn't have done it- it was not as though women were expected to work outside the home, after all, and it was not as though she was the only person available to help sick or injured neighbors. She mentions having "competition" and that there are doctors and other midwives present. Despite the loss fo 42 nights of sleep, I got the feeling this was a choice she made and was content with. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
When I was reading her diary, all I was thinking is that she was horribly over worked. The last line of the diary that was in our textbook is that she had lost 42 nights sleep this year….something that most women could not say. She ran a household, took care of a family and kept a whole town healthy. With someone that most likely only had a simple education, why was she given the job that took years of training? –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
There were three things in this diary that I found particularly interesting. The first is very trivial, but I noticed that she recorded Thanksgiving Day on December 15th. Did the date of Thanksgiving somehow change? The second thing was that Ballard did much more than be a midwife by healing people with all sorts of sicknesses. The third thing is the most intriguing, and that is that on September 6th, she attended and voted in a town meeting. This seems to me to be a sort of political action. Was voting like that much more acceptable than electoral voting? ---Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
I actually look up to Ballard. She is a very strong woman. She raised 6 children, was a wife, became a midwife at the age of 42, practiced other types of medicine, produced clothing, quilted and did other odd jobs. She seemed to be very strong willed. I did have sympathy for her because she was often ill due to her line of work and because she was at home a lot while her husband was out working or doing other things. She was very short with her words, but I couldn't tell if this was due to bitterness, an uninteresting day, or if she lacked the type of education it took to write very well. Page 63 states that the passages were taken from an edited version that shortened her entries, but I wrote my first paper on her diary and that version was the same way, so I'm assuming all entries were already pretty short(?). --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
I would agree with Ashley and with many of the other posts that argue that she enjoyed her life. Yes, it was stressful, but at the same time, she not only was a midwife who helped the mothers and children at the time of birth. But, after birth, it shows she cared for the kids after they were born. She had love towards them and asked and cared for them. Also, her life can be compared to women of today who are mothers, take care of the household and children, and still have time to take care of the husband as well; would we be questioning the lives of those woman today? I think it's important to realize also how involved she was in the community, she also participated in funerals. In addition to Mary Beth's post, I guess she had more say in town matters and the way things were done than the average woman? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I am surprised at the notes that she took and that she was as educated as she was. People in her town and even further it seemed, really liked her caretaker abilities. I also found it interesting that she took notes as to what she gave people for remedies and if she charged them. In her diary you also get a feel of her personal life like who is there and what people are doing. I also found it funny that she mentions she was home for her anniversary and how many years they have been married, but she never says if Mr. Ballard was home with her. Her diary was a great glimpse of a normal day for her but she doesn’t really write how she feels (except when she was sick). I enjoyed reading this because you very rarely saw what a woman went through during this time. --Pam P.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-06T12:19:50Z<p>Bongo282: /* Catherine Scholten, "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art" 1977 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Catherine Scholten, "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art" 1977 ==<br />
<br />
'''Why did this change occur, and why were women willing to put up with it?'''<br />
<br />
In this article, Scholten brings up a point I had not considered: that '''changes in the way childbirth was viewed and dealt with were connected to religious and social attitudes.''' I knew, of course, that the idea of men as midwives or obstetricians was a social change, and that there were a number of factors associated with that change. What I had not considered was how the religious view of childbirth changed as science changed. '''As science was able to make childbirth less painful for the mother, the clergy actually reinterpreted Biblical texts relating to childbirth.''' This was one effect of scientific changes which I had not considered. -- Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
What interested me the most about this article was the dramatic shift in attitudes with the shift from Midwives to Physicians between the centuries. Throughout the 18th century, it was more of a womanly affair with support and keeping the mother in mind at all times, and then in the 19th century with the male physicians, it came to putting the child first over the mother. Even though Scholten connects this shift to the advancement of science and social changes, '''I wonder why women put up with the shift in attitudes,''' was it because they were so used to the patriarchal system? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
Interesting how men perceived their exclusion from midwifery as prejudice, but thought not at all about female exlusion from just about every other career. Also, once the numbers of men practicing midwifery/obstetrics surpassed the number of women, midwifery is finally adopted by universities for study as a branch of medicine. I do have a question regarding sexual taboos that the essay did not adequately answer: '''if women were not comfortable with male midwives (cutting the umbilical cord under the covers with the lights off? come on!), and husbands were not comfortable with exposure of their wives' bodies to male midwives, and female midwives were not happy with the change, who exactly supported it?''' --Stef L.<br />
<br />
When viewing this shift from a midwife centered birthing system to one that was purely medical, it seems as though it would be would be an important step in the advancement of women's health. However, even though the intensions of some of these male physicians may have been true to the patient it appears that such help was unwanted and even feared by the female community. Male physicians saw this field of medicine as one that had been long neglected and needed to be addressed in order to bring birthing practices from a "primitive society" to one that was civilized. Women on the other hand did not see such a need for male interference and viewed this shift as distressing and corrupting the female communal experience of child birth. Was it that women were alright with living in this "primitive society", in regards to birthing, in order to retain their social and cultural lives as females? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In this reading, it really struck out to me the different responsibilities and activities that the midwives would get involved in, such as testifying for bastard children, attending baptisms and funerals, etc. It seemed they made more of a personal connection with the family and the baby. I found the shift from female midwives to males to be really surprising. Society always had a sense of shyness when it came to women. Women were supposed to be ladies and keep their physical beauty and body to their husband and not out in public to non family members. But, I believe with the increase of males delivering babies, those guards of shyness between men and women began to come down, slowly. In return, changing the mannerly way of men and women in society. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
Scholten addresses the transition between childbirth as communal to childbirth as private. Where female midwives were once central to the childbirth process, women were now being excluded from the newly formed professional field of childbirth. Women were seen as unfit for the professional world. In a position that women had previously always filled, they were now hardly allowed to practice midwifery as men were seen as "more useful." Now, men had taken one of the only jobs that women were able to fill at the time.''' I would like to know how midwives of the time felt about their demotion and male feelings of superiority.''' -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
This article was very interesting, that because male physicians started entering this field it "lead to the demand for female physicians." Which I'm sure some women had an "ah ha" moment. However I do see where the community surrounded the mother for support during the childbirth and how that might effect the group dynamic when physicians took the place of these other women. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that midwifery was being phased out by all the physicians who were just starting out in the field. The midwives in my opinion did the same job as the physicians, but because they were female, it made all the difference. Now the field is open to both men and women, both sexes can do the job. They may have different ideas about how to do their job, but the end result is the same. ---Pam Petzold <br />
<br />
== JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY, Story of Margaretta, 1798 ==<br />
<br />
'''It is particularly strange to me that a book excerpt written by a woman pretending to be a man about a woman was a best seller.''' Especially one so subtly in support of women's education, at the very least for the sake of the children whom she was raising. I think that had this been written by less eloquent and well-versed of a writer, it would have been blatant in its' authors' sex and vulgar in its' attempt at constructing a fake family. Since Judith Sargent Murray was atypical to her society (and would probably be atypical in today's society) in both sex roles and in intelligence levels, this fake story passed off as a true story succeeds. Even I would've thought this was a man writing if I had not reminded myself of such. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
What is most interesting is the fact that Murray was writing as a man about a young woman. '''To write the description of a good young women from male perspective shows that Murray must have heard or discussed with the men in her life about what characteristics a respectable young woman should own. Are these characteristics important to women? And, if so are they important in the same way their are important to men?''' --Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
'''One quote that struck me was “Persons when holding a pen, generally express themselves more freely than when engaged in conversation; and if they have a perfect confidence in those whom they address, the probability is, that, unbosoming themselves, they will not fail to unveil the inmost recesses of their souls.” While this quote is included in the story of Margaretta in terms of Margaretta, I think that it still says something about Judith Sargent Murray herself. The ideas she expresses in the story concerning education of women were not widely supported in her time. By adopting the point of view of a man writing about womens education, Murray allows herself to write of her true thoughts regarding the subject, ones she likely would not discuss vocally'''. –Clare O<br />
<br />
One woman had all the characteristics and talents; she spoke English and French, she was educated in geography and philosophy and much more. It was interesting to see that eventhough this was a woman disguised as a man, she introduced these thoughts of women having a well rounded education. I wonder if it had been a women with these thoughts, would she have received any/much scrutiny for bringing or introducing ideals such as these. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to see a woman write a man’s point of view. I agree with Sara though that I found it interesting that it was a “man” in support of women’s education and the series was a best seller. It would have been interesting to read the rest of the series. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
This book by Murray is unique because of a few different reasons. First, a woman writing as a man is rare. Secondly, though, this writing portrays a sort of renaissance woman. Murray describes a woman who is good at everything; she can speak the two most important languages of the day, she can cook well, she is able to convey ideas and thoughts clearly through different medias, and she is effective at teaching others (namely her kid). This isn't taking a definitive stance toward any particular pole (typical versus completely atypical gender roles), which makes it a very constructive novel for women's history. <br />
--Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
I was surprised when reading this to know it was coming from a woman's perspective as a man (whew) but it really made me think about how important it was for women to let men know that they were capable of learning and being accomplished. Unfortunately the only way this was possible was to have it told by a man. I wonder how this and other pieces of literature changed the way men thought about the education of women, maybe especially their wives and daughters. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON, Charlotte: A Tale of Truth, 1794 ==<br />
<br />
''"While the tear of compassion still trembled in my eye for the fate<br />
of the unhappy Charlotte, I may have children of my own, said I, to<br />
whom this recital may be of use, and if to your own children, said<br />
Benevolence, why not to the many daughters of Misfortune who, deprived<br />
of natural friends, or spoilt by a mistaken education, are thrown<br />
on an unfeeling world without the least power to defend themselves<br />
from the snares not only of the other sex, but from the more dangerous<br />
arts of the profligate of their own."'' (page 190). <br />
I include this quote because I really think that this is a concept that so many activist leaders could relate to... the dream of wanting a better world, not for themself, but for their CHILDREN. It also is significant because the person for whom Susanna Rowson feels had a bad life was not that of her own, but of Charlotte. Maybe it is that oppression is seen more extensively in those around the oppressed than in the oppressed themself, or maybe Susanna felt her life was NOT oppressed after hearing that of Charlottes. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The message is the ''honor'' of women is very important. If a women acts against her honor or goodwill, then ultimately she will end in death. I have a question for this story?''' Were men or women reading this story, or both? Or who was the intended audience? These questions could shed some light on how women were perceived to act.''' --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Although the power and influence of men over women is highly apparent in this time period, I was rather shocked when Montraville essentially kidnapped Charlotte when she refused to go overseas with him due to loyalty and duty to her parents. More shocking however, is that fact that no one attempted to aid Charlotte when she was shrieking and obviously being taken against her will. Particularly Mademoiselle could have alerted someone to what was going on, but perhaps since she came to see Belcour that she was under his influence not to. Furthermore, once Montraville acquired Charlotte as his wife in the colonies, he treated her with indifference and neglect. This shows that males wanted to exert and demonstrate their power over women and once they had secured that power, the women required no more of their attention. –Clare O.<br />
<br />
'''I found it astonishing that this woman was such a successful writer during this time period''', I suppose the themes were acceptable to the vast majority of men who allowed her works to be published. Preaching to young girls to obey her parents; if she dishonors herself and her parents by eloping, she will most certainly live a horrible life and die ashamed. I was curious, on page 194, what exactly does Rownson mean by “sober matron”, I thought her intended audience was the “young and thoughtless of the fair sex”. I''' found the title to be interesting as well, “Charlottle. A Tale of Truth” this implies that this is story is not only true but this is the horrible truth of the consequences of dishonor.''' -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I thought Rowson's conversation with the "sober matron" who's checking the book before letting her daughter read it throughout the chapters we read was really interesting. Even though her stated audience was young women, urging them not to go off and elope themselves, she kind of seems to be appealing to the importance of mothers in raising their children properly in a way that I'm not sure we've seen before. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare, i was also surprised where the rest of the family was when she needed help. Montraville basically guilt-tripped Charlotte into going against her parents and leaving them for him. She was a woman of value, morals and beliefs that she was very strongly rooted in; but eventually gave into the love of her life. So far in class, we talk about how much power the male member of the family has, however, it was interesting to see how much influence and power he had with her, even before he became apart of the family; he was basically giving her ultimatums. (top of 200).... --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading the novel. I thought that for the time it was well thought out and that the reader was able to follow the storyline.''' What was even more amazing to me was that a woman wrote this and published it under her own name. I assumed even women that had attended the schooling were not encouraged to use their schooling other than to help with the rearing of future leaders. Does this mean that they are more works by women of this era, under their own names?''' –Kayle P<br />
<br />
'''Yuck. I am glad that we read this in the same week as the Judith Murray piece, since both are more soapbox than story.''' I found it interesting that the "female" writer reinforced existing gender roles, while the "male" writer offered alternatives for women. Why did Murray choose to use a male voice? Was it because she felt her ideas would be taken more seriously? Because she was afraid of repercussions? '''Getting back to the Charlotte piece though, yuck. This melodramatic thing was a bestseller for 50 years? I would be curious to see what the rest of her work was like. Although, as Rowson suggests within the story, this was probably a novel intended to be passed along to young women by their sober mothers (as a means for controlling them through gullible fear, and perpetuating existing patriarchal marital framework). Why women perpetuated this, more even than men did, I will never understand.''' --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I read this a few years ago in a literature class, and it still makes me cringe out of disgust for certain characters and be filled with sadness for Charlotte. I also wonder, who did she intend to write this for? Men, women, children? It's a tale of betrayal and dishonesty. I'm assuming it was meant to be a lesson of what to do and what not to do. If you disobey your parents, have sex, and run away, you will be punished. Unfortunately for the the characters in this story, their punishment was death. Charlotte did all of what I previously stated and died in the end; Belcour tricks his friend and Charlotte, lies, and betrays and is killed by Montraville; La Rue is just as guilty of lying, trickery, and betrayal as Belcour and also faces a miserable death. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting because it so obviously enforces the gender roles of the time. It seems to support them, yet Charlotte was so incredibly unhappy with her life with Montraville that it also seems a little unlikely that Rowson actually believed that her life was the best life. The first time that she had felt joy was when her father had resurfaced in her life, and she was dying. I also found it very intriguing that Montraville was not mentioned or seen at all in the last chapter when she was dying. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
It is quite interesting that Susanna Rowson published this novel under her own name. I think it is an assumption and a stereotype that all women had to use masculine pen names to avoid gender discovery. Rowson obviously drew acclaim and success for years after the publication of her work, despite the novel being written by a woman. '''As many of my classmates have already pointed out, I also was struck by how Rowson cemented gender roles in her writing as opposed to challenging them.''' --Ellen S.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-28T22:31:56Z<p>Bongo282: /* A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
We talked about the idea of women as "adored and oppressed" in my Women's Studies class last year - positive and negative sexism, I think we called it, and discussed how the two reinforced each other. But other than pointing out that women are in trouble whether married or not, he doesn't go actually talk very much about that problem; rather, he seems to see women's oppression as a result of their emotional fragility, and asks men to give them a bit more credit without suggesting that their roles need change at all. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Eliza Wilkinson is annoyed with the fact that all men see women as “dairy and household” workers. She also feels oppressed by the men in her life. It seems to me with the upcoming fight with the British, she is hoping that her thoughts and writings will actually become a beacon of freedom for her and other women. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison being captured by the Indians was confusing to her. She goes back and forth from “our Indians and my Indian brother” to “the Indians”. She stayed loyal to the Indian tribe until they ran out of food. She took her kids and left to pursue other avenues to get food, and never returned. I will say this until the food shortage she does not appear to go along with the decision to do battle for the British, but she does recognize these Indians as her family even if she does not see eye to eye with their actions. -–Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
I actually found this reading quite confusing. Who's doing the writing? She's described as a Deponent, which Wikipedia describes as someone giving testimony outside of court in preparation for a trial. What was the trial? Also, I didn't understand what she meant by the quote Claire cited above, "the bullets would not cheat the gallows." I did find the exchange with the Quaker women who asked her to stay interesting. Would she be waiting for her husband to find her again after the war, on the off chance he survived? If that's what they were offering, I'm not surprised at all she choose to stay with the people she knew rather than waiting it out with strangers. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
Its interesting that The Revolutionary War is typically viewed as the colonists fight for independence but through the readings on Wheatley, Murray and Adams it proves that there was another war being fought within colonial life. It was extraordinary that Phillis was educated and treated to such a level that she was practically treated like a daughter by her masters allowing her to be able to cultivate these parallels between the struggles for freedom with Britain and slavery. Being a slave and woman what she wrote seems out of place in the subservient world women and especially slaves lived in at the time. Although, all but Adams wrote under false names they still carried a sense of entitlement to speak out against the lifestyle given to them. Which made me question whether the fight for freedom against Britain was seen as by women as their ticket to finally speak out or was it the male mindset that was being altered towards what role women were supposed to play?<br />
-Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
Abigail comes off as a very strong and motivated woman in these letters. With each response back from John Adams, she seems to become even more determined. I personally enjoy the exchange between him and her where they refer to each other as "saucy". - Matt<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the "Principals of the Academy" and the rules that women would have to follow for the branches of literature, my first question is were the men disciplined in all of these rules? Specifically section II where they had to write fair and legible and shape every letter properly and use the points and capitals as needed - were men expected to write that way as well? And in section VIII, they wanted to connect the education with regular instruction in the Christian religion, what would happen if they weren't as accepting of the religion aspect? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not '''''forbid''''' us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in '''''our love''''' for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-28T21:38:58Z<p>Bongo282: /* An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
We talked about the idea of women as "adored and oppressed" in my Women's Studies class last year - positive and negative sexism, I think we called it, and discussed how the two reinforced each other. But other than pointing out that women are in trouble whether married or not, he doesn't go actually talk very much about that problem; rather, he seems to see women's oppression as a result of their emotional fragility, and asks men to give them a bit more credit without suggesting that their roles need change at all. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison being captured by the Indians was confusing to her. She goes back and forth from “our Indians and my Indian brother” to “the Indians”. She stayed loyal to the Indian tribe until they ran out of food. She took her kids and left to pursue other avenues to get food, and never returned. I will say this until the food shortage she does not appear to go along with the decision to do battle for the British, but she does recognize these Indians as her family even if she does not see eye to eye with their actions. -–Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
I actually found this reading quite confusing. Who's doing the writing? She's described as a Deponent, which Wikipedia describes as someone giving testimony outside of court in preparation for a trial. What was the trial? Also, I didn't understand what she meant by the quote Claire cited above, "the bullets would not cheat the gallows." I did find the exchange with the Quaker women who asked her to stay interesting. Would she be waiting for her husband to find her again after the war, on the off chance he survived? If that's what they were offering, I'm not surprised at all she choose to stay with the people she knew rather than waiting it out with strangers. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
Abigail comes off as a very strong and motivated woman in these letters. With each response back from John Adams, she seems to become even more determined. I personally enjoy the exchange between him and her where they refer to each other as "saucy". - Matt<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the "Principals of the Academy" and the rules that women would have to follow for the branches of literature, my first question is were the men disciplined in all of these rules? Specifically section II where they had to write fair and legible and shape every letter properly and use the points and capitals as needed - were men expected to write that way as well? And in section VIII, they wanted to connect the education with regular instruction in the Christian religion, what would happen if they weren't as accepting of the religion aspect? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not '''''forbid''''' us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in '''''our love''''' for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-28T21:37:25Z<p>Bongo282: /* An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
We talked about the idea of women as "adored and oppressed" in my Women's Studies class last year - positive and negative sexism, I think we called it, and discussed how the two reinforced each other. But other than pointing out that women are in trouble whether married or not, he doesn't go actually talk very much about that problem; rather, he seems to see women's oppression as a result of their emotional fragility, and asks men to give them a bit more credit without suggesting that their roles need change at all. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison being captured by the Indians was confusing to her. She goes back and forth from “our Indians and my Indian brother” to “the Indians”. She stayed loyal to the Indian tribe until they ran out of food. She took her kids and left to pursue other avenues to get food, and never returned. I will say this until the food shortage she does not appear to go along with the decision to do battle for the British, but she does recognize these Indians as her family even if she does not see eye to eye with their actions. -–Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
I actually found this reading quite confusing. Who's doing the writing? She's described as a Deponent, which Wikipedia describes as someone giving testimony outside of court in preparation for a trial. What was the trial? Also, I didn't understand what she meant by the quote Claire cited above, "the bullets would not cheat the gallows." I did find the exchange with the Quaker women who asked her to stay interesting. Would she be waiting for her husband to find her again after the war, on the off chance he survived? If that's what they were offering, I'm not surprised at all she choose to stay with the people she knew rather than waiting it out with strangers. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
Abigail comes off as a very strong and motivated woman in these letters. With each response back from John Adams, she seems to become even more determined. I personally enjoy the exchange between him and her where they refer to each other as "saucy". - Matt<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the "Principals of the Academy" and the rules that women would have to follow for the branches of literature, my first question is were the men disciplined in all of these rules? Specifically section II where they had to write fair and legible and shape every letter properly and use the points and capitals as needed - were men expected to write that way as well? And in section VIII, they wanted to connect the education with regular instruction in the Christian religion, what would happen if they weren't as accepting of the religion aspect? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not '''forbid'''''Italic text'' us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in '''our love'''''Italic text'' for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-28T21:36:18Z<p>Bongo282: /* Mary Jemison Views the Revolution */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
We talked about the idea of women as "adored and oppressed" in my Women's Studies class last year - positive and negative sexism, I think we called it, and discussed how the two reinforced each other. But other than pointing out that women are in trouble whether married or not, he doesn't go actually talk very much about that problem; rather, he seems to see women's oppression as a result of their emotional fragility, and asks men to give them a bit more credit without suggesting that their roles need change at all. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison being captured by the Indians was confusing to her. She goes back and forth from “our Indians and my Indian brother” to “the Indians”. She stayed loyal to the Indian tribe until they ran out of food. She took her kids and left to pursue other avenues to get food, and never returned. I will say this until the food shortage she does not appear to go along with the decision to do battle for the British, but she does recognize these Indians as her family even if she does not see eye to eye with their actions. -–Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
I actually found this reading quite confusing. Who's doing the writing? She's described as a Deponent, which Wikipedia describes as someone giving testimony outside of court in preparation for a trial. What was the trial? Also, I didn't understand what she meant by the quote Claire cited above, "the bullets would not cheat the gallows." I did find the exchange with the Quaker women who asked her to stay interesting. Would she be waiting for her husband to find her again after the war, on the off chance he survived? If that's what they were offering, I'm not surprised at all she choose to stay with the people she knew rather than waiting it out with strangers. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
Abigail comes off as a very strong and motivated woman in these letters. With each response back from John Adams, she seems to become even more determined. I personally enjoy the exchange between him and her where they refer to each other as "saucy". - Matt<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the "Principals of the Academy" and the rules that women would have to follow for the branches of literature, my first question is were the men disciplined in all of these rules? Specifically section II where they had to write fair and legible and shape every letter properly and use the points and capitals as needed - were men expected to write that way as well? And in section VIII, they wanted to connect the education with regular instruction in the Christian religion, what would happen if they weren't as accepting of the religion aspect? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not forbid us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in our love for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-28T20:05:49Z<p>Bongo282: /* Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not forbid us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in our love for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-28T20:05:25Z<p>Bongo282: /* An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not forbid us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in our love for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-28T19:45:21Z<p>Bongo282: /* Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-22T05:47:18Z<p>Bongo282: /* Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
I found the distinctions between Puritan and Quaker women fascinating. First, Anne Hutchinson was banished for leading meetings; yet, Quaker women are encouraged to lead (other women). Second, Anne Bradstreet acknowledges that she has no power to bring her children to God, yet Quaker women recognize their strong influence over the faith of their children. How could two such opposite groups have a faith based on the same book? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I actually was not appropriately happy with the description of the egalitarian society of the quakers. Equal in spirituality and religion is not the same thing as being equal in society. Also, Anne Hutchinson was banned for leading meetings that ran opposite of the government (Which was the same as religious organizations). I think it's really easy to take equality in spirituality and religious leadership to mean the same thing as having power. Quaker women were not equal in society with their male counterparts, simply the society was not as important and the city of god was more important. --Sara <br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sarah Fiske's Conversion was its connection to Susanna Wesley's parenting techniques. Fiske, right or wrong , had to bend her will to the congregation and to god in order to be accepted. Wesley taught that bending the child's will is one of the most important tasks, so that the child will bend to god's will. ---Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in this reading the way in which Anne Bradstreet viewed suffering and adversity in her life. She is extremely honest; however, there is an underlying consistency in her faith as she seems to always remind herself of her beliefs. For example, she describes her affliction akin to God having "ground [her] to powder" (101). Then at the conclusion of this same paragraph, she states that "it is the absence and presence of God that makes Heaven or Hell" (101). Bradstreet's writings have given us a glimpse into the Puritan way of life and how her life was marked out in her mind by spiritual milestones. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
I'm amazed no one has commented on this one yet. I mean, we've learned who Anne Hutchinson was since we were in high school. This means not only is she a significant woman, but typical history itself finds her significant as well. There are very few women in history for whom this can be said. To read her words, where she eloquently destroys her opponent and uses her understanding of legal proceedings to her defense. The fact that she was so learned in the ways of common law is almost as significant as the fact that we've learned about her for so long-- even back then not every one was learned in legal understandings. The more important question is, however, who are the women in this situation we don't learn about? --Sara<br />
<br />
In my opinion, it really didn't matter if she had someone speak on her behalf. According to the officials she was breaking the fifth commandment with her words. The punishment for this is banishment??? I think this is a little harsh, but Puritan women were not supposed to become "preachers" they were supposed to listen and obey. Thankfully things have changed in this respect. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
<br />
These all female meetings show a safe place for women to confide in each other. Not that these women are going to start a revolution, but to vent about the troubles of marriage, raising children and following god's will. It reminds me of Esther Burr's letters to her friend. Also, it is similar to Victorian era women's strong bonds in friendship. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
There is really a huge difference between what the Puritans consider acceptable and what the Quakers considered acceptable. The word of God needed to spread to other people, the Puritans thought that only men could do this, meanwhile, Quaker women felt comfortable to speak about their religious ideas in public. In both areas women were still seen as weak. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening,” David Brainard discusses two “awakenings” of two Native Americans. The reliability of this source is extremely questionable. Brainard claims to have convinced a Native American woman of having a soul and she cries out for her soul’s salvation. However, Brainard states he “perceived the burden of her prayer to be [in Indian language] i.e. have mercy on me.” Brainard himself uses the word “perceived” which means he interpreted what the Indian woman was saying, which is not always reliable. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Brainard truly had a grasp on in Indian language and therefore it is possible that he misinterpreted what she said or even made things up. The information before the text stated that Brainard was expelled from Yale and was only later made a minister. It is possible he embellished or fabricated his missionary work to improve his reputation. -Clare O<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
I found this memoir to be most interesting because of her age. I am only 22 and can barely remember things from elementary school, I don't know how a 97 year old could have an accurate memory of something that happened when she was 13. Also, she was lying down thinking she was going to die; her vivid memory sounds more like a vivid imagination and nothing more than a dream. I am a Christian and do indeed believe in miracles, but her experience does not seem possible. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
I have to disagree with you Ashley, I have to say I smiled the whole time I read this story. I don't think her age has anything to do with recalling the events in her life. I have a 104yr old great grandmother who still remembers events that happened to her at a very early age, like when she was 8yrs old! We all have memories that capture us that we don't forget, who would forget the moment that they "found" religion. Not to downplay her moment in when the Lord asked if she wanted to be saved, she was not eating, so she probably was hallucinating...from lack of food, just a thought. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing is more of a testament to the power of words than the Salem witch trials. I find it astounding that accusations from neighbors can completely cost people their reputation and even their life, when widely believed. Furthermore, even if the accused takes the accusers to trial for slander, as in the case of Elizabeth Godman, it is likely that it will have no effect. It is shocking that people could lose their lives based on coincidences, such as Elizabeth, who was near when a child got sick, and supposed witchlike behavior, such as grinning in a “strange manner.” Perhaps this shows that there still was ties between religion and the courts, because fear of witchcraft is closely tied to religion, and the courts were likely to convict an accused witch. - Clare O<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare but unlike most of the later trials for witchcraft the sentence that was placed on Elizabeth was very lenient. “The court declared unto her that though the evidence is not sufficient as yet to take away her life, yet suspitions are cleere…” pg 55 So we know you’re a witch but we do not have enough to kill you, so instead we will banish you from going from house to house. It amazed me that logic did apply to the witchcraft trials before the time of the Salem trials and that not everyone accused of witch craft was killed. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
As someone who knits and sews myself, I have to say - wow, this woman's list of finished pieces is impressive. I'm curious about the change of format about a page into the diary, from a list of pieces worked on to more comments on her social relations. I wonder why she changed her focus in what she deemed important to write about. The list seems to come mostly before she was married, so maybe developing her skills as a housewife was important to her? She mentions a gift for her future husband among her products. Whereas after she married, maybe her role in the community became more important? I wonder why that would be? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
After reading this I couldn't help but wonder if these were the first female slaves he'd ever owned? The slaves seem to be playing him. It doesn't seem like he is very authoritative with them, almost like he just leaves his property and expects everyone to work without supervision. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
<br />
I have seen inventories from the colonial time period much like this one. For someone in 2011, it is sad to see human beings in a list like livestock. The list does provide us with information on how slaves were used or what skills slaves had. George Washington had his owns self sufficient village at Mont Vernon. --Michelle<br />
<br />
The records that slave owners kept never cease to amaze me. They really were quite detailed and I feel show some level of compassion. Knowing the slaves age would be in important for how long they would be able to work but if the slave was child it would not matter how old they were. Keeping records of their age shows at least, in my opinion some level of compassion. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Within the Karin Wulf's entry "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" I found the portion pertaining to the widows and their inheritance to be very enlightening. Wulf is able to clarify the assumptions that widows were solely dependent on the wealth left to them by their spouses. By explaining that women and men were interdependent upon each other with household income being a dual effort. It led me to wonder why widowed women were looked as so helpless and dependent on their deceased partners by society when it well known that it was far from the case? Even when citing prominent Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as inheritors to wealth the stereotype of the helpless widow was carried on. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was the pay difference between men and women doing the same work - women earned between 1/4th and 1/2th of what men did. After talking about the economics of changing from indentured servants to slaves last class, I wondered... wouldn't hiring women or supporting women's businesses then become the more economically viable option, since they worked for so much less? Did that encourage female business owners at all? I was also surprised that mortuary work was considered a woman's job; I wonder what sort of tasks were involved in that, and how the transition was made from women as mortuary workers to the modern image of a creepy male undertaker. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" is the apparent difference in societal circumstances for women in this region than from other areas. Even though it took widowhood or an inheritance of some other sort for women to go into business, it appears that this was a pretty accessible option for women to make a living for themselves. I wonder if women in the other regions would be able to easily go into this work like these Philadelphia women did (even though it was not a terribly easy thing to do for them either).--Heather T.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-22T05:28:56Z<p>Bongo282: /* Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
I found the distinctions between Puritan and Quaker women fascinating. First, Anne Hutchinson was banished for leading meetings; yet, Quaker women are encouraged to lead (other women). Second, Anne Bradstreet acknowledges that she has no power to bring her children to God, yet Quaker women recognize their strong influence over the faith of their children. How could two such opposite groups have a faith based on the same book? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I actually was not appropriately happy with the description of the egalitarian society of the quakers. Equal in spirituality and religion is not the same thing as being equal in society. Also, Anne Hutchinson was banned for leading meetings that ran opposite of the government (Which was the same as religious organizations). I think it's really easy to take equality in spirituality and religious leadership to mean the same thing as having power. Quaker women were not equal in society with their male counterparts, simply the society was not as important and the city of god was more important. --Sara <br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sarah Fiske's Conversion was its connection to Susanna Wesley's parenting techniques. Fiske, right or wrong , had to bend her will to the congregation and to god in order to be accepted. Wesley taught that bending the child's will is one of the most important tasks, so that the child will bend to god's will. ---Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in this reading the way in which Anne Bradstreet viewed suffering and adversity in her life. She is extremely honest; however, there is an underlying consistency in her faith as she seems to always remind herself of her beliefs. For example, she describes her affliction akin to God having "ground [her] to powder" (101). Then at the conclusion of this same paragraph, she states that "it is the absence and presence of God that makes Heaven or Hell" (101). Bradstreet's writings have given us a glimpse into the Puritan way of life and how her life was marked out in her mind by spiritual milestones. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
I'm amazed no one has commented on this one yet. I mean, we've learned who Anne Hutchinson was since we were in high school. This means not only is she a significant woman, but typical history itself finds her significant as well. There are very few women in history for whom this can be said. To read her words, where she eloquently destroys her opponent and uses her understanding of legal proceedings to her defense. The fact that she was so learned in the ways of common law is almost as significant as the fact that we've learned about her for so long-- even back then not every one was learned in legal understandings. The more important question is, however, who are the women in this situation we don't learn about? --Sara<br />
<br />
In my opinion, it really didn't matter if she had someone speak on her behalf. According to the officials she was breaking the fifth commandment with her words. The punishment for this is banishment??? I think this is a little harsh, but Puritan women were not supposed to become "preachers" they were supposed to listen and obey. Thankfully things have changed in this respect. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
<br />
These all female meetings show a safe place for women to confide in each other. Not that these women are going to start a revolution, but to vent about the troubles of marriage, raising children and following god's will. It reminds me of Esther Burr's letters to her friend. Also, it is similar to Victorian era women's strong bonds in friendship. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening,” David Brainard discusses two “awakenings” of two Native Americans. The reliability of this source is extremely questionable. Brainard claims to have convinced a Native American woman of having a soul and she cries out for her soul’s salvation. However, Brainard states he “perceived the burden of her prayer to be [in Indian language] i.e. have mercy on me.” Brainard himself uses the word “perceived” which means he interpreted what the Indian woman was saying, which is not always reliable. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Brainard truly had a grasp on in Indian language and therefore it is possible that he misinterpreted what she said or even made things up. The information before the text stated that Brainard was expelled from Yale and was only later made a minister. It is possible he embellished or fabricated his missionary work to improve his reputation. -Clare O<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
I found this memoir to be most interesting because of her age. I am only 22 and can barely remember things from elementary school, I don't know how a 97 year old could have an accurate memory of something that happened when she was 13. Also, she was lying down thinking she was going to die; her vivid memory sounds more like a vivid imagination and nothing more than a dream. I am a Christian and do indeed believe in miracles, but her experience does not seem possible. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
I have to disagree with you Ashley, I have to say I smiled the whole time I read this story. I don't think her age has anything to do with recalling the events in her life. I have a 104yr old great grandmother who still remembers events that happened to her at a very early age, like when she was 8yrs old! We all have memories that capture us that we don't forget, who would forget the moment that they "found" religion. Not to downplay her moment in when the Lord asked if she wanted to be saved, she was not eating, so she probably was hallucinating...from lack of food, just a thought. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing is more of a testament to the power of words than the Salem witch trials. I find it astounding that accusations from neighbors can completely cost people their reputation and even their life, when widely believed. Furthermore, even if the accused takes the accusers to trial for slander, as in the case of Elizabeth Godman, it is likely that it will have no effect. It is shocking that people could lose their lives based on coincidences, such as Elizabeth, who was near when a child got sick, and supposed witchlike behavior, such as grinning in a “strange manner.” Perhaps this shows that there still was ties between religion and the courts, because fear of witchcraft is closely tied to religion, and the courts were likely to convict an accused witch. - Clare O<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare but unlike most of the later trials for witchcraft the sentence that was placed on Elizabeth was very lenient. “The court declared unto her that though the evidence is not sufficient as yet to take away her life, yet suspitions are cleere…” pg 55 So we know you’re a witch but we do not have enough to kill you, so instead we will banish you from going from house to house. It amazed me that logic did apply to the witchcraft trials before the time of the Salem trials and that not everyone accused of witch craft was killed. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
As someone who knits and sews myself, I have to say - wow, this woman's list of finished pieces is impressive. I'm curious about the change of format about a page into the diary, from a list of pieces worked on to more comments on her social relations. I wonder why she changed her focus in what she deemed important to write about. The list seems to come mostly before she was married, so maybe developing her skills as a housewife was important to her? She mentions a gift for her future husband among her products. Whereas after she married, maybe her role in the community became more important? I wonder why that would be? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
After reading this I couldn't help but wonder if these were the first female slaves he'd ever owned? The slaves seem to be playing him. It doesn't seem like he is very authoritative with them, almost like he just leaves his property and expects everyone to work without supervision. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
<br />
I have seen inventories from the colonial time period much like this one. For someone in 2011, it is sad to see human beings in a list like livestock. The list does provide us with information on how slaves were used or what skills slaves had. George Washington had his owns self sufficient village at Mont Vernon. --Michelle<br />
<br />
The records that slave owners kept never cease to amaze me. They really were quite detailed and I feel show some level of compassion. Knowing the slaves age would be in important for how long they would be able to work but if the slave was child it would not matter how old they were. Keeping records of their age shows at least, in my opinion some level of compassion. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Within the Karin Wulf's entry "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" I found the portion pertaining to the widows and their inheritance to be very enlightening. Wulf is able to clarify the assumptions that widows were solely dependent on the wealth left to them by their spouses. By explaining that women and men were interdependent upon each other with household income being a dual effort. It led me to wonder why widowed women were looked as so helpless and dependent on their deceased partners by society when it well known that it was far from the case? Even when citing prominent Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as inheritors to wealth the stereotype of the helpless widow was carried on. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was the pay difference between men and women doing the same work - women earned between 1/4th and 1/2th of what men did. After talking about the economics of changing from indentured servants to slaves last class, I wondered... wouldn't hiring women or supporting women's businesses then become the more economically viable option, since they worked for so much less? Did that encourage female business owners at all? I was also surprised that mortuary work was considered a woman's job; I wonder what sort of tasks were involved in that, and how the transition was made from women as mortuary workers to the modern image of a creepy male undertaker. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" is the apparent difference in societal circumstances for women in this region than from other areas. Even though it took widowhood or an inheritance of some other sort for women to go into business, it appears that this was a pretty accessible option for women to make a living for themselves. I wonder if women in the other regions would be able to easily go into this work like these Philadelphia women did (even though it was not a terribly easy thing to do for them either).--Heather T.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-22T05:12:50Z<p>Bongo282: /* Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
I found the distinctions between Puritan and Quaker women fascinating. First, Anne Hutchinson was banished for leading meetings; yet, Quaker women are encouraged to lead (other women). Second, Anne Bradstreet acknowledges that she has no power to bring her children to God, yet Quaker women recognize their strong influence over the faith of their children. How could two such opposite groups have a faith based on the same book? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I actually was not appropriately happy with the description of the egalitarian society of the quakers. Equal in spirituality and religion is not the same thing as being equal in society. Also, Anne Hutchinson was banned for leading meetings that ran opposite of the government (Which was the same as religious organizations). I think it's really easy to take equality in spirituality and religious leadership to mean the same thing as having power. Quaker women were not equal in society with their male counterparts, simply the society was not as important and the city of god was more important. --Sara <br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sarah Fiske's Conversion was its connection to Susanna Wesley's parenting techniques. Fiske, right or wrong , had to bend her will to the congregation and to god in order to be accepted. Wesley taught that bending the child's will is one of the most important tasks, so that the child will bend to god's will. ---Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in this reading the way in which Anne Bradstreet viewed suffering and adversity in her life. She is extremely honest; however, there is an underlying consistency in her faith as she seems to always remind herself of her beliefs. For example, she describes her affliction akin to God having "ground [her] to powder" (101). Then at the conclusion of this same paragraph, she states that "it is the absence and presence of God that makes Heaven or Hell" (101). Bradstreet's writings have given us a glimpse into the Puritan way of life and how her life was marked out in her mind by spiritual milestones. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
I'm amazed no one has commented on this one yet. I mean, we've learned who Anne Hutchinson was since we were in high school. This means not only is she a significant woman, but typical history itself finds her significant as well. There are very few women in history for whom this can be said. To read her words, where she eloquently destroys her opponent and uses her understanding of legal proceedings to her defense. The fact that she was so learned in the ways of commonlaw is almost as significant as the fact that we've learned about her for so long-- even back then not every one was learned in legal understandings. The more important question is, however, who are the women in this situation we don't learn about? --Sara<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
<br />
These all female meetings show a safe place for women to confide in each other. Not that these women are going to start a revolution, but to vent about the troubles of marriage, raising children and following god's will. It reminds me of Esther Burr's letters to her friend. Also, it is similar to Victorian era women's strong bonds in friendship. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening,” David Brainard discusses two “awakenings” of two Native Americans. The reliability of this source is extremely questionable. Brainard claims to have convinced a Native American woman of having a soul and she cries out for her soul’s salvation. However, Brainard states he “perceived the burden of her prayer to be [in Indian language] i.e. have mercy on me.” Brainard himself uses the word “perceived” which means he interpreted what the Indian woman was saying, which is not always reliable. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Brainard truly had a grasp on in Indian language and therefore it is possible that he misinterpreted what she said or even made things up. The information before the text stated that Brainard was expelled from Yale and was only later made a minister. It is possible he embellished or fabricated his missionary work to improve his reputation. -Clare O<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
I found this memoir to be most interesting because of her age. I am only 22 and can barely remember things from elementary school, I don't know how a 97 year old could have an accurate memory of something that happened when she was 13. Also, she was lying down thinking she was going to die; her vivid memory sounds more like a vivid imagination and nothing more than a dream. I am a Christian and do indeed believe in miracles, but her experience does not seem possible. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
I have to disagree with you Ashley, I have to say I smiled the whole time I read this story. I don't think her age has anything to do with recalling the events in her life. I have a 104yr old great grandmother who still remembers events that happened to her at a very early age, like when she was 8yrs old! We all have memories that capture us that we don't forget, who would forget the moment that they "found" religion. Not to downplay her moment in when the Lord asked if she wanted to be saved, she was not eating, so she probably was hallucinating...from lack of food, just a thought. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing is more of a testament to the power of words than the Salem witch trials. I find it astounding that accusations from neighbors can completely cost people their reputation and even their life, when widely believed. Furthermore, even if the accused takes the accusers to trial for slander, as in the case of Elizabeth Godman, it is likely that it will have no effect. It is shocking that people could lose their lives based on coincidences, such as Elizabeth, who was near when a child got sick, and supposed witchlike behavior, such as grinning in a “strange manner.” Perhaps this shows that there still was ties between religion and the courts, because fear of witchcraft is closely tied to religion, and the courts were likely to convict an accused witch. - Clare O<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare but unlike most of the later trials for witchcraft the sentence that was placed on Elizabeth was very lenient. “The court declared unto her that though the evidence is not sufficient as yet to take away her life, yet suspitions are cleere…” pg 55 So we know you’re a witch but we do not have enough to kill you, so instead we will banish you from going from house to house. It amazed me that logic did apply to the witchcraft trials before the time of the Salem trials and that not everyone accused of witch craft was killed. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
As someone who knits and sews myself, I have to say - wow, this woman's list of finished pieces is impressive. I'm curious about the change of format about a page into the diary, from a list of pieces worked on to more comments on her social relations. I wonder why she changed her focus in what she deemed important to write about. The list seems to come mostly before she was married, so maybe developing her skills as a housewife was important to her? She mentions a gift for her future husband among her products. Whereas after she married, maybe her role in the community became more important? I wonder why that would be? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
After reading this I couldn't help but wonder if these were the first female slaves he'd ever owned? The slaves seem to be playing him. It doesn't seem like he is very authoritative with them, almost like he just leaves his property and expects everyone to work without supervision. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
<br />
I have seen inventories from the colonial time period much like this one. For someone in 2011, it is sad to see human beings in a list like livestock. The list does provide us with information on how slaves were used or what skills slaves had. George Washington had his owns self sufficient village at Mont Vernon. --Michelle<br />
<br />
The records that slave owners kept never cease to amaze me. They really were quite detailed and I feel show some level of compassion. Knowing the slaves age would be in important for how long they would be able to work but if the slave was child it would not matter how old they were. Keeping records of their age shows at least, in my opinion some level of compassion. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Within the Karin Wulf's entry "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" I found the portion pertaining to the widows and their inheritance to be very enlightening. Wulf is able to clarify the assumptions that widows were solely dependent on the wealth left to them by their spouses. By explaining that women and men were interdependent upon each other with household income being a dual effort. It led me to wonder why widowed women were looked as so helpless and dependent on their deceased partners by society when it well known that it was far from the case? Even when citing prominent Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as inheritors to wealth the stereotype of the helpless widow was carried on. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was the pay difference between men and women doing the same work - women earned between 1/4th and 1/2th of what men did. After talking about the economics of changing from indentured servants to slaves last class, I wondered... wouldn't hiring women or supporting women's businesses then become the more economically viable option, since they worked for so much less? Did that encourage female business owners at all? I was also surprised that mortuary work was considered a woman's job; I wonder what sort of tasks were involved in that, and how the transition was made from women as mortuary workers to the modern image of a creepy male undertaker. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" is the apparent difference in societal circumstances for women in this region than from other areas. Even though it took widowhood or an inheritance of some other sort for women to go into business, it appears that this was a pretty accessible option for women to make a living for themselves. I wonder if women in the other regions would be able to easily go into this work like these Philadelphia women did (even though it was not a terribly easy thing to do for them either).--Heather T.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-15T04:59:23Z<p>Bongo282: /* AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
"To Use Her as His Wife" and the memoir of Abigail Bailey helped to define where women fell during this time in regards to the law. What I found interesting about both situations, even with their vast differences, they both were about women whose lives were left to be determined by the men that surrounded them. It is never clear what Martha Root wanted for her life as she was the one who in the end was responsible for raising the child. Root's opinion never appeared to come up for debate as it was overshadowed by the cultural and societal norms set by the male members of the community. The more drastic example of this legal inequality can be felt in Abigail Bailey's confession of her husband and daughters incest driven relationship. She is clearly broken that this immoral and sinful activity is taking place within her own home and she cannot even protect her own child. She continually comments that she "knew not that I could make legal proof" and even when she was able to bring her husband in front of the law it was by the help of her brothers and over a property settlement, not the rape of his daughter. It leaves the question if men were considered more morally upright than women as the choices they made guided the entire community? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
I found “To Use Her As His Wife” to be a very interesting read. I had no idea that a fundamental feature of an 18th century marriage was bridal pregnancy. Why don’t we hear stories about bridal pregnancy more often (Martha Root’s story)? It is also intriguing that these women were not chastised for their pregnancies out of wedlock, mainly because their children were not seen as bastards. How did these premarital pregnancies affect the family life after the couple was married? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
<br />
This article also changed my view of women's place in colonial society. I had imagined a much more strict adherence to the taboo on premarital sex, and a much harsher criticism of women who engaged in it. Instead, the phenomenon of "bridal pregnancy" suggests to me that society had come up with a way to handle apparently inevitable cases, and both the man and woman could, through marriage, retain their place in society and their dignity. It was this fact, that pregnancy before marriage did not necessarily ruin the woman, which surprised me. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the excerpt “To Use Her as His Wife”, I was surprised by the fact that Elisha and Joseph Hawley’s mother had a very privileged position in the community, regardless of the fact that her husband had committed suicide. I would have thought that fact would have tainted her reputation in society, I supposed her good connections with the rest of her family helped her in society. Another thing that surprised me about this excerpt was the age of marriage. The ages were all much older than I was expecting: the women were getting married at 25, 27, and 34. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
This article completely threw me off when reading it. First, I was suprised at how prevalent it had become for women to become pregnant before marriage, let alone how common it was for them to engage in premarital sex. I always assumed there was such a strict religious presence that these were things that just didn't happen, and when they did they were just unspoke of. I was also shocked when the author mentioned the Hawley family, and how they were still considered "one of North Hampton's prestigious families" even after Joseph committed suicide. The colonists were very religious people, and i wouldn't think iot would be looked very highly upon to have a member of your family committ suicide. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I found the wording in the document on page 81 to be very interesting. Elisha is called a "gentleman" as Martha is called a "spinster." Both are gendered, but Martha's status as an unmarried woman is more important than what family she came from. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This article was very intriguing to me. I honestly learned alot. I always thought that there was very few acts of pre-marital sex and waiting until marriage was encouraged because that part of the religion was stressed. Therefore, the concept of Bridal Pregnancy was new to me. The statistic that one in every third pregnancy was a bridal pregnancy/premarital baby was very surprising and reminded me of today and how there has been a rapid increase in teenage pregnancies. I found the line "Lines of descent mattered as much as wealth and was as important as wealth, presitge, and power were maintained." I guess it makes sense, because the link of the family is matched to the wealth and power. But in the case of Rebekah, by being a prominent figure in the community as the "Dairy Expert" gave her her prestige, and great seat in church. Even in church there was a split of hierarchy. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I was surprised that Martha Root found her chief support in a clergyman; I had expected it to be the case that Root's supporters were family, while Hawley's supporters were more prominent members of the church and/or the government. Particularly given that Hawley was identified as a gentleman and Root as a spinster, it seemed that Hawley would receive much more institutional support, while Root would be largely cast out and left to fend for herself. That she was taken under the wing of a church specializing in ministering to the down-on-their-luck was a very lucky turn for Root, since otherwise she would likely have had nothing to base her case on and no one to help her. Speaking of social statuses, I find Michelle's point regarding their titles ("gentleman" as opposed to "spinster") very interesting, and also telling of the society. Although both Hawley and Root played active roles in Root's becoming pregnant, Hawley was able to return to his prior social standing marred only by his excommunication (admittedly a sharp rebuke), while Root took on not only all of the financial, emotional, and physical strains of caring for a child but also the social and cultural strains of judgment and an outcast status.--Nicole S.<br />
<br />
What I noticed about this article was that the church was more involved in more powerful and important families than the average person. I don’t think that the church or the courts would have made as big a deal that was made of this unmarried mother’s situation. I also think that the fact that Elisha paid off Martha is a sign that he is guilty of having relations with Martha or just guilty in general. --- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Wadsworth’s sermon discussing “A Well Ordered Family,” he describes that the ideal family is one in which the wife is submissive to the husband, but that they should be loving and affectionate to one another. He also describes a quarrel or disagreement as “the Devil’s work.” On one hand, he states that if a wife is not “so young, beautiful, healthy…” etc, God still requires the husband to love her and be not bitter. This sounds like a fairly positive position for women. However, Wadsworth goes on to say that if a husband is not “well-tempered,” the wife still is required to love and particularly obey him. In my view, this would allow husbands to be abusive or ill-tempered without repercussion because women must be submissive and obey them no matter what. This model ultimately failed and the stratification between men and women grew further. <br />
--Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Wadsworth talks about love striking. It's a "duty" to be "performed," as is "plainly commanded by God." That's quite different from how we talk about love now, as an ethereal thing which people fall in or out of. It's discussed as less of an emotion and more of a character trait, to strive for despite the many potential flaws in one spouse that he lists. It's interesting how his list for women differs from his list for men - he tells them to love and obey their husbands even if he has less "abilities of mind" or is of a "more common birth" - I wonder if more-educated or wealthier women marrying lower-status men was common enough to merit such a comment?<br />
<br />
To use her as a Wife: Paternity Suit brought to life the shift in family structures. The change from pre-modern to modern family structures happened much earlier than I expected. The paternity suits in this period made progress towards answering religious and social questions that we have today including the issue of child support, whether or not a man should have to marry a woman bearing his child out of wedlock and what the issue is with marrying a different social class. --kris<br />
<br />
Aside from Wadsworth's assertion that the husband is the "head of the woman," this assesment of marriage seems dead-on. He says that although your spouse may not be the embodiment of all your romantic fantasies, responsibility and duty should overcome. This is still a relevant message (at least to me!). What caught my attention most was a quotation in the introduction. Wadworth says, "Tho tyranny is burdensome and hateful, yet it's counted a smaller evil that meer anarchy, and confusion." The English civil war had recently happened, the attempt at instituting a large-scale puritan utopia had failed. Is this (and without its context, it's tough to tell) a glossing over, or a justification for more secular government? --Stefanie<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how easy it seemed at the time to sin and then be forgiven. It seems that many people at the time were committing sins right and left, yet as long as you confessed that what you had done was wrong you were forgiven. And then people like Joseph Hawley sinned multiple times. I always thought of that time period as being super religious and strict. But the Kathryn Kish Sklar reading my thoughts on that have definitely changed. It is almost as if the church was afraid of losing people. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In this reading, I tried putting myself in the shoes of a wife or someone during that time, listening to this sermon. I found it somewhat contradictory. Wadsworth says the relationship should be mutual, but then says the husband is the head of the woman and the government of the household. The wife must submit to the husband. Obviously, this is a patriarchal society, and that was the thinking of it I guess. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
<br />
I'm finding it difficult to work out what we can understand from this about "typical" child-rearing. She discusses her children going into less-strict homes than hers and learning songs and playing and such awful things, so presumably other households weren't this strict. She also talks about how her girls didn't learn to sew until they could read well, and comments that few women read well because they learned to sew first - so did most families not let their girls study reading so much? Or is she talking about her own generation, and now girls are getting more education? Is her desire for her girls to know how to read and speak well religiously motivated like the rest of her theory of child-rearing seems to be, in which case it might be more common, or is it a personal thing? - Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie. Wesley seems to be special kind of mother. She reminds me of a Tiger Mom. She believes that "self-will is the root of all sin and misery" (p. 41), which drives her parenting ideals. Everything from prayers to eating is strictly controlled in Wesley's home. As Katie said, Wesley does not to see the norm. I would be interested in knowing her husband's views and doctrines on child rearing. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the letter from Susanna Wesley to her son to be very interesting. Many of her child-rearing practices seemed harsh and extreme by today’s standards, yet I saw many things in her letter that I can relate to my own experiences with babysitting. That “cowardice and fear of punishment often lead children into lying…”; lying and disobedience “must never pass unpunished…” and if a child does something unacceptable but with good intentions, “the obedience and intention be kindly accepted, and the child with sweetness directed how to better for the future.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
It would be a lie to say I was unacquainted with the phrase "spare the rod, spoil the child" before reading Wesley's letter. It would, however, be completely legitimate to say I was utterly unprepared for how rigid Wesley actually was with her children. What I think was most surprising to me was how deeply entrenched in religion Wesley's system of discipline was: when trying to rein her children back in (after they're returned from their post-fire dispersal), Wesley most emphasized religion as a method of structuring her children's lives: "...and then was begun the system of singing psalms at beginning and leaving school, morning and evening. Then...[starting at 5pm] they read the psalms for the day and a chapter of the New Testament, as in the morning they were directed to read the psalms and a chapter in the Old Testament, after which they went to their private prayers..." I reread that paragraph several times--I found it that difficult to imagine a life of prayer and Bible reading, broken up only by psalms and school. Those children must have been extremely disciplined!--Nicole S.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
<br />
I was an immediate fan of Eliza Pinckney who wrote out her resolutions each year on her birthday, I could easily relate to her fears and wishes in living her life. She simply wanted to be a good person: “not regard the frowns of the world”, “subdue every vice and improve in every virtue”. The most amazing thing about Eliza was how in depth she wrote about her “Servants” and how she wanted so badly to be a good Mistress to them: “to make their lives as comfortable as I can.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
In comparing and contrasting Eliza Pinckney's essay to Susanna Wesley's considering they both are referencing aspects of child rearing, I found them to be the complete opposites of each other. Wesley's view on raising children seems to be focused more on punishment, because as a Puritan she believed all children were born bad and they were "ignorant of all good". She maintained a strict way of life, and it seems as though Puritan children were robbed of any normal childhood they should have been able to enjoy. Pinckney appears to have loved children and she encouraged them to do better, therefore not focusing on their mistakes or the punishments that Wesley seemed such a fan of. I also admire Eliza Pinckney her for her dedication to wanting to be a better person in all aspects of her life: as a mother, a wife, a mistress to her servants, a sister and a "sincere and faithful friend". --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
I'm surprised there was such concern about class in New Spain, since it doesn't seem to have existed in quite the same way in the English colonies. I'd also love to read a more precise definition of seduction. The most interesting part of this law is that NOT marrying a woman is a serious offense - if someone has seduced someone and then doesn't marry her, then that apparently does her serious injury, though not him. (I guess he's the one not embarrassed by being turned down, just as her lineage or reputation won't be hurt by marrying someone above her?) I wonder, did lower-class women ever seduce Dukes and Counts? It certainly doesn't seem to have happened enough to be mentioned here, but I guess those native girls were just all over the nobility. - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
It seems as if the laws in Virginia got harsher from 1662-1691 in regards to children being born to an Englishman/woman and a slave. In 1662, the child was free if the mother was free, but the child was a slave if the mother was a slave. The Christian Englishman/woman parent has to pay double the fines for committing the act. In 1991 if an English woman were to have a baby with a black man, she had to pay a fine one month after the child were born. The mother was taken into possession of the church for 5 years, but the child was taken for 30 years. I found that to be interesting. Why would a supposed Christian punish the child, especially worse than the mother was punished? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
This essay says, "Because the crafts open to men far outnumbered those open to women, fewer female than male slaves had the opportunity to escape field labor." <br />
It kind of surprises me that they would have women working in the field so much. Were there not many opportunities for domestic work, even in the mid-eighteenth century? In addition to that quote, shortly after in the same passage is an ad posted for a female slave that says, "A brisk likely Country-born Negro Wench about 18 or 19 years of Age, who is a good Spinner; with a Child, about 18 months Old."<br />
This quote suggests that it was common for women to partake in domestic work. Which is true?<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
I was shocked when I read that letter from the girl to her father. I know that not all people came over to the New World willingly but I thought that most of them enjoyed being here once they got here. I would have never guessed that this girl was treated like, if not worse, than a slave and then started to beg her father who threw her out, for more. It makes me wonder what rights indentured servants had since they were not technically property, or were they? – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
<br />
While reading through the various gazettes, I noticed in the 1750's, girls were more or less being offered lessons in needle work and other types of crafts, where as the boys were being taught the reading, writing and arithmetic. They appeared to have been kept the sexes separate as well. Fast forward twenty years and it seems the girls are being offered the same craft work, but they are also able to learn the reading, writing and arithmetic, plus various other areas of interest (music being a common theme). - Matt<br />
<br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara<br />
<br />
In Abigail Bailey’s memoirs, “An Abominable Wickedness,” she describes how her husband had begun an incestuous relationship with one of their daughters. This particular account illuminates the lack of power of women during this time period in two distinct ways. First, Abigail Bailey was only able to have her husband arrested with the help of her brothers. It is astounding that women lacked rights to the extent that the law would ignore the fact that her husband was abusing their daughter, simply because a woman reported it. Secondly, the daughter who was being abused denied the opportunity to testify against her father. While her reasoning for this is unclear, it is possible that she was so afraid of the power the male authority of the household had over her that she refused to testify. <br />
--Clare O. <br />
<br />
This essay was the most compelling for me to read. It disgusts me that a father would abuse his child and engage in an incestuous relationship with them, but it further disgusts me that during this era there was almost nothing the mother could do about it. As a woman,and as a "feme covert" she lacked the basic rights and power she needed to put a stop to the behavior,(because of course this placed her in the same category with children, idiots and criminals) and although she was allowed to divorce her husband (amazingly) there was no way for him to be punished for his crimes because the daughter he was abusing refused to testify. I agree with Clare that she was most likely afraid of the outcome, and if the outcome of the trial didn't do as she planned, she would suffer even more after the fact. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I think that it took a lot of courage to finally tell her husband to either leave or face the consequences of his actions against his daughter, Phoebe. Abigail Bailey did the best she could do for the time frame. Had she done something without absolute proof of what he had done to Phoebe then it would be her word against hers and he would win, but because she had her suspicions of what was going on, she was finally able to get her daughter at least to talk to her about it. She didn’t want to get the law involved because she was trying to keep her children sheltered from what happened. We can say she should have done something sooner, but I think that she really thought he was going to hurt her or one of her children.--- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== TIED HAND AND FOOT -- ''Esther Burr, 1756-1757'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, I love that this is from Aaron Burr's mother (which is not important, I just like Aaron Burr). More importantly the line by Mr. Ewing which states that women should talk about "things that they understood. He did not think women knew what Friendship was. They were hardly capable fo anything so cool and rational as friendship (41)." First I had to wonder, was he talking about the Quakers when she captialized the word "Friendship" or was that just making it a proper noun instead of the contemporary usage of the word. I have to wonder. Second, funny that after reading how busy and tedious her life is in this journal I am saddened by the lack of respect for her sex (if not for herself) she deals with. Obviously he had to have viewed her as somewhat of a companion (not unusual for a woman of her status when you consider the Adams, Adams and Jefferson correspondence of the same time period) or he would not have discussed "women" with her as though she was not one of them, but still an insult to ALL women is an insult to particular women. --Sara<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in the Esther Burr letters:<br />
-The push for women to be married came from women just as much as it did from male ministers (excusing the fact that she was married to a minister).<br />
-Not marrying was considered a "murder of self." (Page 39, Woloch)<br />
-Did women in this era always refer to their husbands as "Mr Burr?"<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
What I found interesting was that she was able to keep a diary. Most of the time we are taught that women are not suppose to be taught to write and you even see that in some of the later readings that young girls had been taught to read the bible and nothing else. And in reference to what Mary Beth said, I don’t think that it is only their husbands they refer too. I think that that she refers to everyone with a title. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What I enjoyed about these letters is the glimpse of life in the early 18th century. Esther Burr's diary is a particularly rich resource for historians trying to understand better the daily lives of upper-class colonial women. I liked her descriptions of her recovery from childbirth, her conversations with her husbands and guests, and her day to day occurrences. I thought it was interesting how she still did spinning and spent a day with other ladies doing this task even though she was well off as a minister's wife. I also found her anger at her friend when she discovers that she turned down a proposal very telling. She is angry at her because she feels that their was no reason to turn him down, he was even a minister like her husband. It makes me wonder how many women settled to marry men they did not particularly like because of pressure from family and friends. Was spinster-hood something to be truly afraid of?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
Most of Esther's letters were in my opinion completely unlike any of the other readings for this week. However, I was struck by a sense of deja vu when Esther was discussing having beaten her daughter overly enthusiastically in her anger; it seemed like something I could have easily seen Susanna Wesley writing in a letter to a similarly rigid religious acquaintance.--Nicole S.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-15T04:26:53Z<p>Bongo282: /* Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
"To Use Her as His Wife" and the memoir of Abigail Bailey helped to define where women fell during this time in regards to the law. What I found interesting about both situations, even with their vast differences, they both were about women whose lives were left to be determined by the men that surrounded them. It is never clear what Martha Root wanted for her life as she was the one who in the end was responsible for raising the child. Root's opinion never appeared to come up for debate as it was overshadowed by the cultural and societal norms set by the male members of the community. The more drastic example of this legal inequality can be felt in Abigail Bailey's confession of her husband and daughters incest driven relationship. She is clearly broken that this immoral and sinful activity is taking place within her own home and she cannot even protect her own child. She continually comments that she "knew not that I could make legal proof" and even when she was able to bring her husband in front of the law it was by the help of her brothers and over a property settlement, not the rape of his daughter. It leaves the question if men were considered more morally upright than women as the choices they made guided the entire community? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
I found “To Use Her As His Wife” to be a very interesting read. I had no idea that a fundamental feature of an 18th century marriage was bridal pregnancy. Why don’t we hear stories about bridal pregnancy more often (Martha Root’s story)? It is also intriguing that these women were not chastised for their pregnancies out of wedlock, mainly because their children were not seen as bastards. How did these premarital pregnancies affect the family life after the couple was married? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
<br />
This article also changed my view of women's place in colonial society. I had imagined a much more strict adherence to the taboo on premarital sex, and a much harsher criticism of women who engaged in it. Instead, the phenomenon of "bridal pregnancy" suggests to me that society had come up with a way to handle apparently inevitable cases, and both the man and woman could, through marriage, retain their place in society and their dignity. It was this fact, that pregnancy before marriage did not necessarily ruin the woman, which surprised me. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the excerpt “To Use Her as His Wife”, I was surprised by the fact that Elisha and Joseph Hawley’s mother had a very privileged position in the community, regardless of the fact that her husband had committed suicide. I would have thought that fact would have tainted her reputation in society, I supposed her good connections with the rest of her family helped her in society. Another thing that surprised me about this excerpt was the age of marriage. The ages were all much older than I was expecting: the women were getting married at 25, 27, and 34. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
This article completely threw me off when reading it. First, I was suprised at how prevalent it had become for women to become pregnant before marriage, let alone how common it was for them to engage in premarital sex. I always assumed there was such a strict religious presence that these were things that just didn't happen, and when they did they were just unspoke of. I was also shocked when the author mentioned the Hawley family, and how they were still considered "one of North Hampton's prestigious families" even after Joseph committed suicide. The colonists were very religious people, and i wouldn't think iot would be looked very highly upon to have a member of your family committ suicide. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I found the wording in the document on page 81 to be very interesting. Elisha is called a "gentleman" as Martha is called a "spinster." Both are gendered, but Martha's status as an unmarried woman is more important than what family she came from. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
This article was very intriguing to me. I honestly learned alot. I always thought that there was very few acts of pre-marital sex and waiting until marriage was encouraged because that part of the religion was stressed. Therefore, the concept of Bridal Pregnancy was new to me. The statistic that one in every third pregnancy was a bridal pregnancy/premarital baby was very surprising and reminded me of today and how there has been a rapid increase in teenage pregnancies. I found the line "Lines of descent mattered as much as wealth and was as important as wealth, presitge, and power were maintained." I guess it makes sense, because the link of the family is matched to the wealth and power. But in the case of Rebekah, by being a prominent figure in the community as the "Dairy Expert" gave her her prestige, and great seat in church. Even in church there was a split of hierarchy. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I was surprised that Martha Root found her chief support in a clergyman; I had expected it to be the case that Root's supporters were family, while Hawley's supporters were more prominent members of the church and/or the government. Particularly given that Hawley was identified as a gentleman and Root as a spinster, it seemed that Hawley would receive much more institutional support, while Root would be largely cast out and left to fend for herself. That she was taken under the wing of a church specializing in ministering to the down-on-their-luck was a very lucky turn for Root, since otherwise she would likely have had nothing to base her case on and no one to help her. Speaking of social statuses, I find Michelle's point regarding their titles ("gentleman" as opposed to "spinster") very interesting, and also telling of the society. Although both Hawley and Root played active roles in Root's becoming pregnant, Hawley was able to return to his prior social standing marred only by his excommunication (admittedly a sharp rebuke), while Root took on not only all of the financial, emotional, and physical strains of caring for a child but also the social and cultural strains of judgment and an outcast status.--Nicole S.<br />
<br />
What I noticed about this article was that the church was more involved in more powerful and important families than the average person. I don’t think that the church or the courts would have made as big a deal that was made of this unmarried mother’s situation. I also think that the fact that Elisha paid off Martha is a sign that he is guilty of having relations with Martha or just guilty in general. --- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Wadsworth’s sermon discussing “A Well Ordered Family,” he describes that the ideal family is one in which the wife is submissive to the husband, but that they should be loving and affectionate to one another. He also describes a quarrel or disagreement as “the Devil’s work.” On one hand, he states that if a wife is not “so young, beautiful, healthy…” etc, God still requires the husband to love her and be not bitter. This sounds like a fairly positive position for women. However, Wadsworth goes on to say that if a husband is not “well-tempered,” the wife still is required to love and particularly obey him. In my view, this would allow husbands to be abusive or ill-tempered without repercussion because women must be submissive and obey them no matter what. This model ultimately failed and the stratification between men and women grew further. <br />
--Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Wadsworth talks about love striking. It's a "duty" to be "performed," as is "plainly commanded by God." That's quite different from how we talk about love now, as an ethereal thing which people fall in or out of. It's discussed as less of an emotion and more of a character trait, to strive for despite the many potential flaws in one spouse that he lists. It's interesting how his list for women differs from his list for men - he tells them to love and obey their husbands even if he has less "abilities of mind" or is of a "more common birth" - I wonder if more-educated or wealthier women marrying lower-status men was common enough to merit such a comment?<br />
<br />
To use her as a Wife: Paternity Suit brought to life the shift in family structures. The change from pre-modern to modern family structures happened much earlier than I expected. The paternity suits in this period made progress towards answering religious and social questions that we have today including the issue of child support, whether or not a man should have to marry a woman bearing his child out of wedlock and what the issue is with marrying a different social class. --kris<br />
<br />
Aside from Wadsworth's assertion that the husband is the "head of the woman," this assesment of marriage seems dead-on. He says that although your spouse may not be the embodiment of all your romantic fantasies, responsibility and duty should overcome. This is still a relevant message (at least to me!). What caught my attention most was a quotation in the introduction. Wadworth says, "Tho tyranny is burdensome and hateful, yet it's counted a smaller evil that meer anarchy, and confusion." The English civil war had recently happened, the attempt at instituting a large-scale puritan utopia had failed. Is this (and without its context, it's tough to tell) a glossing over, or a justification for more secular government? --Stefanie<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how easy it seemed at the time to sin and then be forgiven. It seems that many people at the time were committing sins right and left, yet as long as you confessed that what you had done was wrong you were forgiven. And then people like Joseph Hawley sinned multiple times. I always thought of that time period as being super religious and strict. But the Kathryn Kish Sklar reading my thoughts on that have definitely changed. It is almost as if the church was afraid of losing people. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
<br />
I'm finding it difficult to work out what we can understand from this about "typical" child-rearing. She discusses her children going into less-strict homes than hers and learning songs and playing and such awful things, so presumably other households weren't this strict. She also talks about how her girls didn't learn to sew until they could read well, and comments that few women read well because they learned to sew first - so did most families not let their girls study reading so much? Or is she talking about her own generation, and now girls are getting more education? Is her desire for her girls to know how to read and speak well religiously motivated like the rest of her theory of child-rearing seems to be, in which case it might be more common, or is it a personal thing? - Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie. Wesley seems to be special kind of mother. She reminds me of a Tiger Mom. She believes that "self-will is the root of all sin and misery" (p. 41), which drives her parenting ideals. Everything from prayers to eating is strictly controlled in Wesley's home. As Katie said, Wesley does not to see the norm. I would be interested in knowing her husband's views and doctrines on child rearing. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the letter from Susanna Wesley to her son to be very interesting. Many of her child-rearing practices seemed harsh and extreme by today’s standards, yet I saw many things in her letter that I can relate to my own experiences with babysitting. That “cowardice and fear of punishment often lead children into lying…”; lying and disobedience “must never pass unpunished…” and if a child does something unacceptable but with good intentions, “the obedience and intention be kindly accepted, and the child with sweetness directed how to better for the future.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
<br />
I was an immediate fan of Eliza Pinckney who wrote out her resolutions each year on her birthday, I could easily relate to her fears and wishes in living her life. She simply wanted to be a good person: “not regard the frowns of the world”, “subdue every vice and improve in every virtue”. The most amazing thing about Eliza was how in depth she wrote about her “Servants” and how she wanted so badly to be a good Mistress to them: “to make their lives as comfortable as I can.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
In comparing and contrasting Eliza Pinckney's essay to Susanna Wesley's considering they both are referencing aspects of child rearing, I found them to be the complete opposites of each other. Wesley's view on raising children seems to be focused more on punishment, because as a Puritan she believed all children were born bad and they were "ignorant of all good". She maintained a strict way of life, and it seems as though Puritan children were robbed of any normal childhood they should have been able to enjoy. Pinckney appears to have loved children and she encouraged them to do better, therefore not focusing on their mistakes or the punishments that Wesley seemed such a fan of. I also admire Eliza Pinckney her for her dedication to wanting to be a better person in all aspects of her life: as a mother, a wife, a mistress to her servants, a sister and a "sincere and faithful friend". --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
I'm surprised there was such concern about class in New Spain, since it doesn't seem to have existed in quite the same way in the English colonies. I'd also love to read a more precise definition of seduction. The most interesting part of this law is that NOT marrying a woman is a serious offense - if someone has seduced someone and then doesn't marry her, then that apparently does her serious injury, though not him. (I guess he's the one not embarrassed by being turned down, just as her lineage or reputation won't be hurt by marrying someone above her?) I wonder, did lower-class women ever seduce Dukes and Counts? It certainly doesn't seem to have happened enough to be mentioned here, but I guess those native girls were just all over the nobility. - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
It seems as if the laws in Virginia got harsher from 1662-1691 in regards to children being born to an Englishman/woman and a slave. In 1662, the child was free if the mother was free, but the child was a slave if the mother was a slave. The Christian Englishman/woman parent has to pay double the fines for committing the act. In 1991 if an English woman were to have a baby with a black man, she had to pay a fine one month after the child were born. The mother was taken into possession of the church for 5 years, but the child was taken for 30 years. I found that to be interesting. Why would a supposed Christian punish the child, especially worse than the mother was punished? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
This essay says, "Because the crafts open to men far outnumbered those open to women, fewer female than male slaves had the opportunity to escape field labor." <br />
It kind of surprises me that they would have women working in the field so much. Were there not many opportunities for domestic work, even in the mid-eighteenth century? In addition to that quote, shortly after in the same passage is an ad posted for a female slave that says, "A brisk likely Country-born Negro Wench about 18 or 19 years of Age, who is a good Spinner; with a Child, about 18 months Old."<br />
This quote suggests that it was common for women to partake in domestic work. Which is true?<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
I was shocked when I read that letter from the girl to her father. I know that not all people came over to the New World willingly but I thought that most of them enjoyed being here once they got here. I would have never guessed that this girl was treated like, if not worse, than a slave and then started to beg her father who threw her out, for more. It makes me wonder what rights indentured servants had since they were not technically property, or were they? – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
<br />
While reading through the various gazettes, I noticed in the 1750's, girls were more or less being offered lessons in needle work and other types of crafts, where as the boys were being taught the reading, writing and arithmetic. They appeared to have been kept the sexes separate as well. Fast forward twenty years and it seems the girls are being offered the same craft work, but they are also able to learn the reading, writing and arithmetic, plus various other areas of interest (music being a common theme). - Matt<br />
<br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara<br />
<br />
In Abigail Bailey’s memoirs, “An Abominable Wickedness,” she describes how her husband had begun an incestuous relationship with one of their daughters. This particular account illuminates the lack of power of women during this time period in two distinct ways. First, Abigail Bailey was only able to have her husband arrested with the help of her brothers. It is astounding that women lacked rights to the extent that the law would ignore the fact that her husband was abusing their daughter, simply because a woman reported it. Secondly, the daughter who was being abused denied the opportunity to testify against her father. While her reasoning for this is unclear, it is possible that she was so afraid of the power the male authority of the household had over her that she refused to testify. <br />
--Clare O. <br />
<br />
This essay was the most compelling for me to read. It disgusts me that a father would abuse his child and engage in an incestuous relationship with them, but it further disgusts me that during this era there was almost nothing the mother could do about it. As a woman,and as a "feme covert" she lacked the basic rights and power she needed to put a stop to the behavior,(because of course this placed her in the same category with children, idiots and criminals) and although she was allowed to divorce her husband (amazingly) there was no way for him to be punished for his crimes because the daughter he was abusing refused to testify. I agree with Clare that she was most likely afraid of the outcome, and if the outcome of the trial didn't do as she planned, she would suffer even more after the fact. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== TIED HAND AND FOOT -- ''Esther Burr, 1756-1757'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, I love that this is from Aaron Burr's mother (which is not important, I just like Aaron Burr). More importantly the line by Mr. Ewing which states that women should talk about "things that they understood. He did not think women knew what Friendship was. They were hardly capable fo anything so cool and rational as friendship (41)." First I had to wonder, was he talking about the Quakers when she captialized the word "Friendship" or was that just making it a proper noun instead of the contemporary usage of the word. I have to wonder. Second, funny that after reading how busy and tedious her life is in this journal I am saddened by the lack of respect for her sex (if not for herself) she deals with. Obviously he had to have viewed her as somewhat of a companion (not unusual for a woman of her status when you consider the Adams, Adams and Jefferson correspondence of the same time period) or he would not have discussed "women" with her as though she was not one of them, but still an insult to ALL women is an insult to particular women. --Sara<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in the Esther Burr letters:<br />
-The push for women to be married came from women just as much as it did from male ministers (excusing the fact that she was married to a minister).<br />
-Not marrying was considered a "murder of self." (Page 39, Woloch)<br />
-Did women in this era always refer to their husbands as "Mr Burr?"<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
What I found interesting was that she was able to keep a diary. Most of the time we are taught that women are not suppose to be taught to write and you even see that in some of the later readings that young girls had been taught to read the bible and nothing else. And in reference to what Mary Beth said, I don’t think that it is only their husbands they refer too. I think that that she refers to everyone with a title. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What I enjoyed about these letters is the glimpse of life in the early 18th century. Esther Burr's diary is a particularly rich resource for historians trying to understand better the daily lives of upper-class colonial women. I liked her descriptions of her recovery from childbirth, her conversations with her husbands and guests, and her day to day occurrences. I thought it was interesting how she still did spinning and spent a day with other ladies doing this task even though she was well off as a minister's wife. I also found her anger at her friend when she discovers that she turned down a proposal very telling. She is angry at her because she feels that their was no reason to turn him down, he was even a minister like her husband. It makes me wonder how many women settled to marry men they did not particularly like because of pressure from family and friends. Was spinster-hood something to be truly afraid of?--Heather Thompson</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-08T06:34:09Z<p>Bongo282: /* Captive John Tanner in 1830 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
<br />
What do these primary sources reveal about the nature of women's experiences in colonial-era interactions?<br />
<br />
The arrival of Europeans can truly mark the end of one people's way of life through conforming to a foreign model of religion and social structure demonstrated through changing gender roles. Through many of these early encounters as well as from ''The First Ship'' reading that both parties view of each other was completely alien. As told my Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison, it is evident the social structure that they were forced into was foreign with gender roles carried out in a nontraditional sense. These contrasts, in ways of life sharply decline, as seen in the story of Sarah Ahhaton were she was made to feel remorseful for her adulterous actions. Actions that some fifty years early would have "incur no ill repute or insult" according to Champlain. It is clear that when Europeans arrived in America they encountered a people whose female members shared a mutual respect with male members, maintaining positions of power in both the public and private world. Although, documentation throughout this time was heavily biased, the permanent shift in culture and life ways for the Native Americans is abundantly clear. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
Woloch says that all tribes had a gendered division of labor, but doesn't Brooks' essay claim that, at least in Navajo tribes, a lot of labor was gender-integrated? I wonder how much different divisions of labor impacted captive women's experiences. I also found the idea of "ransomed" captives curious. Did the captors see it as "ransoming" too, or was it just selling for them? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I also found the accounts of the two women taken captive interesting. Since most Native American stories and traditions were passed down orally rather than written I think it's important to use these accounts to add to Native American History. I think that you can neither believe all, some or none with what you read with these accounts. I would be more skeptical of the male accounts since they were observing based on their beliefs of what women's roles should be. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
European culture coming to the "new" world did destroy in part the Native American way of life and structure. This group of people had a system of justice (chiefs and councils) and the men and women had a working relationship that is so rarely seen in other cultures that was basically demoralized by these new settlers. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I think it is important to note that a culture will not change if one attempts to force that change upon the people of that culture (unless you kill them, then they give in pretty easily to your new customs). The men in these tribal systems had to have some predisposed ability to get rid of their way of life or they would have been killed or been fighting against it (which did happen, plenty were killed and plenty fault simply because of a difference of cultural beliefs). --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the first chapter of Woloch’s book quite interesting, and it seems to shed some light on the varying social structures between the American natives and the European colonists. In many native tribes, it was customary for the women to not only play the wife, mother and housekeeper role, but they were the main agriculturists for the tribes as well. Viewed as being savage by the colonists, these native women were only doing what they considered to be their “fair share” of the duties. Although their work was considered hard and strenuous just as well as the men’s, they were still accustomed to performing those duties and they were still responsible for everything else involving family life. They were not forced into slave labor, nor were they forced to remain in their relationships or marriages when they became unhappy. In comparison to the white women settlers, I feel as if the native women had more rights and freedoms than they did. In some cases, native women were even allowed to serve as council members. It’s amazing to see how much culture and environment has an effect on an overall perspective and way of life. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is extremely important to remember that the majority of resources available concerning the lives of Native American women are written by European men. The reason is that the Native American tribes did not have their own written language which I found extremely surprising. Some of the sources written by the Europeans are better than others. For example, it is interesting how Samuel de Champlain describes the Huron women as doing most of the work and serving as "mules" for their husbands, while their husbands simply hunt and go to war. However, John Heckewelder observed Delaware Indian families and came to a different conclusion, that women were in fact "cheerfully" accepting their fair share of labor and were not in a manner being treated as slaves. It is interesting to note that Champlain wrote his account in 1616 while Heckewelder wrote his in the mid eighteenth century. I wonder if this passage of time had an effect on the perceptions of the English, or if the two simply had different points of view. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the introduction to "First Encounters" in Woloch's book, she mentions that "During the era of colonization, Europeans at home and abroad had an insatiable curiosity about the New World." Perhaps it is possible that the sources we do have on Native American women are exaggerated in order to appeal to this rabid public. For example, John Smith's third account in which Pocahontas saves him from being killed is much more interesting to readers than his first account describing diplomacy. Another example would be Mary Rowlandson, who completely demonized the Native Americans and disregards any act of kindness. She describes them as a "scourge" and as having "inhumane, and many times devilish cruelty to the English." These incredibly harsh words would surely pique the interest of the European public as well. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
After Dr. McClurken’s lecture on Tuesday, the readings for this week were much easier to understand and conceptualize. I think it is interesting that there is no first-hand evidence of written records by Native American women or Native Americans in general. I also thought it was interesting that in the Woloch text, European settlement in the Indian societies negatively affected Native American women’s roles during the time period. The documents in this piece of literature were very insightful because they showed how the Native Americans were viewed by different people such as Roger Williams (a separatist minister), and Mary Jemison, who had a favorable view of the Native Americans who were keeping her held captive. --Catherine K. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
So little is known about the complex and diverse group of Native American women. How much should we trust the accounts of literate white men and women? How can we be sure that we recieve an unaltered and unbiased view of these women's lives? We cannot, thus, it is imperative that we take an objective eye when reading others narritives on a people without a clear voice in our history books. Although it is interesting and beneficial to compare the differing accounts of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson we do not have the accounts from their captors. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I would say we are probably getting a very biased account of the lives of Native American women, when our impression is filtered through the culture of white Americans. In the case of these two readings, I think we can try to determine how strong the bias was, and what kind of bias the authors held, by looking at their individual circumstances. These two writers had very different experiences, which shaped their view of the Native Americans with whom they lived. I think, in general, Mary Jemison's account is probably more historically reliable because she was taken captive at a younger age, when her impressions of the world were still being formed and maybe still malleable. She also learned the local language and came to respect the people with whom she lived. Mary Rowlandson did not assimilate this way, or make the same connections with her captors. -- Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I found Mary Rowlandson account to be very interesting because most of the accounts about Native American captures have the captives not wanting to return to white society like Mary Jemison’s account. Most people never wanted to leave the community that they became a part of but Mary Rowlandson had the opposite experience. It’s interesting to see both sides. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I found the two views of Rowlandson and Jemison very interesting because both seemed so different. I believe these differences come from the unique experiences of the women and their individual backgrounds. Rowlandson used her faith in Christianity to deal with her capture. She used religion because she is a wife of a preacher, and therefore religious. Jemison does not talk about faith the same way as Rowlandson. Jemison does talk about her captors as family and friends. I believe she does this because she has lost all her living relatives. She has to turn to the Native Americans and join their culture. Rowlandson still has family alive, therefore she does not accept living with the Native Americans. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting that Jemison blames Europeans for the Native Americans for acting violent. She blames the European education of Native Americans as robbing "them of many of their virtues, and will ultimately produce their extermination." (pg30) -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
While Rowlandson's and Jemison's accounts are interesting, it is important to keep in mind their respective motives, Rowlandson's essay in particular. Captivity narratives were very trendy, and the more salacious a story, the better it sold in publication. I do not mean to say that Rowlandson's story should be discounted, nor that it is without value. Bearing in mind John Smith's portrayal of himself as a swashbuckling playboy (or his colleagues' 1612 tall tale), we would do well to remember that certain elements of the story may be exaggerated for the benefit of the intended audience. Viewed in this light, Jemison's story is more credible, because she did not seek fame through sensationalism. --Stefanie L.<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
In chapter one of Woloch, it is said that “all tribes adhered to a gendered division of the labor.” This division of labor was very interesting to the Europeans who wrote about Indian life, as women had many responsibilities that required hard labor. John Heckewelder didn’t seem to have much respect for the Native American women or of “savage life” in general. He talks of the women harshly saying: their “labours… are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society; but they are no more than their fair share…” This opinion is opposed by Samuel de Champlain who is harsher on the Native American men saying they “do nothing but hunt for deer and other animals…make cabins and go to war.” This seems a healthy list of duties to me, but compared to the long list Champlain provided of the women’s duties, it seems small and of little consequence. Some European accounts of Indian life seem to think that these tasks seem fair and are often shared among the men and women out of respect to each other. This respect between the two sexes seems to be somewhat universal in many of the essays. Both women and men alike have a say in the government, particularly among the Iroquois. I was surprised that this seemed less shocking to the Europeans than the amount of work the Native American women did. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading Heckewelder's account of the division of labor and responsibility within Delaware Indian families, I was struck by the parallels and differences between the narrative of an American non-Native American woman and that of a Native American woman. While Native American men performed the majority of the more intense physical labor, women also had responsibilities that took them out of the house and allowed them to play a key role in the foodgathering. Additionally, the fact that the parents of both interested parties would bring food that had been caught/grown by their child fascinated me, because unlike the European/early US model of women's worth, a woman in Native American societies brought to the marriage her skill sets as related to food growth and scavenging, and those skills played an important role in finding a partner. In European tradition, a woman would bring to a marriage the dowry that her father/family could afford, bringing to the table on her own behalf only her character and looks. In assessing a potential daughter-in-law's farming and cooking skills, parents could consider more than charm. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the account of John Heckewelder and the way in which he described the gender roles of the Delaware Indian Families. Heckewelder was thorough in his descriptions about the work of the women. However, he was always quick to compare their labor with that of the men and made it clear that the women's work was inferior. Because the men were out hunting, they were doing work in which "their existence depend[ed]" (32). It is evident by looking at this text that Heckewelder was assessing the Native Americans through the lens of the static European gender roles that existed at the time. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
What first sparked my interest in "Women's Lives Among the Delaware" is when Heckewelder was describing marriage and how it doesn't have to be forever. He stated that if the marriage no longer "suited their pleasure" or wasn't convenient any more, they could voluntarily leave. I found this to be a bit shocking. I thought female American Indians were forced into marriages, but I was wrong, they didn't even have a ceremony. It was also interesting to read about how women did hard labor (tilling the land, getting firewood, accompanying men while hunting and holding the heavy bags and equipment, etc.). I was happy to read that they didn't complain about it and was glad to do the work. One thing I didn't agree with was how he made it sound like the men were better than the women because they brought home the food and put themselves in danger. -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
The European accounts of the Native American marriages, I found very interesting. Samuel de Champlain describes it as “a sort of marriage” while Heckelwelder looks down upon it: “Marriages among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life; it is understood…that the parties are not to live together any longer than they shall be pleased with each other.” It seems that there was a lot of, for lack of a better term, “sleeping around” and that children could “not be sure of being legitimate. What I found more interesting than anything else were the personal accounts of the two women who had been taken captive. I found myself asking myself what I would have done in that situation. Mary Rowlandson obviously disliked her captors, though her opinion of them may have changes slightly in their moments of kindness. Rowlandson had a husband and other family members waiting for her at a home she had already formed roots in. Her captors were her enemies and she naturally thought poorly of them. Mary Jemison’s scenario is more unique. She was young when she was taken and when given the chance to be free, she chose to stay with her adopted Indian family. Did she stay out of convenience because she had nothing to go home to? -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I, as well, thought the impression of marriage was of importance. I mean, what even were Native American marriages like? I don't know, but I can assume they didn't entail the sort of things we post-Victorian romantics assign to them. I especially thought it was of importance to note the article which discussed jumping from hut to hut with the acquiesce of ones' spouse. Although it was probably meant to detail just how barbaric and promiscuous the Natives were, it also reinforces my point that even the European's marriages were not what we are naturally inclined to think of them as. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I thought that their marriage traditions were very complex. They have all of the traditions that go along with marriage and I think that they are very remarkable that all of their traditions were upheld. These traditions are more intricate than the English and it is quite remarkable. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I was a little confused by this sentence:(pg.26 MP, Last sentence in paragraph 2) <br />
"They have a custom, however, which provides against the risk that they may never succeed to their property, by constitution the children of their sisters, whom they know to have been born of them, their heirs and successors..." <br />
Is this explaining that they have each other backs or is it something entirely different? --Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting (and a little humorous) that John Tanner was purchased for whiskey, blankets, tobacco and "other articles of great value". It seems to have been customary during this time, for a mother that had lost a child, to go out and be able to trade items for "new" children. Times have definitely changed.. -- Matt<br />
<br />
I also found this story a little humorous as well. He was keeping some whiskey for himself in a hidden keg, but felt bad about this. I wonder if there was a lot of drunkenness going on or was it just during certain times of celebration? --Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the Native American men reacted to being told that they were the master and their wives shouldn't rule over them. Father Le Jeune obviously assumes that the women in this particular culture have a lot of power, particularly over their husbands, but I can't imagine that Native American men, accustomed to such a situation, would necessarily think of their relationships with their wives in terms of power or mastery over someone else. And if they did start to think in those terms, the women were probably faced with a really sudden change in their relationship with their husbands! I'd be interested in seeing more about how things like what Father Le Jeune was saying influenced existing relationships between men and women. - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
The Native American men wanted the women to become baptized. From what we've read, the women for the most part, seemed to have a good bit of power and did almost everything to keep everything running and well kept, yet the men are blaming the women for all of their misfortunes? - Matt<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the passage “Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640,” it begins by saying that “They [Native American men] resolved to call together the women, to urge them to be instructed and to receive holy Baptism.” One of my questions is: Why was it that the men were more receptive to the Jesuit’s Christianity than women? And more importantly, did that have anything to do with the difference in gender expectations of Christian and Native American culture? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640," was the woman at the end of the passage who leaves the tribe to protest against conversion. I also found it interesting how the English went after her and after they could not find her allowed her to punish herself by going four days without food because some of my readings for my Early Colonial History course suggest that Native Americans were perfectly fine without food for a few days. Also, knowing how the men of the tribe respected their women and treated them about equally, I wonder why these men would still insist upon conversion to Christianity if the women were so against it?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
The Sarah Ahhaton trial was very extravagant for the time period. This changed the Indian social world, primarily in the realm of marriage. Indian women had the ability to “do what they please,” including marriage, divorce and trading, before the ideas of Christianity confronted their ways. A trial dedicated to the admitted adultery of an Indian woman, with a required punishment, accomplished through interpreter, forced European values onto the native women by combining the political and personal spheres. The ideas of love, sex and marriage all became political, with political regulations.--Kris<br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-08T06:25:08Z<p>Bongo282: /* Samuel de Champlain, 1616 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
<br />
What do these primary sources reveal about the nature of women's experiences in colonial-era interactions?<br />
<br />
The arrival of Europeans can truly mark the end of one people's way of life through conforming to a foreign model of religion and social structure demonstrated through changing gender roles. Through many of these early encounters as well as from ''The First Ship'' reading that both parties view of each other was completely alien. As told my Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison, it is evident the social structure that they were forced into was foreign with gender roles carried out in a nontraditional sense. These contrasts, in ways of life sharply decline, as seen in the story of Sarah Ahhaton were she was made to feel remorseful for her adulterous actions. Actions that some fifty years early would have "incur no ill repute or insult" according to Champlain. It is clear that when Europeans arrived in America they encountered a people whose female members shared a mutual respect with male members, maintaining positions of power in both the public and private world. Although, documentation throughout this time was heavily biased, the permanent shift in culture and life ways for the Native Americans is abundantly clear. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
Woloch says that all tribes had a gendered division of labor, but doesn't Brooks' essay claim that, at least in Navajo tribes, a lot of labor was gender-integrated? I wonder how much different divisions of labor impacted captive women's experiences. I also found the idea of "ransomed" captives curious. Did the captors see it as "ransoming" too, or was it just selling for them? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I also found the accounts of the two women taken captive interesting. Since most Native American stories and traditions were passed down orally rather than written I think it's important to use these accounts to add to Native American History. I think that you can neither believe all, some or none with what you read with these accounts. I would be more skeptical of the male accounts since they were observing based on their beliefs of what women's roles should be. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
European culture coming to the "new" world did destroy in part the Native American way of life and structure. This group of people had a system of justice (chiefs and councils) and the men and women had a working relationship that is so rarely seen in other cultures that was basically demoralized by these new settlers. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I think it is important to note that a culture will not change if one attempts to force that change upon the people of that culture (unless you kill them, then they give in pretty easily to your new customs). The men in these tribal systems had to have some predisposed ability to get rid of their way of life or they would have been killed or been fighting against it (which did happen, plenty were killed and plenty fault simply because of a difference of cultural beliefs). --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the first chapter of Woloch’s book quite interesting, and it seems to shed some light on the varying social structures between the American natives and the European colonists. In many native tribes, it was customary for the women to not only play the wife, mother and housekeeper role, but they were the main agriculturists for the tribes as well. Viewed as being savage by the colonists, these native women were only doing what they considered to be their “fair share” of the duties. Although their work was considered hard and strenuous just as well as the men’s, they were still accustomed to performing those duties and they were still responsible for everything else involving family life. They were not forced into slave labor, nor were they forced to remain in their relationships or marriages when they became unhappy. In comparison to the white women settlers, I feel as if the native women had more rights and freedoms than they did. In some cases, native women were even allowed to serve as council members. It’s amazing to see how much culture and environment has an effect on an overall perspective and way of life. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is extremely important to remember that the majority of resources available concerning the lives of Native American women are written by European men. The reason is that the Native American tribes did not have their own written language which I found extremely surprising. Some of the sources written by the Europeans are better than others. For example, it is interesting how Samuel de Champlain describes the Huron women as doing most of the work and serving as "mules" for their husbands, while their husbands simply hunt and go to war. However, John Heckewelder observed Delaware Indian families and came to a different conclusion, that women were in fact "cheerfully" accepting their fair share of labor and were not in a manner being treated as slaves. It is interesting to note that Champlain wrote his account in 1616 while Heckewelder wrote his in the mid eighteenth century. I wonder if this passage of time had an effect on the perceptions of the English, or if the two simply had different points of view. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the introduction to "First Encounters" in Woloch's book, she mentions that "During the era of colonization, Europeans at home and abroad had an insatiable curiosity about the New World." Perhaps it is possible that the sources we do have on Native American women are exaggerated in order to appeal to this rabid public. For example, John Smith's third account in which Pocahontas saves him from being killed is much more interesting to readers than his first account describing diplomacy. Another example would be Mary Rowlandson, who completely demonized the Native Americans and disregards any act of kindness. She describes them as a "scourge" and as having "inhumane, and many times devilish cruelty to the English." These incredibly harsh words would surely pique the interest of the European public as well. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
After Dr. McClurken’s lecture on Tuesday, the readings for this week were much easier to understand and conceptualize. I think it is interesting that there is no first-hand evidence of written records by Native American women or Native Americans in general. I also thought it was interesting that in the Woloch text, European settlement in the Indian societies negatively affected Native American women’s roles during the time period. The documents in this piece of literature were very insightful because they showed how the Native Americans were viewed by different people such as Roger Williams (a separatist minister), and Mary Jemison, who had a favorable view of the Native Americans who were keeping her held captive. --Catherine K. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
So little is known about the complex and diverse group of Native American women. How much should we trust the accounts of literate white men and women? How can we be sure that we recieve an unaltered and unbiased view of these women's lives? We cannot, thus, it is imperative that we take an objective eye when reading others narritives on a people without a clear voice in our history books. Although it is interesting and beneficial to compare the differing accounts of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson we do not have the accounts from their captors. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I would say we are probably getting a very biased account of the lives of Native American women, when our impression is filtered through the culture of white Americans. In the case of these two readings, I think we can try to determine how strong the bias was, and what kind of bias the authors held, by looking at their individual circumstances. These two writers had very different experiences, which shaped their view of the Native Americans with whom they lived. I think, in general, Mary Jemison's account is probably more historically reliable because she was taken captive at a younger age, when her impressions of the world were still being formed and maybe still malleable. She also learned the local language and came to respect the people with whom she lived. Mary Rowlandson did not assimilate this way, or make the same connections with her captors. -- Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I found Mary Rowlandson account to be very interesting because most of the accounts about Native American captures have the captives not wanting to return to white society like Mary Jemison’s account. Most people never wanted to leave the community that they became a part of but Mary Rowlandson had the opposite experience. It’s interesting to see both sides. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I found the two views of Rowlandson and Jemison very interesting because both seemed so different. I believe these differences come from the unique experiences of the women and their individual backgrounds. Rowlandson used her faith in Christianity to deal with her capture. She used religion because she is a wife of a preacher, and therefore religious. Jemison does not talk about faith the same way as Rowlandson. Jemison does talk about her captors as family and friends. I believe she does this because she has lost all her living relatives. She has to turn to the Native Americans and join their culture. Rowlandson still has family alive, therefore she does not accept living with the Native Americans. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting that Jemison blames Europeans for the Native Americans for acting violent. She blames the European education of Native Americans as robbing "them of many of their virtues, and will ultimately produce their extermination." (pg30) -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
While Rowlandson's and Jemison's accounts are interesting, it is important to keep in mind their respective motives, Rowlandson's essay in particular. Captivity narratives were very trendy, and the more salacious a story, the better it sold in publication. I do not mean to say that Rowlandson's story should be discounted, nor that it is without value. Bearing in mind John Smith's portrayal of himself as a swashbuckling playboy (or his colleagues' 1612 tall tale), we would do well to remember that certain elements of the story may be exaggerated for the benefit of the intended audience. Viewed in this light, Jemison's story is more credible, because she did not seek fame through sensationalism. --Stefanie L.<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
In chapter one of Woloch, it is said that “all tribes adhered to a gendered division of the labor.” This division of labor was very interesting to the Europeans who wrote about Indian life, as women had many responsibilities that required hard labor. John Heckewelder didn’t seem to have much respect for the Native American women or of “savage life” in general. He talks of the women harshly saying: their “labours… are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society; but they are no more than their fair share…” This opinion is opposed by Samuel de Champlain who is harsher on the Native American men saying they “do nothing but hunt for deer and other animals…make cabins and go to war.” This seems a healthy list of duties to me, but compared to the long list Champlain provided of the women’s duties, it seems small and of little consequence. Some European accounts of Indian life seem to think that these tasks seem fair and are often shared among the men and women out of respect to each other. This respect between the two sexes seems to be somewhat universal in many of the essays. Both women and men alike have a say in the government, particularly among the Iroquois. I was surprised that this seemed less shocking to the Europeans than the amount of work the Native American women did. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading Heckewelder's account of the division of labor and responsibility within Delaware Indian families, I was struck by the parallels and differences between the narrative of an American non-Native American woman and that of a Native American woman. While Native American men performed the majority of the more intense physical labor, women also had responsibilities that took them out of the house and allowed them to play a key role in the foodgathering. Additionally, the fact that the parents of both interested parties would bring food that had been caught/grown by their child fascinated me, because unlike the European/early US model of women's worth, a woman in Native American societies brought to the marriage her skill sets as related to food growth and scavenging, and those skills played an important role in finding a partner. In European tradition, a woman would bring to a marriage the dowry that her father/family could afford, bringing to the table on her own behalf only her character and looks. In assessing a potential daughter-in-law's farming and cooking skills, parents could consider more than charm. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the account of John Heckewelder and the way in which he described the gender roles of the Delaware Indian Families. Heckewelder was thorough in his descriptions about the work of the women. However, he was always quick to compare their labor with that of the men and made it clear that the women's work was inferior. Because the men were out hunting, they were doing work in which "their existence depend[ed]" (32). It is evident by looking at this text that Heckewelder was assessing the Native Americans through the lens of the static European gender roles that existed at the time. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
What first sparked my interest in "Women's Lives Among the Delaware" is when Heckewelder was describing marriage and how it doesn't have to be forever. He stated that if the marriage no longer "suited their pleasure" or wasn't convenient any more, they could voluntarily leave. I found this to be a bit shocking. I thought female American Indians were forced into marriages, but I was wrong, they didn't even have a ceremony. It was also interesting to read about how women did hard labor (tilling the land, getting firewood, accompanying men while hunting and holding the heavy bags and equipment, etc.). I was happy to read that they didn't complain about it and was glad to do the work. One thing I didn't agree with was how he made it sound like the men were better than the women because they brought home the food and put themselves in danger. -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
The European accounts of the Native American marriages, I found very interesting. Samuel de Champlain describes it as “a sort of marriage” while Heckelwelder looks down upon it: “Marriages among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life; it is understood…that the parties are not to live together any longer than they shall be pleased with each other.” It seems that there was a lot of, for lack of a better term, “sleeping around” and that children could “not be sure of being legitimate. What I found more interesting than anything else were the personal accounts of the two women who had been taken captive. I found myself asking myself what I would have done in that situation. Mary Rowlandson obviously disliked her captors, though her opinion of them may have changes slightly in their moments of kindness. Rowlandson had a husband and other family members waiting for her at a home she had already formed roots in. Her captors were her enemies and she naturally thought poorly of them. Mary Jemison’s scenario is more unique. She was young when she was taken and when given the chance to be free, she chose to stay with her adopted Indian family. Did she stay out of convenience because she had nothing to go home to? -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I, as well, thought the impression of marriage was of importance. I mean, what even were Native American marriages like? I don't know, but I can assume they didn't entail the sort of things we post-Victorian romantics assign to them. I especially thought it was of importance to note the article which discussed jumping from hut to hut with the acquiesce of ones' spouse. Although it was probably meant to detail just how barbaric and promiscuous the Natives were, it also reinforces my point that even the European's marriages were not what we are naturally inclined to think of them as. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I thought that their marriage traditions were very complex. They have all of the traditions that go along with marriage and I think that they are very remarkable that all of their traditions were upheld. These traditions are more intricate than the English and it is quite remarkable. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I was a little confused by this sentence:(pg.26 MP, Last sentence in paragraph 2) <br />
"They have a custom, however, which provides against the risk that they may never succeed to their property, by constitution the children of their sisters, whom they know to have been born of them, their heirs and successors..." <br />
Is this explaining that they have each other backs or is it something entirely different? --Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting (and a little humorous) that John Tanner was purchased for whiskey, blankets, tobacco and "other articles of great value". It seems to have been customary during this time, for a mother that had lost a child, to go out and be able to trade items for "new" children. Times have definitely changed.. -- Matt<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the Native American men reacted to being told that they were the master and their wives shouldn't rule over them. Father Le Jeune obviously assumes that the women in this particular culture have a lot of power, particularly over their husbands, but I can't imagine that Native American men, accustomed to such a situation, would necessarily think of their relationships with their wives in terms of power or mastery over someone else. And if they did start to think in those terms, the women were probably faced with a really sudden change in their relationship with their husbands! I'd be interested in seeing more about how things like what Father Le Jeune was saying influenced existing relationships between men and women. - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
The Native American men wanted the women to become baptized. From what we've read, the women for the most part, seemed to have a good bit of power and did almost everything to keep everything running and well kept, yet the men are blaming the women for all of their misfortunes? - Matt<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the passage “Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640,” it begins by saying that “They [Native American men] resolved to call together the women, to urge them to be instructed and to receive holy Baptism.” One of my questions is: Why was it that the men were more receptive to the Jesuit’s Christianity than women? And more importantly, did that have anything to do with the difference in gender expectations of Christian and Native American culture? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640," was the woman at the end of the passage who leaves the tribe to protest against conversion. I also found it interesting how the English went after her and after they could not find her allowed her to punish herself by going four days without food because some of my readings for my Early Colonial History course suggest that Native Americans were perfectly fine without food for a few days. Also, knowing how the men of the tribe respected their women and treated them about equally, I wonder why these men would still insist upon conversion to Christianity if the women were so against it?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
The Sarah Ahhaton trial was very extravagant for the time period. This changed the Indian social world, primarily in the realm of marriage. Indian women had the ability to “do what they please,” including marriage, divorce and trading, before the ideas of Christianity confronted their ways. A trial dedicated to the admitted adultery of an Indian woman, with a required punishment, accomplished through interpreter, forced European values onto the native women by combining the political and personal spheres. The ideas of love, sex and marriage all became political, with political regulations.--Kris<br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-01T06:56:57Z<p>Bongo282: /* Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
What really struck me about these readings is the conflict between gender history, women's history, and their subdivisions. It seems that none of these disciplines can never satisfy the historical audience because of the attention, or lack of attention, given to a specific person or groups of persons. I was also struck by how women's history had to work to stand alone from general history, but then lacked the consideration of women of different races and cultures. Is this issue still prevalent today? Or has the topic of women's history evolved beyond this issue?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
Being the second time I have been required to read this section (which is why I was so quick about posting) I have to comment on the fact that the concept of social history and its restraints have a larger meaning to me now, further in my education, than they did the first time I read this. Being primarily a Religion major, it is easy to see how different perspectives and different outlooks on gender, race, socioeconomic class, culture and community play a huge role in the shape of the story of history. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
All the texts within the reading seem to have this common bond of striving to rise from oppression in order to reach this goal of acceptance within a scholarly world dominated by white males. Interestingly enough, once white women find this acceptance they are reluctant to fully encompass all women through race and culture. It seems to me that the once oppressed (white women) have now become the oppressor in an attempt to maintain their position of power with their male counterparts. By the end of it all where do black women fit in? For the are treated like second class citizens by their fellow females as well as in their culture define by a public "world" and domestic "sphere" that is exclusively male dominated. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In the intro the editor asks the question: “is it possible to take the same approach to writing a comprehensive history of all of America’s women, or must historians employ different categories of analysis for different groups while simultaneously avoiding dichotomous thinking?” After reading the four articles, I believe the field is still not sure how to answer the question. In the first essay Haulman explains the history of women’s history, and how the study of women opened more research on other subjects. While creating a new way to look at the past, women’s history also invited other areas to be explored, like, race and class. While race and class contribute to the study, they also complicate women’s history. It is interesting to look at women’s history is at the same time unifying and dividing. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting points in the Kate Haulman’s essay is her idea of gender roles and how certain activities are deemed to be fit for one gender and not the other. She asks “If a man knits, is he still a “man”? And is knitting still “woman’s” work?” It would be interesting to see how the field of gender studies addresses the blurring of gender roles that has become more and more prevalent in recent years. For example, would a stay at home dad be considered a man since he is taking on a domestic job traditionally viewed as feminine? Or would a breadwinning woman be viewed in masculine terms? -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
When reading through these articles, I noticed a distinct parallel between the Haulman and Bock essays, and another between the Castaneda and Alexander essays. Although all four essays focused on the oppression of women and the need to focus on American Women’s History, Haulman and Bock’s essays focused on American Women’s History in general, whereas Castaneda and Alexander’s essays seemed more racially motivated rather than gender oriented. I found the approaches that all 4 women took interesting, especially Haulman’s approach by actually breaking down the meaning of each word in “American Women’s History”. It really made me think how the simple breakdown of each word categorizes American women’s history as a whole. Which women were considered American? Were African-American women considered American? Or Mexican-American women? What is the definition of American? Does it mean to be born a citizen of the nation, or maybe minority women weren’t considered American at all because they had no rights under the constitution. In all essence, even white middle class women lacked specific rights under the Constitution, because the document was geared mainly for male dominance. I commend Castaneda and Alexander for their drives to seek equality for minority women in history, however I feel as if to be seeking equality, the terms must be equal as well. For example, Alexander states that “feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model is not applicable….” I understand the racial differences between the two groups, but when speaking out about feminism as a whole, I believe it is important for women to maintain together as one large group, not broken down into varying divisions. By maintaining one single large group, I feel as though more of an impact can be made. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I think that the women of this period had to form some kind of group, not only for gathering information from each other, but also because their roles in the home life made it impossible for these women to express how or what they were feeling to their husbands. They just didn't do that, but now we don't hesitate to tell our husbands how or what we are feeling.--- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman ==<br />
<br />
I found many things in the first essay, by Kate Haulman, to be very interesting. I had never before questioned or even considered the definition of “woman” or “female”. On page four when she comments on Lerner’s suggestion of assessing male and female cultures at the intersection of said cultures. She says the approach of “add women and stir” would keep women marginalized from history rather than part of the whole. Haulman also touches upon the fact that one woman does not represent the whole. When including women in the study of history we must take into account factors such as race, religion, income, etc. On page five, Haulman makes a very interesting reference to an essay by Joan Wallach Scott in which she calls for “…the consideration of “woman”, “female”, and “feminine” as concepts shaped by the societies in which they existed, rather than static realities.” I found this reference to be very interesting as well as completely true. --Emma C.<br />
<br />
The essay by Haulman struck me as a timeline of sorts, wherein she details the progression of approaches towards women’s history in America. She lays out an evolution from a focus on “noteworthy women” to the lives of the supposedly average woman and finally to “Gender Studies” where the specification is that it is no longer a women’s only area of study. I may be oversimplifying, but this progression sounds a great deal like the evolution of the study of human history in general. Some of the earliest works of history where on notable figures, such as saints and rulers, and then ventured into the study of individuals and further into a study of how “humanity” is even defined. Like I said, that is a simplified example, but as I was reading the comparison kept reoccurring to me and seemed worthy of a public comment. -- Cammy C.<br />
<br />
The dichotomy of sex vs. gender is one that fascinates me, because--like many of the dichotomies/questions Haulman mentions--it applies equally to men and to women. Women's or domestic spheres have increasingly been addressed, if not taught, in history classes in middle and high school. However, the way in which gender roles affected not only women but men ("If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still 'woman's' work?"[p.5]), and the way in which women's history has, historically, been almost entirely the history of upper-class white women, are both significant issues that I have never before considered. I'm embarrassed for an American Women's History class I took in high school, which focused on middle- to upper-class white women in the United States of America, with no mention of precolonial women at all. At the time, that seemed logical to me; however, seeing how many preconceptions and assumptions went into that, (all women represented by white upper-class women; America as synonymous with the US; gender and sex as equivalent in terms of social roles, etc.) it occurs to me that in fact that class covered the much narrower scope of "Great actions of a few white, biologically female, Anglophone United States citizens/residents." And that sounds like a significantly less interesting class. --Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
"Add women and stir". This is probably one of the most interesting lines in all of Haulman's essay. It sums up her idea that when scholars first began to pay more attention to women's contributions and achievements in history, they only focused on noteworthy women who had done something outside of the norm and in the realm of the male word. The accomplishments of a few, exceptional, white, middle/upper-class, women were the only representation of women we saw in history. There was little to no significance given to the everyday lives of women at all. However now, with the idea of gender studies scholar have begun "to consider 'man' or 'male' as a topic of inquiry, not the assumed and moral standard against which all other form of identity were measured"(p.5) To me, this is an idea that is not really ever addressed. We can easily say that there are many women of the past who we now hold is high esteem, but Haulman is quite right to point out that most of the notable women of the past are notable because they were either connected to a powerful man (like Abigail Adams), they did something during a significant time period (Clara Barton and the Civil War), or because they accomplished something in an area usually reserved for men ( Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie for physics). This idea of placing women in a "separate sphere" will, I think, do much for the study of women's history because it will allow more for the appreciation of the average women in her everyday life. -- Grace Christenson<br />
<br />
"Defining 'American Women's History'" was my favorite section to read in this week's assigned pages. The first thing that stuck out to me is on page 2, "Scholars initially sought out 'notable women,' or 'women worthies,' to study, exceptional individuals who nonetheless remained largely invisible within traditional histories." It is very true that women were given attention only if they were wealthy, married or related to a notable man, or made a remarkable accomplishment. A passage that also stuck out to me was when Haulman admitted that early women's history focused on white upperclass women who were from good areas. These women were supposed to be your ideal, everyday, normal female. You don't have to be a genius to know that wasn't the way life really was. My favorite part of the passage was on page six. Haulman attempted to define the term "American." She stated that many people have a different meaning of the word. Some consider it to only mean people from the United States, while others may include Mexicans or Native Americans. She made it very evident of how important it is for someone to define the term so the reader knows who exactly you are talking about. -- Ashley Valentine<br />
<br />
“In order to write ‘American’ women’s history, scholars must ask what meaning and uses the term had for women in the past and why.” This struck me when I was reading simply because it would have never occurred to me to define women, in the past or in the present. “Woman” is just a word that is part of most people’s vocabulary and with a commonly accepted definition so having to define it would be difficult. However to study it, it would be the first step. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
On page 11 in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock the author mentions "The concept 'gender' has been introduced into women's history and women's studies in the 1970s as a social, cultural, political and historical category, in order to express the insight that women's subordination, inferiroity and powerlessness are not dictated by nature, but are social cultural, politcal and historical constructions." To me, this can be expanded to inlcude all other categories of identities (i.e. race, sexuality, culture, etc.) and is behind the complexity found in historical study. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The first thing that really jumped out at me in reading was on page 10 under Public versus private. "Male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared and cared for my women's labour". This is entirely true, even in most cases today. Personally speaking as one of the few males in this class, I know that the person I've become, is almost entirely because of my mother and her availability to me growing up. -- Matt<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's article made some of my favorite points from this reading. I agree with the assertion she seems to be making that dichotomies are not sufficient, and that in order to truly understand the history of any group, the subjects of study need to be given credit for greater subtlety in their lives than any dichotomy allows. The idea of "public vs. private" for example; Bock points out that women's work in the "private sphere" shaped the public sphere, because it was women whose parenting had the greatest effect on the men who occupied the "public" sphere. So, women were working in the public sphere as well, but simply in a different way then were the men they influenced. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
The term gender as being more than just a way to distinguish between male and female. The article discusses the affect that is had on the social history of women’s study, relating back to Haulman’s essay and back to the nature and culture dichotomies. It makes me wonder why it becomes understood outside of the field of women’s studies that sex now meant “‘biological’ and ‘gender’ as ‘social’ or cultural…” –Kayle P<br />
<br />
Bock's essay brought to light the fact that men were the economic provider, where women were working in the household and did not contribute to the economic factor of the household. In reality if the women didn't take care of these things (child rearing, housework, etc.) then it would become difficult to have a functioning household, or would it? It is also interesting that she says that the woman's role is nature and the man's role is social. Is it natural for a female to nurture their children while the male is only there for social purposes? I think that each parent has something to contribute to the rearing of the children and that society took it for granted that because women were not making an economic contribution to society, the men handled all the socializing because they earned it. Now because of the status of our economy both men and women have to work not only outside of the house to support their families, but also have to work inside the house to help with the day-to-day activities. They had to learn to combine the nature and the social parts of their lives, which is the evolution of the family.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Castaneda ==<br />
<br />
A repeated theme in these essays was the need to move beyond a dichotomous framework for understanding women's history (women are more than just non-males, whiteness and maleness should not be considered the norm). The Castaneda essay was a little thorny for me because, while encouraging historians to seek cultural roots in precolonial norms, she refers several times to "third-world nations." Isn't this phrase in itself reinforcing a dichotomy? --Stefanie L.<br />
<br />
Castenada showed me an angle to women’s history that I doubt would ever have crossed my mind otherwise. Unlike Alexander’s later essay on the similar topic of the relationship between race and gender studies, Castenada seemed to put more emphasis than I would have thought of on colonialism and the origin of races to explain why typical women’s studies was not adequate to describe the history of women of color. I understand that grasping the struggles of third worlds can help women with a related ancestry identify with their roots more than woman’s studies and its habit of being more focused on white women. However, that separation of studies reminded me of dichotomies shown in Bock’s essay that she said needed to be challenged into reconciliation of the sides, rather than allow separation. -- Cammy C.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alexander ==<br />
<br />
In Alexander’s article she states, “Early studies of race and gender failed to recognize that race does not only operate as an additional oppressive force but it also forms the foundation of how Black women live their daily lives, and what kinds of liberation strategies they embrace (pg.20)” This quote stands out because it emphasizes that race is not an oppressive force but an identity. The strong ties Black women have to their race affect them just as much as being women. Their race sets their experiences apart from other women. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the differences between the early written records (pre 1975) of white and black woman's histories fascinating. By comparing the different articles it can be ascertained that historically histories written about white women focus on child rearing, giving birth and homemaking; whereas histories written about black woman focus on sexuality and their "role" as whores and vehicles for sex. Interestingly, although different, both histories focus on woman's relationship with and influence on white men proving that woman’s significance and history was synonymous with the history of white men. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I found the second article in our reading very interesting. What does it really mean to be a "working mother"? When I was younger, I had a friend who had a "stay at home mom." I am still close to this friend and I can see how close she is with her mom and I am almost envious of their relationship (my mom works outside the home). I also saw how much her mom did around the house (chores, tutored one of her children, nannied other children, cooked,etc.) all without getting paid. <br />
<br />
I also liked the "Women of Color" article by Antonia I. Castaneda. In a sociology class I had, I learned that white men often carry the stereotype that Black women are exotic/forbidden/loose. I find this ironic because White slaveholders had relationships with their Black women slaves. <br />
<br />
Finally, I was interested to read about gender equality vs physiological difference and how gender roles are socially constructed throughout history. What/who determine's men's and women's roles? <br />
<br />
--Catherine Kennedy<br />
<br />
<br />
Alexander writes that "you cannot divorce the Black woman from the community; if you do not understand the black community you will not understand the Black woman." This statement reminds me of a previous class in which we discussed the Second Sex by Simone de Beauvior. She wrote that men are viewed as the "one" while women are viewed as the "other," however women cannot "organize themselves as a unit" because there is nothing concrete binding them, and they often relate more to the men of their race/religion/ethnicity/etc. than other women that are different. Alexander mentions this idea by stating that it has been argued that "race and class created a chasm that made a singular, unified womanhood impossible." -- Clare O'Brien<br />
<br />
Alexander's article built on those prior--particularly Castaneda's--by further noting the "conflation of 'woman' with 'white woman.'[p.19] Alexander points out, quite correctly, that the conflation she refers to frustrated black women scholars seeking a more balanced history of women. In fact, by allowing "woman" to be synonymous with "white woman," historians further marginalized black women, essentially stripping them of the right to call themselves "women" (that term referring, of course, to upper-class white female US citizens). In choosing to so narrow the scope of what constituted womanhood, early feminist historians disenfranchised whole groups of the populace of the very basic right of sex (and gender?) identity. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that Alexander felt that most women would put race before gender, in how they identify themselves. As she said in her essay "..although Black women's experiences may be gender, they are shaped most compellingly by their role as members of the Black community." This also fed into her discussion of the importance of looking at the history of Black women separately from that of white women's. She made it clear that it is impossible for gender to "privilege" over race. It is interesting that in Haulman's essay, she mentions so often the "bonds of womanhood" and how women are brought together by the experiences they share, but in Alexanders essay, she seems to reject the idea that ALL women can be linked together, but that only certain groups of women can be bonded. --Grace Christenson</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-01T05:36:34Z<p>Bongo282: /* Overarching questions */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
What really struck me about these readings is the conflict between gender history, women's history, and their subdivisions. It seems that none of these disciplines can never satisfy the historical audience because of the attention, or lack of attention, given to a specific person or groups of persons. I was also struck by how women's history had to work to stand alone from general history, but then lacked the consideration of women of different races and cultures. Is this issue still prevalent today? Or has the topic of women's history evolved beyond this issue?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
Being the second time I have been required to read this section (which is why I was so quick about posting) I have to comment on the fact that the concept of social history and its restraints have a larger meaning to me now, further in my education, than they did the first time I read this. Being primarily a Religion major, it is easy to see how different perspectives and different outlooks on gender, race, socioeconomic class, culture and community play a huge role in the shape of the story of history. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
All the texts within the reading seem to have this common bond of striving to rise from oppression in order to reach this goal of acceptance within a scholarly world dominated by white males. Interestingly enough, once white women find this acceptance they are reluctant to fully encompass all women through race and culture. It seems to me that the once oppressed (white women) have now become the oppressor in an attempt to maintain their position of power with their male counterparts. By the end of it all where do black women fit in? For the are treated like second class citizens by their fellow females as well as in their culture define by a public "world" and domestic "sphere" that is exclusively male dominated. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In the intro the editor asks the question: “is it possible to take the same approach to writing a comprehensive history of all of America’s women, or must historians employ different categories of analysis for different groups while simultaneously avoiding dichotomous thinking?” After reading the four articles, I believe the field is still not sure how to answer the question. In the first essay Haulman explains the history of women’s history, and how the study of women opened more research on other subjects. While creating a new way to look at the past, women’s history also invited other areas to be explored, like, race and class. While race and class contribute to the study, they also complicate women’s history. It is interesting to look at women’s history is at the same time unifying and dividing. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting points in the Kate Haulman’s essay is her idea of gender roles and how certain activities are deemed to be fit for one gender and not the other. She asks “If a man knits, is he still a “man”? And is knitting still “woman’s” work?” It would be interesting to see how the field of gender studies addresses the blurring of gender roles that has become more and more prevalent in recent years. For example, would a stay at home dad be considered a man since he is taking on a domestic job traditionally viewed as feminine? Or would a breadwinning woman be viewed in masculine terms? -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
When reading through these articles, I noticed a distinct parallel between the Haulman and Bock essays, and another between the Castaneda and Alexander essays. Although all four essays focused on the oppression of women and the need to focus on American Women’s History, Haulman and Bock’s essays focused on American Women’s History in general, whereas Castaneda and Alexander’s essays seemed more racially motivated rather than gender oriented. I found the approaches that all 4 women took interesting, especially Haulman’s approach by actually breaking down the meaning of each word in “American Women’s History”. It really made me think how the simple breakdown of each word categorizes American women’s history as a whole. Which women were considered American? Were African-American women considered American? Or Mexican-American women? What is the definition of American? Does it mean to be born a citizen of the nation, or maybe minority women weren’t considered American at all because they had no rights under the constitution. In all essence, even white middle class women lacked specific rights under the Constitution, because the document was geared mainly for male dominance. I commend Castaneda and Alexander for their drives to seek equality for minority women in history, however I feel as if to be seeking equality, the terms must be equal as well. For example, Alexander states that “feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model is not applicable….” I understand the racial differences between the two groups, but when speaking out about feminism as a whole, I believe it is important for women to maintain together as one large group, not broken down into varying divisions. By maintaining one single large group, I feel as though more of an impact can be made. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I think that the women of this period had to form some kind of group, not only for gathering information from each other, but also because their roles in the home life made it impossible for these women to express how or what they were feeling to their husbands. They just didn't do that, but now we don't hesitate to tell our husbands how or what we are feeling.--- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman ==<br />
<br />
I found many things in the first essay, by Kate Haulman, to be very interesting. I had never before questioned or even considered the definition of “woman” or “female”. On page four when she comments on Lerner’s suggestion of assessing male and female cultures at the intersection of said cultures. She says the approach of “add women and stir” would keep women marginalized from history rather than part of the whole. Haulman also touches upon the fact that one woman does not represent the whole. When including women in the study of history we must take into account factors such as race, religion, income, etc. On page five, Haulman makes a very interesting reference to an essay by Joan Wallach Scott in which she calls for “…the consideration of “woman”, “female”, and “feminine” as concepts shaped by the societies in which they existed, rather than static realities.” I found this reference to be very interesting as well as completely true. --Emma C.<br />
<br />
The essay by Haulman struck me as a timeline of sorts, wherein she details the progression of approaches towards women’s history in America. She lays out an evolution from a focus on “noteworthy women” to the lives of the supposedly average woman and finally to “Gender Studies” where the specification is that it is no longer a women’s only area of study. I may be oversimplifying, but this progression sounds a great deal like the evolution of the study of human history in general. Some of the earliest works of history where on notable figures, such as saints and rulers, and then ventured into the study of individuals and further into a study of how “humanity” is even defined. Like I said, that is a simplified example, but as I was reading the comparison kept reoccurring to me and seemed worthy of a public comment. -- Cammy C.<br />
<br />
The dichotomy of sex vs. gender is one that fascinates me, because--like many of the dichotomies/questions Haulman mentions--it applies equally to men and to women. Women's or domestic spheres have increasingly been addressed, if not taught, in history classes in middle and high school. However, the way in which gender roles affected not only women but men ("If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still 'woman's' work?"[p.5]), and the way in which women's history has, historically, been almost entirely the history of upper-class white women, are both significant issues that I have never before considered. I'm embarrassed for an American Women's History class I took in high school, which focused on middle- to upper-class white women in the United States of America, with no mention of precolonial women at all. At the time, that seemed logical to me; however, seeing how many preconceptions and assumptions went into that, (all women represented by white upper-class women; America as synonymous with the US; gender and sex as equivalent in terms of social roles, etc.) it occurs to me that in fact that class covered the much narrower scope of "Great actions of a few white, biologically female, Anglophone United States citizens/residents." And that sounds like a significantly less interesting class. --Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
"Add women and stir". This is probably one of the most interesting lines in all of Haulman's essay. It sums up her idea that when scholars first began to pay more attention to women's contributions and achievements in history, they only focused on noteworthy women who had done something outside of the norm and in the realm of the male word. The accomplishments of a few, exceptional, white, middle/upper-class, women were the only representation of women we saw in history. There was little to no significance given to the everyday lives of women at all. However now, with the idea of gender studies scholar have begun "to consider 'man' or 'male' as a topic of inquiry, not the assumed and moral standard against which all other form of identity were measured"(p.5) To me, this is an idea that is not really ever addressed. We can easily say that there are many women of the past who we now hold is high esteem, but Haulman is quite right to point out that most of the notable women of the past are notable because they were either connected to a powerful man (like Abigail Adams), they did something during a significant time period (Clara Barton and the Civil War), or because they accomplished something in an area usually reserved for men ( Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie for physics). This idea of placing women in a "separate sphere" will, I think, do much for the study of women's history because it will allow more for the appreciation of the average women in her everyday life. -- Grace Christenson<br />
<br />
"Defining 'American Women's History'" was my favorite section to read in this week's assigned pages. The first thing that stuck out to me is on page 2, "Scholars initially sought out 'notable women,' or 'women worthies,' to study, exceptional individuals who nonetheless remained largely invisible within traditional histories." It is very true that women were given attention only if they were wealthy, married or related to a notable man, or made a remarkable accomplishment. A passage that also stuck out to me was when Haulman admitted that early women's history focused on white upperclass women who were from good areas. These women were supposed to be your ideal, everyday, normal female. You don't have to be a genius to know that wasn't the way life really was. My favorite part of the passage was on page six. Haulman attempted to define the term "American." She stated that many people have a different meaning of the word. Some consider it to only mean people from the United States, while others may include Mexicans or Native Americans. She made it very evident of how important it is for someone to define the term so the reader knows who exactly you are talking about. -- Ashley Valentine<br />
<br />
“In order to write ‘American’ women’s history, scholars must ask what meaning and uses the term had for women in the past and why.” This struck me when I was reading simply because it would have never occurred to me to define women, in the past or in the present. “Woman” is just a word that is part of most people’s vocabulary and with a commonly accepted definition so having to define it would be difficult. However to study it, it would be the first step. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
On page 11 in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock the author mentions "The concept 'gender' has been introduced into women's history and women's studies in the 1970s as a social, cultural, political and historical category, in order to express the insight that women's subordination, inferiroity and powerlessness are not dictated by nature, but are social cultural, politcal and historical constructions." To me, this can be expanded to inlcude all other categories of identities (i.e. race, sexuality, culture, etc.) and is behind the complexity found in historical study. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The first thing that really jumped out at me in reading was on page 10 under Public versus private. "Male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared and cared for my women's labour". This is entirely true, even in most cases today. Personally speaking as one of the few males in this class, I know that the person I've become, is almost entirely because of my mother and her availability to me growing up. -- Matt<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's article made some of my favorite points from this reading. I agree with the assertion she seems to be making that dichotomies are not sufficient, and that in order to truly understand the history of any group, the subjects of study need to be given credit for greater subtlety in their lives than any dichotomy allows. The idea of "public vs. private" for example; Bock points out that women's work in the "private sphere" shaped the public sphere, because it was women whose parenting had the greatest effect on the men who occupied the "public" sphere. So, women were working in the public sphere as well, but simply in a different way then were the men they influenced. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
The term gender as being more than just a way to distinguish between male and female. The article discusses the affect that is had on the social history of women’s study, relating back to Haulman’s essay and back to the nature and culture dichotomies. It makes me wonder why it becomes understood outside of the field of women’s studies that sex now meant “‘biological’ and ‘gender’ as ‘social’ or cultural…” –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Castaneda ==<br />
<br />
A repeated theme in these essays was the need to move beyond a dichotomous framework for understanding women's history (women are more than just non-males, whiteness and maleness should not be considered the norm). The Castaneda essay was a little thorny for me because, while encouraging historians to seek cultural roots in precolonial norms, she refers several times to "third-world nations." Isn't this phrase in itself reinforcing a dichotomy? --Stefanie L.<br />
<br />
Castenada showed me an angle to women’s history that I doubt would ever have crossed my mind otherwise. Unlike Alexander’s later essay on the similar topic of the relationship between race and gender studies, Castenada seemed to put more emphasis than I would have thought of on colonialism and the origin of races to explain why typical women’s studies was not adequate to describe the history of women of color. I understand that grasping the struggles of third worlds can help women with a related ancestry identify with their roots more than woman’s studies and its habit of being more focused on white women. However, that separation of studies reminded me of dichotomies shown in Bock’s essay that she said needed to be challenged into reconciliation of the sides, rather than allow separation. -- Cammy C.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alexander ==<br />
<br />
In Alexander’s article she states, “Early studies of race and gender failed to recognize that race does not only operate as an additional oppressive force but it also forms the foundation of how Black women live their daily lives, and what kinds of liberation strategies they embrace (pg.20)” This quote stands out because it emphasizes that race is not an oppressive force but an identity. The strong ties Black women have to their race affect them just as much as being women. Their race sets their experiences apart from other women. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the differences between the early written records (pre 1975) of white and black woman's histories fascinating. By comparing the different articles it can be ascertained that historically histories written about white women focus on child rearing, giving birth and homemaking; whereas histories written about black woman focus on sexuality and their "role" as whores and vehicles for sex. Interestingly, although different, both histories focus on woman's relationship with and influence on white men proving that woman’s significance and history was synonymous with the history of white men. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I found the second article in our reading very interesting. What does it really mean to be a "working mother"? When I was younger, I had a friend who had a "stay at home mom." I am still close to this friend and I can see how close she is with her mom and I am almost envious of their relationship (my mom works outside the home). I also saw how much her mom did around the house (chores, tutored one of her children, nannied other children, cooked,etc.) all without getting paid. <br />
<br />
I also liked the "Women of Color" article by Antonia I. Castaneda. In a sociology class I had, I learned that white men often carry the stereotype that Black women are exotic/forbidden/loose. I find this ironic because White slaveholders had relationships with their Black women slaves. <br />
<br />
Finally, I was interested to read about gender equality vs physiological difference and how gender roles are socially constructed throughout history. What/who determine's men's and women's roles? <br />
<br />
--Catherine Kennedy<br />
<br />
<br />
Alexander writes that "you cannot divorce the Black woman from the community; if you do not understand the black community you will not understand the Black woman." This statement reminds me of a previous class in which we discussed the Second Sex by Simone de Beauvior. She wrote that men are viewed as the "one" while women are viewed as the "other," however women cannot "organize themselves as a unit" because there is nothing concrete binding them, and they often relate more to the men of their race/religion/ethnicity/etc. than other women that are different. Alexander mentions this idea by stating that it has been argued that "race and class created a chasm that made a singular, unified womanhood impossible." -- Clare O'Brien<br />
<br />
Alexander's article built on those prior--particularly Castaneda's--by further noting the "conflation of 'woman' with 'white woman.'[p.19] Alexander points out, quite correctly, that the conflation she refers to frustrated black women scholars seeking a more balanced history of women. In fact, by allowing "woman" to be synonymous with "white woman," historians further marginalized black women, essentially stripping them of the right to call themselves "women" (that term referring, of course, to upper-class white female US citizens). In choosing to so narrow the scope of what constituted womanhood, early feminist historians disenfranchised whole groups of the populace of the very basic right of sex (and gender?) identity. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that Alexander felt that most women would put race before gender, in how they identify themselves. As she said in her essay "..although Black women's experiences may be gender, they are shaped most compellingly by their role as members of the Black community." This also fed into her discussion of the importance of looking at the history of Black women separately from that of white women's. She made it clear that it is impossible for gender to "privilege" over race. It is interesting that in Haulman's essay, she mentions so often the "bonds of womanhood" and how women are brought together by the experiences they share, but in Alexanders essay, she seems to reject the idea that ALL women can be linked together, but that only certain groups of women can be bonded. --Grace Christenson</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-01T05:35:42Z<p>Bongo282: /* Overarching questions */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
What really struck me about these readings is the conflict between gender history, women's history, and their subdivisions. It seems that none of these disciplines can never satisfy the historical audience because of the attention, or lack of attention, given to a specific person or groups of persons. I was also struck by how women's history had to work to stand alone from general history, but then lacked the consideration of women of different races and cultures. Is this issue still prevalent today? Or has the topic of women's history evolved beyond this issue?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
Being the second time I have been required to read this section (which is why I was so quick about posting) I have to comment on the fact that the concept of social history and its restraints have a larger meaning to me now, further in my education, than they did the first time I read this. Being primarily a Religion major, it is easy to see how different perspectives and different outlooks on gender, race, socioeconomic class, culture and community play a huge role in the shape of the story of history. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
All the texts within the reading seem to have this common bond of striving to rise from oppression in order to reach this goal of acceptance within a scholarly world dominated by white males. Interestingly enough, once white women find this acceptance they are reluctant to fully encompass all women through race and culture. It seems to me that the once oppressed (white women) have now become the oppressor in an attempt to maintain their position of power with their male counterparts. By the end of it all where do black women fit in? For the are treated like second class citizens by their fellow females as well as in their culture define by a public "world" and domestic "sphere" that is exclusively male dominated. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In the intro the editor asks the question: “is it possible to take the same approach to writing a comprehensive history of all of America’s women, or must historians employ different categories of analysis for different groups while simultaneously avoiding dichotomous thinking?” After reading the four articles, I believe the field is still not sure how to answer the question. In the first essay Haulman explains the history of women’s history, and how the study of women opened more research on other subjects. While creating a new way to look at the past, women’s history also invited other areas to be explored, like, race and class. While race and class contribute to the study, they also complicate women’s history. It is interesting to look at women’s history is at the same time unifying and dividing. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting points in the Kate Haulman’s essay is her idea of gender roles and how certain activities are deemed to be fit for one gender and not the other. She asks “If a man knits, is he still a “man”? And is knitting still “woman’s” work?” It would be interesting to see how the field of gender studies addresses the blurring of gender roles that has become more and more prevalent in recent years. For example, would a stay at home dad be considered a man since he is taking on a domestic job traditionally viewed as feminine? Or would a breadwinning woman be viewed in masculine terms? -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
When reading through these articles, I noticed a distinct parallel between the Haulman and Bock essays, and another between the Castaneda and Alexander essays. Although all four essays focused on the oppression of women and the need to focus on American Women’s History, Haulman and Bock’s essays focused on American Women’s History in general, whereas Castaneda and Alexander’s essays seemed more racially motivated rather than gender oriented. I found the approaches that all 4 women took interesting, especially Haulman’s approach by actually breaking down the meaning of each word in “American Women’s History”. It really made me think how the simple breakdown of each word categorizes American women’s history as a whole. Which women were considered American? Were African-American women considered American? Or Mexican-American women? What is the definition of American? Does it mean to be born a citizen of the nation, or maybe minority women weren’t considered American at all because they had no rights under the constitution. In all essence, even white middle class women lacked specific rights under the Constitution, because the document was geared mainly for male dominance. I commend Castaneda and Alexander for their drives to seek equality for minority women in history, however I feel as if to be seeking equality, the terms must be equal as well. For example, Alexander states that “feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model is not applicable….” I understand the racial differences between the two groups, but when speaking out about feminism as a whole, I believe it is important for women to maintain together as one large group, not broken down into varying divisions. By maintaining one single large group, I feel as though more of an impact can be made. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I think that the women of this period had to form some kind of group, not only for gathering information from each other, but also because their roles in the home life made it impossible for these women to express how or what they were feeling to their husbands. They just didn't do that, but now we don't hesitate to tell our husbands how or what we are feeling now.--- Pam P.<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman ==<br />
<br />
I found many things in the first essay, by Kate Haulman, to be very interesting. I had never before questioned or even considered the definition of “woman” or “female”. On page four when she comments on Lerner’s suggestion of assessing male and female cultures at the intersection of said cultures. She says the approach of “add women and stir” would keep women marginalized from history rather than part of the whole. Haulman also touches upon the fact that one woman does not represent the whole. When including women in the study of history we must take into account factors such as race, religion, income, etc. On page five, Haulman makes a very interesting reference to an essay by Joan Wallach Scott in which she calls for “…the consideration of “woman”, “female”, and “feminine” as concepts shaped by the societies in which they existed, rather than static realities.” I found this reference to be very interesting as well as completely true. --Emma C.<br />
<br />
The essay by Haulman struck me as a timeline of sorts, wherein she details the progression of approaches towards women’s history in America. She lays out an evolution from a focus on “noteworthy women” to the lives of the supposedly average woman and finally to “Gender Studies” where the specification is that it is no longer a women’s only area of study. I may be oversimplifying, but this progression sounds a great deal like the evolution of the study of human history in general. Some of the earliest works of history where on notable figures, such as saints and rulers, and then ventured into the study of individuals and further into a study of how “humanity” is even defined. Like I said, that is a simplified example, but as I was reading the comparison kept reoccurring to me and seemed worthy of a public comment. -- Cammy C.<br />
<br />
The dichotomy of sex vs. gender is one that fascinates me, because--like many of the dichotomies/questions Haulman mentions--it applies equally to men and to women. Women's or domestic spheres have increasingly been addressed, if not taught, in history classes in middle and high school. However, the way in which gender roles affected not only women but men ("If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still 'woman's' work?"[p.5]), and the way in which women's history has, historically, been almost entirely the history of upper-class white women, are both significant issues that I have never before considered. I'm embarrassed for an American Women's History class I took in high school, which focused on middle- to upper-class white women in the United States of America, with no mention of precolonial women at all. At the time, that seemed logical to me; however, seeing how many preconceptions and assumptions went into that, (all women represented by white upper-class women; America as synonymous with the US; gender and sex as equivalent in terms of social roles, etc.) it occurs to me that in fact that class covered the much narrower scope of "Great actions of a few white, biologically female, Anglophone United States citizens/residents." And that sounds like a significantly less interesting class. --Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
"Add women and stir". This is probably one of the most interesting lines in all of Haulman's essay. It sums up her idea that when scholars first began to pay more attention to women's contributions and achievements in history, they only focused on noteworthy women who had done something outside of the norm and in the realm of the male word. The accomplishments of a few, exceptional, white, middle/upper-class, women were the only representation of women we saw in history. There was little to no significance given to the everyday lives of women at all. However now, with the idea of gender studies scholar have begun "to consider 'man' or 'male' as a topic of inquiry, not the assumed and moral standard against which all other form of identity were measured"(p.5) To me, this is an idea that is not really ever addressed. We can easily say that there are many women of the past who we now hold is high esteem, but Haulman is quite right to point out that most of the notable women of the past are notable because they were either connected to a powerful man (like Abigail Adams), they did something during a significant time period (Clara Barton and the Civil War), or because they accomplished something in an area usually reserved for men ( Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie for physics). This idea of placing women in a "separate sphere" will, I think, do much for the study of women's history because it will allow more for the appreciation of the average women in her everyday life. -- Grace Christenson<br />
<br />
"Defining 'American Women's History'" was my favorite section to read in this week's assigned pages. The first thing that stuck out to me is on page 2, "Scholars initially sought out 'notable women,' or 'women worthies,' to study, exceptional individuals who nonetheless remained largely invisible within traditional histories." It is very true that women were given attention only if they were wealthy, married or related to a notable man, or made a remarkable accomplishment. A passage that also stuck out to me was when Haulman admitted that early women's history focused on white upperclass women who were from good areas. These women were supposed to be your ideal, everyday, normal female. You don't have to be a genius to know that wasn't the way life really was. My favorite part of the passage was on page six. Haulman attempted to define the term "American." She stated that many people have a different meaning of the word. Some consider it to only mean people from the United States, while others may include Mexicans or Native Americans. She made it very evident of how important it is for someone to define the term so the reader knows who exactly you are talking about. -- Ashley Valentine<br />
<br />
“In order to write ‘American’ women’s history, scholars must ask what meaning and uses the term had for women in the past and why.” This struck me when I was reading simply because it would have never occurred to me to define women, in the past or in the present. “Woman” is just a word that is part of most people’s vocabulary and with a commonly accepted definition so having to define it would be difficult. However to study it, it would be the first step. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
On page 11 in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock the author mentions "The concept 'gender' has been introduced into women's history and women's studies in the 1970s as a social, cultural, political and historical category, in order to express the insight that women's subordination, inferiroity and powerlessness are not dictated by nature, but are social cultural, politcal and historical constructions." To me, this can be expanded to inlcude all other categories of identities (i.e. race, sexuality, culture, etc.) and is behind the complexity found in historical study. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The first thing that really jumped out at me in reading was on page 10 under Public versus private. "Male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared and cared for my women's labour". This is entirely true, even in most cases today. Personally speaking as one of the few males in this class, I know that the person I've become, is almost entirely because of my mother and her availability to me growing up. -- Matt<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's article made some of my favorite points from this reading. I agree with the assertion she seems to be making that dichotomies are not sufficient, and that in order to truly understand the history of any group, the subjects of study need to be given credit for greater subtlety in their lives than any dichotomy allows. The idea of "public vs. private" for example; Bock points out that women's work in the "private sphere" shaped the public sphere, because it was women whose parenting had the greatest effect on the men who occupied the "public" sphere. So, women were working in the public sphere as well, but simply in a different way then were the men they influenced. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
The term gender as being more than just a way to distinguish between male and female. The article discusses the affect that is had on the social history of women’s study, relating back to Haulman’s essay and back to the nature and culture dichotomies. It makes me wonder why it becomes understood outside of the field of women’s studies that sex now meant “‘biological’ and ‘gender’ as ‘social’ or cultural…” –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Castaneda ==<br />
<br />
A repeated theme in these essays was the need to move beyond a dichotomous framework for understanding women's history (women are more than just non-males, whiteness and maleness should not be considered the norm). The Castaneda essay was a little thorny for me because, while encouraging historians to seek cultural roots in precolonial norms, she refers several times to "third-world nations." Isn't this phrase in itself reinforcing a dichotomy? --Stefanie L.<br />
<br />
Castenada showed me an angle to women’s history that I doubt would ever have crossed my mind otherwise. Unlike Alexander’s later essay on the similar topic of the relationship between race and gender studies, Castenada seemed to put more emphasis than I would have thought of on colonialism and the origin of races to explain why typical women’s studies was not adequate to describe the history of women of color. I understand that grasping the struggles of third worlds can help women with a related ancestry identify with their roots more than woman’s studies and its habit of being more focused on white women. However, that separation of studies reminded me of dichotomies shown in Bock’s essay that she said needed to be challenged into reconciliation of the sides, rather than allow separation. -- Cammy C.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alexander ==<br />
<br />
In Alexander’s article she states, “Early studies of race and gender failed to recognize that race does not only operate as an additional oppressive force but it also forms the foundation of how Black women live their daily lives, and what kinds of liberation strategies they embrace (pg.20)” This quote stands out because it emphasizes that race is not an oppressive force but an identity. The strong ties Black women have to their race affect them just as much as being women. Their race sets their experiences apart from other women. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the differences between the early written records (pre 1975) of white and black woman's histories fascinating. By comparing the different articles it can be ascertained that historically histories written about white women focus on child rearing, giving birth and homemaking; whereas histories written about black woman focus on sexuality and their "role" as whores and vehicles for sex. Interestingly, although different, both histories focus on woman's relationship with and influence on white men proving that woman’s significance and history was synonymous with the history of white men. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I found the second article in our reading very interesting. What does it really mean to be a "working mother"? When I was younger, I had a friend who had a "stay at home mom." I am still close to this friend and I can see how close she is with her mom and I am almost envious of their relationship (my mom works outside the home). I also saw how much her mom did around the house (chores, tutored one of her children, nannied other children, cooked,etc.) all without getting paid. <br />
<br />
I also liked the "Women of Color" article by Antonia I. Castaneda. In a sociology class I had, I learned that white men often carry the stereotype that Black women are exotic/forbidden/loose. I find this ironic because White slaveholders had relationships with their Black women slaves. <br />
<br />
Finally, I was interested to read about gender equality vs physiological difference and how gender roles are socially constructed throughout history. What/who determine's men's and women's roles? <br />
<br />
--Catherine Kennedy<br />
<br />
<br />
Alexander writes that "you cannot divorce the Black woman from the community; if you do not understand the black community you will not understand the Black woman." This statement reminds me of a previous class in which we discussed the Second Sex by Simone de Beauvior. She wrote that men are viewed as the "one" while women are viewed as the "other," however women cannot "organize themselves as a unit" because there is nothing concrete binding them, and they often relate more to the men of their race/religion/ethnicity/etc. than other women that are different. Alexander mentions this idea by stating that it has been argued that "race and class created a chasm that made a singular, unified womanhood impossible." -- Clare O'Brien<br />
<br />
Alexander's article built on those prior--particularly Castaneda's--by further noting the "conflation of 'woman' with 'white woman.'[p.19] Alexander points out, quite correctly, that the conflation she refers to frustrated black women scholars seeking a more balanced history of women. In fact, by allowing "woman" to be synonymous with "white woman," historians further marginalized black women, essentially stripping them of the right to call themselves "women" (that term referring, of course, to upper-class white female US citizens). In choosing to so narrow the scope of what constituted womanhood, early feminist historians disenfranchised whole groups of the populace of the very basic right of sex (and gender?) identity. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that Alexander felt that most women would put race before gender, in how they identify themselves. As she said in her essay "..although Black women's experiences may be gender, they are shaped most compellingly by their role as members of the Black community." This also fed into her discussion of the importance of looking at the history of Black women separately from that of white women's. She made it clear that it is impossible for gender to "privilege" over race. It is interesting that in Haulman's essay, she mentions so often the "bonds of womanhood" and how women are brought together by the experiences they share, but in Alexanders essay, she seems to reject the idea that ALL women can be linked together, but that only certain groups of women can be bonded. --Grace Christenson</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_12_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 12 Questions/Comments2011-04-07T03:31:49Z<p>Bongo282: /* Pursell reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Nye Reading ==<br />
<br />
In David Nye’s excerpt, he states quite clearly that the use of electric appliances began as a form of novelty or conspicuous display. Table 6.1 only enhances this argument, where it shows that in 1921, the wealthy held the greatest percentages of appliances. They were also the only class with electric ranges. All for novelty, not simplification or the reduction of housework.<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
Nye also presents an interesting argument with the increase of bachelor living. It appears that the use of electric appliances allowed for the creation of a bachelor house, because they could perform the work of the housewife. I find this argument to be contradictory though. If it reduces the amount of work to allow for bachelor to 10 or 12 hours, then it should have a similar effect on women’s work. This is not presented in his piece; rather he shows that women’s work only increased.<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
<br />
As far as Kyle’s comment on Table 6.1, I think we can definitely look at that table as saying that homes wanted the new electrical equipment for novelty, but I think another take on it is that this table shows what electrical equipment was important. Yes, perhaps 64% of the poor homes buy an iron or 33% buy a vacuum cleaner, but these items, as we discussed in class today, are also making the housework a little easier. The novelty is there, but so is the change in the difficulty and strenuousness of certain household chores. <br />
--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
David Nye refers to Christine Frederick and the application of Taylorism to household duties when he discusses home economics. He claims, “Home economics was a required course for girls in the 1920’s. The appeal of the new domestic science lay in a reconception of the home as a management site controlled by women, who through applied science, would free themselves from drudgery and raise the quality of family life” (Nye 252). Basically women would be more productive by applying the scientific method to their household chores. Nye then discusses the impact that electricity had on the homemaker’s duties. Nye notes, “Long work hours in the home persisted as a result of rising expectations for middle-class women, who were exhorted to prepare more varied meals, vacuum the house more often, maintain a larger wardrobe, do laundry more frequently, and spend more time with the children” (272). Women were expected to accomplish more because they had the help of electrical appliances, but what appliance would really save more time? As we discussed in class, with the rise of new electronic appliances, women were expected to have dinner ready for the husband when he returned from work; their clothes were expected to be clean and for everyone to look their best; and the house should be cleaned frequently. Did these artifacts of technology make housework easier or just change the type of housework? Dr. McClurken mentioned Leave It to Beaver in class concerning the view of the housewife taking care of her family with all the new household technology. This reminded me of another 1950’s television show, the ''Donna Reed Show''. Donna is the model housewife and model mother. She does all the cooking and the cleaning all while wearing her pearls, high heels, and one of her best dresses. Her children are well-behaved and her husband, who is a doctor, comes home every evening to a perfectly cooked dinner. She is the perfect housewife who uses all of the available technology to ensure her family’s satisfaction and well-being.—Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Pursell reading ==<br />
<br />
An interesting theme that I found in the article on the vibrator was the notion of social camouflage, disguising an objects purpose through its place of use, such as in the medical field, or by the company name, such as the White Cross, which represented social hygiene and the eradication of masturbation and prostitution. These both suggest decency and moral purity, both of which are not concepts associated with the vibrator. I wish Maines would have expanded upon the theory of social camouflage, at least with more examples other than abortion pills or the distiller. Where are other instances that we see social camouflage, and how does that affect the object and its usage?<br />
--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
While I can't speak much about Maine's choice of social camouflaged technologies, she makes a very sound point. The example that comes to mind for me is mentioned at the beginning of her article when she mentions the cigarette rolling papers. Today, stores are legally allowed to sell all sorts of devices for smoking tobacco, though the majority of the customers of these stores use these items for smoking pot. Maine discusses how the vibrator was marketed as a "professional medical instrument", which allowed it's continued production at a time when masturbation was strictly frowned upon. Building on my example from earlier, some smoking devices market their pipes as medical devices for people going through cancer therapy. This keeps the public from getting up in arms about their production since they have a base in the medical field, just like the vibrator did. Though masturbation was frowned upon, many people regarded it as a victimless crime, in much the same way many people view the consumption of marijuana. By socially camouflaging their devices under the guise of "medical instruments", companies can get away with marketing socially unacceptable items. - Will D.<br />
<br />
Maines’ discussion of Social Camouflage of Technology is very interesting. In talking about the vibrator, she states that “the camouflage of the apparently sexual character of such therapy was accomplished through its medical respectability and through creative definitions both of the diseases for which massage was indicated and of the effects of treatment, (118).” What other products on the market today share the same camouflage? -- Mike Roche<br />
<br />
I think Maines makes an interesting point about the “social camouflage” of certain consumer items. Her examination of the vibrator’s social camouflage definitely supports the claim that “technologies are socially ‘constructed’” (Pursell 116). Maines states, “I shall argue here that the electromechanical massage of the female genitalia achieved acceptance during the period in question by both professionals and consumers . . . because it maintained the social camouflage of sexual massage treatment through its associations with modern professional instrumentation and with prevailing beliefs about electricity as a healing agent” (117). I agree with Sara that Maines’s argument would have had more credibility had she expanded on “social camouflage.” The advertisements that Maines discusses definitely help camouflage the purpose of the vibrator. One ad calls a vibrator, “‘A Gift That Will ''Keep'' Her Young and Pretty’” (Pursell 125.) Also Maines notes, “Sexuality is never explicit in vibrator advertising; the tone is vague but provocative” (Pursell 125).—Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Maines' point on social camoflage was extremely interesting. I had not considered it before but her explanations made perfect sense. The idea that the vibrator began as a medical instrument, and was disguised as one for so long made perfect sense. Although our ideas on sexuality are much more liberal than the 18 and 1900s, I'm sure there are other products in today's society that are still camoflaged, I am just curious which ones. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
Maines article was interesting to read. These women who had hysteria just needed the doctor to help them with the symptoms. I wonder if it was because “masturbation was socially prohibited”(117) or was it because their husbands didn’t know how and what needed to be done? I also thought that George H. Taylor’s improvement on the rubbing apparatus looks more like a scale then something you would use to rub any part of the body.--Pam Petzold</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_11_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 11 Questions/Comments2011-03-31T06:52:22Z<p>Bongo282: /* Smith and Clancey documents */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cowan Reading ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In previous readings, we learned the gender implications of technology and the effects that technology had on gender. In the article by Cowan, it was interesting that Romantics seemed reacted quite negatively towards manufacturing machines. It is not surprising given the ideals held by the Romantics, but it is an interesting perspective. Technology affects art. The boom of technology at the turn of the century may have also led to the creation of the Arts and Crafts Style house, which was popular during this same time period. Ironically, a lot of the detail elements on these homes were manufactured in factories.<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
"People have many different – often surprising – ideas about technology and many different – of times surprising – reactions to technological change.” I completely agree with the statement, when reading this article I thought certain means of technology like diagnosing people based on how their pulse felt was a bit out there. A Social History of American Technology talked about the origins of the word technology. In the 18th century, the term “technology” meant “knowledge of the arts.” All ideas about nature, social status, skill, gender, God, and politics are connected to one another in relation to the history of technology. To me, before I took this class I only thought of technology as modern day inventions such as computers and software. However, I think it is very interesting that this article discusses romantic industrialization and scientific management. – Megan Gallagher<br />
<br />
I found this reading interesting, especially the first part that discussed the development of the blood pressure cuff. I think sometimes we forget where things came from and do not consider how things would be if we did not have certain items. It is hard for me to imagine that doctors did not want to use a blood pressure cuff, with one of the reasons being it would take away from the intimacy of the doctor/patient relationship. This exact problem is discussed heavily in the medical field today. The blood pressure cuff appears to be the beginning of medical technology, but is it also perhaps the beginning of a drift away from the doctor/patient relationship? --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I thought that the part about "Technology and Associated Ideas" was really interesting because it explained when "technology" became "technology" and the prior definition and uses of technology. One quote that really struck me was when Cowan says, "Technology has meaning in relation to gender..." (p. 204) explaining that we think of some technologies as male (primarily industrial) and others as female (primarily domestic). Like Kyle said, we did learn that gender had effects on technology and vice versa. Seeing that gender affects technology, Cowan expands to include it in a greater web, connected to nature, social status, skill, God, and politics. All of these are apart of technology and all have an impact on shaping American technology. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
While reading this passage I thought of all the different opinions people could have about technology in general and the development of technology as a whole. It makes me think of the pros and cons. Technology has become a big part of society. To use the example of the evolution of bombs. It impacted the lives of thousands of people, but in the same aspect it kept order in the world in accordance to the United States. I thought about the different outlooks people could have on this issue. People now realize the impact the development of technology has on others along with ourselves. -Jeff<br />
<br />
As I read this material I couldn't help but reflect on technology and all the various implications it puts on daily life. I feel that as we are living in an age of rapidly expanding technology, we tend to forget how fast we are producing, consuming and spending unecessary money on the iPhone 14 that came out 2 months after the iPhone 13. I believe we need to accept and embrace technology and its evolution in our culture but at what point do we remember that this is all moving extremely fast? Where are the people that teach us how to edfficiently produce, consume and save in this growing period? I believe the people that we normally look to to teach us (an older generation) is learning at the same pace as people of my generatino are, if not maybe a little slower. I guess I have to face the facts that my generatino will probably be the first generation with an adequate amount of knowledge to teach our children. <br />
--Stephanie Lipscomb<br />
<br />
== Smith and Clancey documents ==<br />
<br />
The “How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family,” section out of the Smith and Clancey reading was interesting to read as an educator, because the use of radios in child play is the equivalent of the modern integration of technology in the classrooms. The theory or idea behind it is that play can lead to innovation. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
In Smith & Clancy section, I found it very interesting take on reading actual passages from the early 20th century on the wireless telegraph and lighting in homes. To read how eager and arrogant society was on those technologies was informative and entertaining. I very much enjoyed reading the passage from Jan. 1913 regarding teaching boys how to install a wireless telegraph station “..may prove profitable to the boys in after life.” – Megan Gallagher<br />
<br />
I thought the suggestion in "How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home..." about how if only wives and mothers were to spend a few more dollars on electrically lit things, the husband would want to spend more time at home. When there's electricity, the author implied that the children are more eager to see their father, the house is warmer and more cheerful, and the family is more unified. I think this seems to be an awful lot of importance placed on technology, especially when talking about family relations. However, the essay, a prize-winning one, illuminates how important electricity and the developments that came from it were viewed. With only a little technology, the family has been saved and happiness is restored.<br />
-Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
I found the "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion" part to be very interesting because it supports the idea of efficiency that was so useful in American production. I found it interesting that they were speaking towards women and that they relate industry work to domestic work when they say, "Just as you in your home attempt to find the best way of performing your household duties, so, in industry, were attempt to find the best way of doing things required of us," (p. 363). More American women were beginning to work outside the home and the Colonial Radio Corporation was one of the businesses operating training schools to create a more efficient and useful new labor class. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
The section on electricity in the home was a reminder of how technology is constantly advancing and making our lives easier. Electricity supplies us with warmth, a way to preserve our food, light, and just about every leisure activity. What this article reminded me of how different our lives would be without it. Classrooms would not have powerpoint presentations or be able to be used at night. Stores with electricity can stay open hours later in order to sell goods to the public. Places are so reliant on electricity that most stores now have a generator just to keep the store running. --Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
Smith and Clancey’s section titled Colonial Motion Saves Wasted Motion, brought two things to mind. It was interesting to me that they were teaching classes full of women for radio repairs. Tools such as screwdrivers, pliers, soldering operations, and nuts and bolts sound like things we would normally be hearing men work with. The second thing this section brought to me was a concept called Operational Excellence, a department I had an internship with at Philadelphia Coca-Cola one summer. OE'S main objective is to reduce operation cost and wastes, without affecting quality, time delivery and cost of products and services one has to offer. Both Smith and Clancey’s section and the concept of Operational Excellence share to goal of creating a way in which to grain optimal production using the least amount of physical activity. :: Mike Roche::<br />
<br />
The essay on electricity in the home was interesting. When it stated the part about fathers would be more apt to spend more time in the home, children would be more eager to see their fathers, and the family is more unified you can't help but feel like you're reading an advertisement. They did a good job of promoting electricity. Although it may sound a tad far fetched to us now for them back then who were just being introduced to electricity these advantages problem seemed likely. If there was a lot of emphasis placed on family togetherness then this was certainly the route to go.<br />
--Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
I agree with Sheri, I felt like the Cleavers were going to be in that ad. I wonder if they didn't use the family as propaganda, would electricity have caught on so fast?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
I thought it was very intersting when Kyle said that the use of radios in children playing as being the equivalent of the modern integration of technology in the classrooms. Maybe its a little varied today with all the different kinds of Macs and iWhatevers, but I guess children playing with the radios is still a form of technology knowledge building. After all, I had to ask for help 5 times in 3 minutes with my friend's new Droid before finally giving up and blaspheming technology today. Does that count as building my technologic knowledge?<br />
--Stephanie Lipscomb<br />
<br />
I found Fern van Bramer's winning essay, "How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family" to be a fascinating piece of propaganda. It frankly surprises me that Commonwealth Edison chose as their winning essay a piece that so blatantly catered not only to electricity but also to Commonwealth Edison itself. This essay was also interesting because of what it portrayed about gender and family roles: if a man ends up in a saloon, pool room, or dance hall, it is the wife who is at fault. In choosing not to expend the additional money to buy brighter electric lighting, the wife is telling her husband that she does not want the home to be a warm, welcoming place filled with smiling children, and she does not want to have more energy when he comes home because she had the aid of her electricity all day. This parallels print advertisements of the period, which portray wives as being horrible members of the family if they fail to [... fill in the blank]. The saccharine oversimplification of the essay is a fascinating example of a cultivated response--no doubt Fern van Bramer would have different ideas of economy were she not applying for a prize given out by Commonwealth Edison.<br />
--Nicole Steck</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 10 Questions/Comments2011-03-24T07:15:47Z<p>Bongo282: /* Video of nuclear blasts */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Pursell article ==<br />
<br />
On page 213, it was quite interesting that a main factor in pursuing nuclear energy was not necessarily to improve the quality of life in America. It is proposed that atomic energy was pursued to negate the Soviet Union’s possible use of it to convert developing nations to its side. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
Smith’s essay discusses the advertising of atomic energy. He claims, “Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, and as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (216-17). The AEC and other governmental agencies had to reassure the public that the new technology could serve another purpose besides destroying a city. Smith mentions that a AEC deputy director claimed, “‘in its civilian uses the energy of the atom should be described as ‘nuclear energy’ rather than ‘atomic energy’” (Pursell 217). “Atomic energy” is too closely associated with the mushroom cloud image and the fatalities of the Japanese. “Nuclear energy” sounds more like an alternative energy source rather than material used in a bomb. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, as well as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (217). Before reading Pursell, I did not realize the impact nuclear power had on the American society and how important it was to becoming a part of the American lifestyle. In this section, I also found the letters of correspondence extremely interesting. The statement of work “Nuclear Power: A Woman’s Perspective” had an unique take on address nuclear power to benefit the public’s wellbeing, putting a positive spin on way to address the public in a polite manner. – Megan Gallagher<br />
<br />
From the readings I have gathered that public relations were more important than public safety. From this new power, companies would become wealthy and well known. The average person would be able to do things "at the push of a button." When the environment is in question people started asking questions about what the testing is doing to people and what is around them. --Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Video of nuclear blasts ==<br />
<br />
The video that was posted on the readings page was incredibly emotional and thought provoking. I had no idea that there were that many tests of nuclear devices, especially by the United States. It seems that once you knew that it worked, i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would not need to keep testing. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly harrowing to see how many nuclear explosions there have been. I agree with Kyle- I had no idea that the United States had done so many explosions. It seems, when comparing the numbers of explosions in the United States to explosions in Russia, our nearest competitor (1032 to 715) and seemingly biggest fear was nowhere even close to the number of explosions. I had had the impression that the Cold War and arms race was a lot closer than it actually was. I do, howevever, have a question, what kinds of explosions were these? Were these all tests, and if so, what are the magnitudes of those tests?<br />
<br />
I also found the video of showing the number for nuclear explosions conducted around the world interesting and a little disturbing. The fact that the United States conducted over a thousand tests in 53 years, more than most of the other countries combined, was a little disturbing for me. I agree with Kyle that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs worked that what reason is there to keep testing. Another thing that caught my attention, shown at the end of the clip, was the location in which other countries were testing. The U.S. seemed to have kept the majority of their testing in the same location and within our own boarders. Seeing some countries testing in Scandinavia, Australia, and parts of Africa made me wonder why there? In some years seeing the amount of lights blink and the number rising gave the feeling of “Holy S^*#.”<br />
--Mike Roche<br />
<br />
I can't add much more then what has already been said, but for the record, I will say wow! I had no idea that we had tested that many times in those 53 years. I too am curious to know what type of testing some of them were, and what impact, if any, have the more recent tests had. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
I think one of the major factors contributing to the large amounts of nuclear tests by both the United States and Russia was the constant fear of falling behind one another. Both governments were terrified of the other discovering a new type of atomic weapon, or some other technology, that could win the war for them. The US was aware of Russia's nuclear tests, and though Russia was slightly behind, there was a lot of fear in the American government of being surpassed technologically, allowing the Russians to launch a pre-emtive strike. With that in mind, the number of atomic tests makes sense, as both nations could figure out new ways of perfecting the bomb, while "flexing their guns" at the one another. - Will D<br />
<br />
I did not realize that so many tests had been done, especially after seeing the effects on Japan. I knew testing had been done prior to bombing Japan, and that some testing had been done during the Cold War, but not to that extent. I also did not realize that the United States did so much more testing than any other country. I thought that the competition went back and forth much more than this video showed. I am very curious to know if there were any affects of these tests, and if so what kind. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I found the video to be rather terrifying, as the numbers went up so did my disbelief. After learning about, as well as seeing the affects of the atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I find it hard to understand why there would be continued testing. I can recognize the fear and paranoia that the U.S and Soviet Union experienced during the Cold war, and yes I realize that it is almost always better to be the side with the bigger stick, but for the U.S to conduct testing of 1000+ bombs simply doesn’t feel right. And of course, I have to wonder what effects all the testing has had on the environment. What did all these tests accomplish? --Kathleen Mead<br />
<br />
I too am shocked by the number of tests performed not only by the United States but also by other countries. However, we should recall the “Atomic Age” and how nuclear energy was publicized as a positive alternative to other energy sources and its effects were downplayed. The Pursell reading continuously mentioned how the agencies tried to spin the horrible effects of radiation. In Michael Smith’s article, he mentions the AEC Commissioner, Theos J. Thompson’s idea, “To oppose nuclear technology because low-level radiation might be detrimental struck Thompson as woefully enervated: ‘It is as though we decided not to get out bed anymore because we might slip on the way to the bathroom’” (Pursell 229). I think Thompson took that one a little too far. Radiation poisoning is SLIGHTLY more dangerous than slipping on the way to the bathroom. And I say this with the authority of being a clumsy person.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I thought this was very interesting. Like Meagan, I didn't know quite how many tests were really being done, but you can especially see the difference during the Cold War period, especially in 1957-1958. We can also clearly see that the United States was the leader in all of these tests, with a close follow by the Soviet Union. We can also see where these tests were done with shows that a lot were done in the Pacific, and a lot were done in the Soviet Union and along the western United States. I think we can take into account the reasoning behind the U.S. nuclear tests as being not only for military use, but for the potential of commercial nuclear power as well. I do wonder though if doing these tests, if there were any considerations in radiation, especially after the results from Japan at the end of World War II. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
It looks as though the entire west coast of the United States should still be radio active today. It lit up like a christmas tree! I agree with Mike, it was little disturbing to know how many of these bombs were actually used since then. While I was watching this, I asked my girl friend how many nuclear bombs she thought have been used since their beginning in 1945. Her reply was "4". Needless to say she was off by a few...- Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
This video just makes you realize how much pain was inflicted on all of the innocent people of Japan. Although as a country as a whole there was entirely too much evil at the time. The fact that the United States took this upon ourselves to maintain order in the world is amazing. At the same time this is our weapon against the world. Other than having the strongest army in the world, we have the best technology and have the bomb to back up the army. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
The number of nuclear tests shocked me as well. Though, I was rather confused as to why some of the United Kingdom's tests were done in the United States? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The video gave me a different way at looking at the nuclear testing from 1945 to the end of the 20th century. At first when I started the video, I did not exactly understand what was going on, there was no audio sound until after the first 24 seconds of the video. After I saw the nuclear explosion in America and explosion going off in Japan as well did I connect that this video only was going to show me the nuclear explosions from 1945 until 1998. Very interesting take on this video- simple yet very informative. -- Megan Gallagher<br />
<br />
Wow, I also did not realize how many testings were going on. There were so many in the U.S. that I was really surprised.<br />
<br />
== General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb ==<br />
<br />
In this modern day, I believe that many students have been desensitized to the entire process of nuclear power and weapons. It is shown as a very powerful thing in modern media, but it is also shown as a very controlled thing. These conceptions are not too different from what the U.S. was trying to achieve in the 50’s and 60’s, which leads me to believe that in the long run, they were successful.<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I agree with Kyle, I think that people today don't fully know or understand the true impact that nuclear weapons can really have on society. And although this may be true, you still see a fear when foreign countries are attempting to create their own nuclear weapons. I think that today though, more people are experiencing the effects nuclear power can have on society ie. the recent Japanese events. But people also are experiencing and using nuclear power for energy, not only for weapons. The atomic bomb has created much power for the United States and any country with nuclear weapons though. And the need for new global policies had to be created to tend to these new powers. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
I personally have always wondered how the radiation really affected the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Those people who survived the blast and were exposed to the radiation probably passed it on when they had children. Then the land was demolished, and the environment suffered tremendously. Water was on short supply from the radiation. The other impact I always thought about is what if another nation dropped an atomic bomb on the United States. As bad as September 11 was, I'm sure that the atomic bomb being dropped in New York and the Pentagon would have had a far more devastating impact. After World War II ended, Japan openly test atomic weapons off the coast of some of the Pacific islands. The United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States all competed in an arms race to see who could build the biggest weapons. The atomic bomb began a whole new kind of warfare, and began widespread fear of a devastating attack on a country's civilians. -Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
In my opinion more worse than good has come to the world due to the creation of the atom bomb. - Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
This shows how ahead of times the United States was in comparison to other countries. The fact that we had the ability to inflict this on a country is incredible. THe people in Japan were devastated by the radiation. I do feel bad and feel awful for the innocent people that were hurt by the bomb. The people that were not involved directly in the bombing took the biggest hit. We needed this to maintain order in the world and stop evil from overtaking society. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
In regards to the atomic bomb, there are certainly many people who look back on the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and wonder how humans could go to such lengths to destroy one another. Critics of the atomic bomb have called the men whom worked on it “monsters.” Many believe that there had to be some type of alternative to using the atomic bomb. How could one country ruthlessly murder thousands of innocent civilians? Some will simply say that it was necessary in order to end World War II. So, was the use of the atomic bomb truly justified? Was the U.S. simply trying to end the war as quickly and harshly as possible, no matter the cost? That argument is obviously extremely complex and difficult to answer. However, in the present day, I think there is an even more important question that must be answered: Will a situation arise when once again, a country deems that is completely and totally justifiable to use the atomic bomb to massacre thousands of people? Or have we learned from the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? When is the use of the bomb justifiable, and under exactly what circumstances? It seems to me that this entire area is completely gray, and the only opinions that really matter are those of world leaders, and not of the common person. ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
When thinking of the impact of the atomic bomb several things come to mind. By testing the atomic bomb scientists were able to come up with nuclear power pants, which provide a great amount of power for the people around them but are quite dangerous as seen in Japan in the recent weeks and Chernobyl in the 80s. Another thing that comes to mind is the remake of the Hills Have Eyes where the mutants who live in the hills were changed due to the atomic bomb tests in the area. Not a great movie but it's one instance where the atomic bomb is used as a plot device in movies. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
From previous history classes, I knew a large number of civilians died after the Atomic bombs that were dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, after Tuesday’s lecture of the Atomic Bombs, I did not realize the effects of radiation had on the population that survived the initial attack when the bomb first dropped. To have 140,000 people die within 5 years due to the radiation shocks and sadden me. – Megan Gallagher</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 10 Questions/Comments2011-03-24T07:05:44Z<p>Bongo282: /* Pursell article */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Pursell article ==<br />
<br />
On page 213, it was quite interesting that a main factor in pursuing nuclear energy was not necessarily to improve the quality of life in America. It is proposed that atomic energy was pursued to negate the Soviet Union’s possible use of it to convert developing nations to its side. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
Smith’s essay discusses the advertising of atomic energy. He claims, “Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, and as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (216-17). The AEC and other governmental agencies had to reassure the public that the new technology could serve another purpose besides destroying a city. Smith mentions that a AEC deputy director claimed, “‘in its civilian uses the energy of the atom should be described as ‘nuclear energy’ rather than ‘atomic energy’” (Pursell 217). “Atomic energy” is too closely associated with the mushroom cloud image and the fatalities of the Japanese. “Nuclear energy” sounds more like an alternative energy source rather than material used in a bomb. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, as well as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (217). Before reading Pursell, I did not realize the impact nuclear power had on the American society and how important it was to becoming a part of the American lifestyle. In this section, I also found the letters of correspondence extremely interesting. The statement of work “Nuclear Power: A Woman’s Perspective” had an unique take on address nuclear power to benefit the public’s wellbeing, putting a positive spin on way to address the public in a polite manner. – Megan Gallagher<br />
<br />
From the readings I have gathered that public relations were more important than public safety. From this new power, companies would become wealthy and well known. The average person would be able to do things "at the push of a button." When the environment is in question people started asking questions about what the testing is doing to people and what is around them. --Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Video of nuclear blasts ==<br />
<br />
The video that was posted on the readings page was incredibly emotional and thought provoking. I had no idea that there were that many tests of nuclear devices, especially by the United States. It seems that once you knew that it worked, i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would not need to keep testing. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly harrowing to see how many nuclear explosions there have been. I agree with Kyle- I had no idea that the United States had done so many explosions. It seems, when comparing the numbers of explosions in the United States to explosions in Russia, our nearest competitor (1032 to 715) and seemingly biggest fear was nowhere even close to the number of explosions. I had had the impression that the Cold War and arms race was a lot closer than it actually was. I do, howevever, have a question, what kinds of explosions were these? Were these all tests, and if so, what are the magnitudes of those tests?<br />
<br />
I also found the video of showing the number for nuclear explosions conducted around the world interesting and a little disturbing. The fact that the United States conducted over a thousand tests in 53 years, more than most of the other countries combined, was a little disturbing for me. I agree with Kyle that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs worked that what reason is there to keep testing. Another thing that caught my attention, shown at the end of the clip, was the location in which other countries were testing. The U.S. seemed to have kept the majority of their testing in the same location and within our own boarders. Seeing some countries testing in Scandinavia, Australia, and parts of Africa made me wonder why there? In some years seeing the amount of lights blink and the number rising gave the feeling of “Holy S^*#.”<br />
--Mike Roche<br />
<br />
I can't add much more then what has already been said, but for the record, I will say wow! I had no idea that we had tested that many times in those 53 years. I too am curious to know what type of testing some of them were, and what impact, if any, have the more recent tests had. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
I think one of the major factors contributing to the large amounts of nuclear tests by both the United States and Russia was the constant fear of falling behind one another. Both governments were terrified of the other discovering a new type of atomic weapon, or some other technology, that could win the war for them. The US was aware of Russia's nuclear tests, and though Russia was slightly behind, there was a lot of fear in the American government of being surpassed technologically, allowing the Russians to launch a pre-emtive strike. With that in mind, the number of atomic tests makes sense, as both nations could figure out new ways of perfecting the bomb, while "flexing their guns" at the one another. - Will D<br />
<br />
I did not realize that so many tests had been done, especially after seeing the effects on Japan. I knew testing had been done prior to bombing Japan, and that some testing had been done during the Cold War, but not to that extent. I also did not realize that the United States did so much more testing than any other country. I thought that the competition went back and forth much more than this video showed. I am very curious to know if there were any affects of these tests, and if so what kind. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I found the video to be rather terrifying, as the numbers went up so did my disbelief. After learning about, as well as seeing the affects of the atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I find it hard to understand why there would be continued testing. I can recognize the fear and paranoia that the U.S and Soviet Union experienced during the Cold war, and yes I realize that it is almost always better to be the side with the bigger stick, but for the U.S to conduct testing of 1000+ bombs simply doesn’t feel right. And of course, I have to wonder what effects all the testing has had on the environment. What did all these tests accomplish? --Kathleen Mead<br />
<br />
I too am shocked by the number of tests performed not only by the United States but also by other countries. However, we should recall the “Atomic Age” and how nuclear energy was publicized as a positive alternative to other energy sources and its effects were downplayed. The Pursell reading continuously mentioned how the agencies tried to spin the horrible effects of radiation. In Michael Smith’s article, he mentions the AEC Commissioner, Theos J. Thompson’s idea, “To oppose nuclear technology because low-level radiation might be detrimental struck Thompson as woefully enervated: ‘It is as though we decided not to get out bed anymore because we might slip on the way to the bathroom’” (Pursell 229). I think Thompson took that one a little too far. Radiation poisoning is SLIGHTLY more dangerous than slipping on the way to the bathroom. And I say this with the authority of being a clumsy person.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I thought this was very interesting. Like Meagan, I didn't know quite how many tests were really being done, but you can especially see the difference during the Cold War period, especially in 1957-1958. We can also clearly see that the United States was the leader in all of these tests, with a close follow by the Soviet Union. We can also see where these tests were done with shows that a lot were done in the Pacific, and a lot were done in the Soviet Union and along the western United States. I think we can take into account the reasoning behind the U.S. nuclear tests as being not only for military use, but for the potential of commercial nuclear power as well. I do wonder though if doing these tests, if there were any considerations in radiation, especially after the results from Japan at the end of World War II. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
It looks as though the entire west coast of the United States should still be radio active today. It lit up like a christmas tree! I agree with Mike, it was little disturbing to know how many of these bombs were actually used since then. While I was watching this, I asked my girl friend how many nuclear bombs she thought have been used since their beginning in 1945. Her reply was "4". Needless to say she was off by a few...- Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
This video just makes you realize how much pain was inflicted on all of the innocent people of Japan. Although as a country as a whole there was entirely too much evil at the time. The fact that the United States took this upon ourselves to maintain order in the world is amazing. At the same time this is our weapon against the world. Other than having the strongest army in the world, we have the best technology and have the bomb to back up the army. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
The number of nuclear tests shocked me as well. Though, I was rather confused as to why some of the United Kingdom's tests were done in the United States? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The video gave me a different way at looking at the nuclear testing from 1945 to the end of the 20th century. At first when I started the video, I did not exactly understand what was going on, there was no audio sound until after the first 24 seconds of the video. After I saw the nuclear explosion in America and explosion going off in Japan as well did I connect that this video only was going to show me the nuclear explosions from 1945 until 1998. Very interesting take on this video- simple yet very informative. -- Megan Gallagher<br />
<br />
== General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb ==<br />
<br />
In this modern day, I believe that many students have been desensitized to the entire process of nuclear power and weapons. It is shown as a very powerful thing in modern media, but it is also shown as a very controlled thing. These conceptions are not too different from what the U.S. was trying to achieve in the 50’s and 60’s, which leads me to believe that in the long run, they were successful.<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I agree with Kyle, I think that people today don't fully know or understand the true impact that nuclear weapons can really have on society. And although this may be true, you still see a fear when foreign countries are attempting to create their own nuclear weapons. I think that today though, more people are experiencing the effects nuclear power can have on society ie. the recent Japanese events. But people also are experiencing and using nuclear power for energy, not only for weapons. The atomic bomb has created much power for the United States and any country with nuclear weapons though. And the need for new global policies had to be created to tend to these new powers. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
I personally have always wondered how the radiation really affected the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Those people who survived the blast and were exposed to the radiation probably passed it on when they had children. Then the land was demolished, and the environment suffered tremendously. Water was on short supply from the radiation. The other impact I always thought about is what if another nation dropped an atomic bomb on the United States. As bad as September 11 was, I'm sure that the atomic bomb being dropped in New York and the Pentagon would have had a far more devastating impact. After World War II ended, Japan openly test atomic weapons off the coast of some of the Pacific islands. The United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States all competed in an arms race to see who could build the biggest weapons. The atomic bomb began a whole new kind of warfare, and began widespread fear of a devastating attack on a country's civilians. -Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
In my opinion more worse than good has come to the world due to the creation of the atom bomb. - Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
This shows how ahead of times the United States was in comparison to other countries. The fact that we had the ability to inflict this on a country is incredible. THe people in Japan were devastated by the radiation. I do feel bad and feel awful for the innocent people that were hurt by the bomb. The people that were not involved directly in the bombing took the biggest hit. We needed this to maintain order in the world and stop evil from overtaking society. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
In regards to the atomic bomb, there are certainly many people who look back on the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and wonder how humans could go to such lengths to destroy one another. Critics of the atomic bomb have called the men whom worked on it “monsters.” Many believe that there had to be some type of alternative to using the atomic bomb. How could one country ruthlessly murder thousands of innocent civilians? Some will simply say that it was necessary in order to end World War II. So, was the use of the atomic bomb truly justified? Was the U.S. simply trying to end the war as quickly and harshly as possible, no matter the cost? That argument is obviously extremely complex and difficult to answer. However, in the present day, I think there is an even more important question that must be answered: Will a situation arise when once again, a country deems that is completely and totally justifiable to use the atomic bomb to massacre thousands of people? Or have we learned from the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? When is the use of the bomb justifiable, and under exactly what circumstances? It seems to me that this entire area is completely gray, and the only opinions that really matter are those of world leaders, and not of the common person. ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
When thinking of the impact of the atomic bomb several things come to mind. By testing the atomic bomb scientists were able to come up with nuclear power pants, which provide a great amount of power for the people around them but are quite dangerous as seen in Japan in the recent weeks and Chernobyl in the 80s. Another thing that comes to mind is the remake of the Hills Have Eyes where the mutants who live in the hills were changed due to the atomic bomb tests in the area. Not a great movie but it's one instance where the atomic bomb is used as a plot device in movies. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
From previous history classes, I knew a large number of civilians died after the Atomic bombs that were dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, after Tuesday’s lecture of the Atomic Bombs, I did not realize the effects of radiation had on the population that survived the initial attack when the bomb first dropped. To have 140,000 people die within 5 years due to the radiation shocks and sadden me. – Megan Gallagher</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_9_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 9 Questions/Comments2011-03-17T05:00:22Z<p>Bongo282: /* Pursell */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Nye ==<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that when Nye discusses the reason for the streetcar's demise, he states that a major reason is the consolidation of the companies. The consolidation raises rates, because there is no competition. This is also the reason for the lessening amounts of investment. In these suburbs and cities, they are the only provider. Therefore, in order to increase revenues, they will lower the cost of production/investment. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
When discussing the social outcomes of the streetcars, Nye states "its tracks pushed through the existing social fabric, pulling apart the urban structure..." The automobile will do this as well and to a much greater degree. It will be possible for suburbs to be farther and farther away pushing the classes farther apart. Eventually, the taxes are so low and the revenues are so low for the streetcars that public transportation becomes unbearable. The automobile helped push the streetcar out of the cities, while pulling apart the classes of people. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
"Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams." Apparently, there must be a lot of trolley cars in the area that we are unaware of. Wasn't there talk in recent years of Washington DC bringing back a form of a Trolly/street Car system? - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
Nye discusses how the automobile differed from public transportation like the subway, in terms of separating the different social classes. Nye goes into further detail, discussing how by the 1920’s, the type of transportation you chose revealed a lot about your social standing and your position in society. Have things really changed today? The type of car one drives still serves as a strong symbol of social status, and public transportation isn’t exactly considered a luxury. However, it isn’t as if all poor people only use public transportation and all rich people only drive expensive luxury cars. I had never actually experienced any real form of public transportation (besides school buses and airplanes) until I visited New York City when I was sixteen years old; it was an eye-opening experience. I learned that the subway is actually incredibly diverse. I saw men and women in expensive business suits, people whom looked like they were blue-collar workers, and people whom looked homeless. However, I still feel that to this day, the way in which one travels to their job or anywhere else in their life is very indicative of their social status. For instance, if I were raised in a very wealthy family in Washington, D.C., would I really feel the need to ride the bus around the city in order to get to the places that I needed to go? Or would I simply drive the convertible BMU that my parents got me for my sixteenth birthday? Similar to clothes and the type of home one owns, so many people are concerned with obtaining the most socially impressive automobile in order to maintain a respectable place in society. It is this fact that makes me believe that all in all, things have not really changed much since the 1920’s, in terms of the correlation between social status and the type of automobile one drives. The streetcar’s significance in the early twentieth century extended far beyond being just an innovation in the efficiency of transportation; it served as an entirely new way to establish one’s place in society. ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
I thought that this reading was quite interesting in that there were numerous reasons as to why the streetcar failed, especially with the impact that the automobile had on it. One quote that struck me was, "Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams" (p 136). Many of the overcrowding streets were constantly being blamed on the streetcars, but even after the cars changed moved away from rail and had rubber wheels? Why did the trolley car continue to fail after improvements were made upon it? -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
Even though cars were being made, because of the large expenditure of the rails they would have gone out of business anyway. The innovations in streetcar designs were still being made. Were they hoping it would make a comeback? If the innovations made were better, I wonder why they still could not make it!? ---Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Pursell ==<br />
<br />
The 26 questions to decide whether the engineering profession is right seem to be applicable questions to ask even today. By looking at these questions and studying them, one can determine the objectives, goals, and processes used by engineers in the early 20th century. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point I found in the Waddell’s section on Vocational Guidance was how it was essential to the safety and prosperity of the community that engineers be naturally qualified and of good character. Yes, professionals need to be considered carefully, and certainly engineers have a direct effect on the community, but does the safety prosperity of the community truly rely on the natural qualifications and moral character of its workers? I think, in fact, it partially does, because we saw an example of this with the building of the Brooklyn Bridge. There was corruption from Boss Tweed, the faulty cables, and substandard building with not digging completely down to bedrock. However, the Brooklyn Bridge still safely stands and proved a prosperous investment for Manhattan and Brooklyn. I thought, though the list of questions was particularly interesting as a way of determining abilities and potential in hopeful engineers. Was this applied to other professions? <br />
--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Sinclair claims, “The proofs of that maturation . . . were the readiness of engineers to assume a leading role in the solution of the world’s economic and social problems” (148). This statement represents the aspect of technology that it should fulfill a need of society. For example, Thomas Edison created an electrical system through the incandescent lamp. Sinclair is arguing that engineers create objects that resolve problems in society. Geoffrey Bennet states, “Kodak had correctly judged that the new generation wanted smaller, easy-to-load and easy-to-use camera . . . . The system was the perfect technical and practical answer to the need, truly in the spirit of George Eastman’s famous slogan, ‘You press the button, we do the rest’” (141). Eastman made it easy for the common person to take a picture and have the company develop the image. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Waddell notes, “Many young men are graduating from engineering colleges who should have never entered them-and the sooner their mistakes are rectified the better. It would be much preferable if they had never commenced the study of engineering, and if the requirements of the colleges had been much more severe and the duration of their instruction longer” (156). Engineering colleges today are much more competitive and selective than in earlier decades. However, is Waddell being fair that graduates of engineering colleges never should have applied in the first place? Were the lower standards really producing incompetent engineers? –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
This section was very interesting. Waddell comments that he thinks there should be better qualified engineers and that the education leading up to becoming a successful engineer needs to be more rigorous. I think that with an increasing population and thus increasing competition for the job that it has become more competitive, just not necessarily because the field required better applicants. The questions that were suggested also seemed extremely universal and relevant. Those questions are good, it seems, regardless of the time and can even be twisted to become relevant for other fields. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I too like Kyle found the twenty six questions for engineering applicants to be interesting. But were these questions the right questions to be asking? Just because someone could answer a few questions the wrong way, doesn't mean that they aren't capable of completing a job. I also found the conditions for why a middle-aged man should stay in the engineering industry to be interesting, as they are what I believe most people today consider before retiring or resigning from work. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
The 26 questions that were being asked, some would be frowned upon today. But this was a good way to find out if a potential engineer student was serious about their profession. I also found it quite interesting that people thought that engineering was a “boring” job. The engineers that were out of a job were not able to pay their dues to stay members. I wonder if they received benefits anyway? They paid into it they should get something out of it.---Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Geoffrey Bennett, “Colour Comes to All,” The Story of Popular Photography ==<br />
Bennett’s article contains two photographs that capture towns and their events. One is during the day and shows the daily activities of a town. Another is at night and shows all of the houses lit up and all of the boats tied down. They are more modern photographs and have vivid colors. On page 146 there are photographs from the 1950’s that are still in color and are a great improvement in color film. The film/digital camera industry has made great technological improvements, but what comes after digital cameras? –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The sheer quantity of models developed is staggering. Just as impressive, though, is that for many of those new and more expensive models, vital aspects of photography--such as the quality and clarity of the resulting photo--would not be improved, and would oftentimes decrease in quality in successive products. The idea that even moderate success could be claimed by a product that produced poorer images than its predecessors is surprising, but there were instances in which just that happened. The drive to make the camera smaller, more portable, and more attractive actually decreased its ability to perform its function. --NIcole S<br />
<br />
In this excerpt Bennet writes about the history of coloured photography from the time that artists were painting in the colour on the photos as early as the 1800's. Colour has always been a necessary part of photography. We see too the drive to continually improve the camera to make it a motre sellable product. Sometimes we see though that perhaps this had a negative effect on the actual quality of the photo. We continue to attemp to achieve even greater heights in technological advancement, but like Samantha stated what will really come after digital? or have we reached a peak? Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
In the readings of Bennett, I really enjoyed reading about the "tri-pack system" in which he uses to describe George Eastman's Flexible or roll film. The roll film was revolutionary for the development of the camera. He states on page 133, "though principles were understood, practical problems had prevented this dream from being realized". This dream was first realized on a coated paper, but later on moved to a transparent celluloid film where it blossomed. Thus the camera and it's technological advancements would have been hindered without the development of film and plastic. Perhaps plastic deserves more credit for the camera? -Matthew Slagle</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_9_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 9 Questions/Comments2011-03-17T04:50:14Z<p>Bongo282: /* Nye */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Nye ==<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that when Nye discusses the reason for the streetcar's demise, he states that a major reason is the consolidation of the companies. The consolidation raises rates, because there is no competition. This is also the reason for the lessening amounts of investment. In these suburbs and cities, they are the only provider. Therefore, in order to increase revenues, they will lower the cost of production/investment. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
When discussing the social outcomes of the streetcars, Nye states "its tracks pushed through the existing social fabric, pulling apart the urban structure..." The automobile will do this as well and to a much greater degree. It will be possible for suburbs to be farther and farther away pushing the classes farther apart. Eventually, the taxes are so low and the revenues are so low for the streetcars that public transportation becomes unbearable. The automobile helped push the streetcar out of the cities, while pulling apart the classes of people. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
"Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams." Apparently, there must be a lot of trolley cars in the area that we are unaware of. Wasn't there talk in recent years of Washington DC bringing back a form of a Trolly/street Car system? - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
Nye discusses how the automobile differed from public transportation like the subway, in terms of separating the different social classes. Nye goes into further detail, discussing how by the 1920’s, the type of transportation you chose revealed a lot about your social standing and your position in society. Have things really changed today? The type of car one drives still serves as a strong symbol of social status, and public transportation isn’t exactly considered a luxury. However, it isn’t as if all poor people only use public transportation and all rich people only drive expensive luxury cars. I had never actually experienced any real form of public transportation (besides school buses and airplanes) until I visited New York City when I was sixteen years old; it was an eye-opening experience. I learned that the subway is actually incredibly diverse. I saw men and women in expensive business suits, people whom looked like they were blue-collar workers, and people whom looked homeless. However, I still feel that to this day, the way in which one travels to their job or anywhere else in their life is very indicative of their social status. For instance, if I were raised in a very wealthy family in Washington, D.C., would I really feel the need to ride the bus around the city in order to get to the places that I needed to go? Or would I simply drive the convertible BMU that my parents got me for my sixteenth birthday? Similar to clothes and the type of home one owns, so many people are concerned with obtaining the most socially impressive automobile in order to maintain a respectable place in society. It is this fact that makes me believe that all in all, things have not really changed much since the 1920’s, in terms of the correlation between social status and the type of automobile one drives. The streetcar’s significance in the early twentieth century extended far beyond being just an innovation in the efficiency of transportation; it served as an entirely new way to establish one’s place in society. ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
I thought that this reading was quite interesting in that there were numerous reasons as to why the streetcar failed, especially with the impact that the automobile had on it. One quote that struck me was, "Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams" (p 136). Many of the overcrowding streets were constantly being blamed on the streetcars, but even after the cars changed moved away from rail and had rubber wheels? Why did the trolley car continue to fail after improvements were made upon it? -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
Even though cars were being made, because of the large expenditure of the rails they would have gone out of business anyway. The innovations in streetcar designs were still being made. Were they hoping it would make a comeback? If the innovations made were better, I wonder why they still could not make it!? ---Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Pursell ==<br />
<br />
The 26 questions to decide whether the engineering profession is right seem to be applicable questions to ask even today. By looking at these questions and studying them, one can determine the objectives, goals, and processes used by engineers in the early 20th century. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point I found in the Waddell’s section on Vocational Guidance was how it was essential to the safety and prosperity of the community that engineers be naturally qualified and of good character. Yes, professionals need to be considered carefully, and certainly engineers have a direct effect on the community, but does the safety prosperity of the community truly rely on the natural qualifications and moral character of its workers? I think, in fact, it partially does, because we saw an example of this with the building of the Brooklyn Bridge. There was corruption from Boss Tweed, the faulty cables, and substandard building with not digging completely down to bedrock. However, the Brooklyn Bridge still safely stands and proved a prosperous investment for Manhattan and Brooklyn. I thought, though the list of questions was particularly interesting as a way of determining abilities and potential in hopeful engineers. Was this applied to other professions? <br />
--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Sinclair claims, “The proofs of that maturation . . . were the readiness of engineers to assume a leading role in the solution of the world’s economic and social problems” (148). This statement represents the aspect of technology that it should fulfill a need of society. For example, Thomas Edison created an electrical system through the incandescent lamp. Sinclair is arguing that engineers create objects that resolve problems in society. Geoffrey Bennet states, “Kodak had correctly judged that the new generation wanted smaller, easy-to-load and easy-to-use camera . . . . The system was the perfect technical and practical answer to the need, truly in the spirit of George Eastman’s famous slogan, ‘You press the button, we do the rest’” (141). Eastman made it easy for the common person to take a picture and have the company develop the image. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Waddell notes, “Many young men are graduating from engineering colleges who should have never entered them-and the sooner their mistakes are rectified the better. It would be much preferable if they had never commenced the study of engineering, and if the requirements of the colleges had been much more severe and the duration of their instruction longer” (156). Engineering colleges today are much more competitive and selective than in earlier decades. However, is Waddell being fair that graduates of engineering colleges never should have applied in the first place? Were the lower standards really producing incompetent engineers? –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
This section was very interesting. Waddell comments that he thinks there should be better qualified engineers and that the education leading up to becoming a successful engineer needs to be more rigorous. I think that with an increasing population and thus increasing competition for the job that it has become more competitive, just not necessarily because the field required better applicants. The questions that were suggested also seemed extremely universal and relevant. Those questions are good, it seems, regardless of the time and can even be twisted to become relevant for other fields. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I too like Kyle found the twenty six questions for engineering applicants to be interesting. But were these questions the right questions to be asking? Just because someone could answer a few questions the wrong way, doesn't mean that they aren't capable of completing a job. I also found the conditions for why a middle-aged man should stay in the engineering industry to be interesting, as they are what I believe most people today consider before retiring or resigning from work. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
== Geoffrey Bennett, “Colour Comes to All,” The Story of Popular Photography ==<br />
Bennett’s article contains two photographs that capture towns and their events. One is during the day and shows the daily activities of a town. Another is at night and shows all of the houses lit up and all of the boats tied down. They are more modern photographs and have vivid colors. On page 146 there are photographs from the 1950’s that are still in color and are a great improvement in color film. The film/digital camera industry has made great technological improvements, but what comes after digital cameras? –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The sheer quantity of models developed is staggering. Just as impressive, though, is that for many of those new and more expensive models, vital aspects of photography--such as the quality and clarity of the resulting photo--would not be improved, and would oftentimes decrease in quality in successive products. The idea that even moderate success could be claimed by a product that produced poorer images than its predecessors is surprising, but there were instances in which just that happened. The drive to make the camera smaller, more portable, and more attractive actually decreased its ability to perform its function. --NIcole S<br />
<br />
In this excerpt Bennet writes about the history of coloured photography from the time that artists were painting in the colour on the photos as early as the 1800's. Colour has always been a necessary part of photography. We see too the drive to continually improve the camera to make it a motre sellable product. Sometimes we see though that perhaps this had a negative effect on the actual quality of the photo. We continue to attemp to achieve even greater heights in technological advancement, but like Samantha stated what will really come after digital? or have we reached a peak? Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
In the readings of Bennett, I really enjoyed reading about the "tri-pack system" in which he uses to describe George Eastman's Flexible or roll film. The roll film was revolutionary for the development of the camera. He states on page 133, "though principles were understood, practical problems had prevented this dream from being realized". This dream was first realized on a coated paper, but later on moved to a transparent celluloid film where it blossomed. Thus the camera and it's technological advancements would have been hindered without the development of film and plastic. Perhaps plastic deserves more credit for the camera? -Matthew Slagle</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_8_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 8 Questions/Comments2011-03-10T04:30:41Z<p>Bongo282: /* Venus Green */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Christine Kleinegger ==<br />
<br />
Kleinegger’s basic thesis is that the rise of urbanization and technology displaced farm women from their normal duties. Did increases in food production allow urbanization or did urbanization force technology to increase production abilities? On page 174, Kleinegger writes, “Several factors led to the greater mechanization of dairying. The rapidly increasing population in urban centers created a demand for milk far greater than… farm areas could meet.” It is a matter of what caused which, but it is central to this discussion. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
The discussion of making the woman an equal business partner is interesting, because it is almost two decades after the 19th Constitutional Amendment. It shows that the women’s equality movement had permeated into rural America just like the modern appliances and utilities had. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
Kleinegger discusses the magazine, Farmer’s Wife, and notes that it describes the, “woman’s new role as a consumer and her old role as the wife of a producer . . . ‘Out of the Barns and into the Kitchens’ can be understood not just as metaphor for changes that occurred in the nature of women’s work, but also as a literal description of a change . . . in the site of that work” (177). She also refers to farmwives as “a rural ‘Superwoman’” (179), and quotes the Farmer’s Wife: “‘If you can make your husband think of you as his partner, the rest is easy’” (185). Were women truly happy in their new roles? Did these shifts cause problems in families? Or did everyone adjust easily with the rise of new “labor saving” technology? –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
A theme I noticed in this reading was the romanticization of earlier farm techniques, including butter making, much like with what we had seen with, for example, the introduction of time, or industrialization. Similarly, there was tension between the farm wife and her husband with what their relationship was, as we had seen with the frustrations between factory workers and management. An interesting point is the idea of the daughters leaving the farm if their fathers did not bring in the new technology. I wonder, though, if we can really completely blame it on that. It seems as if these are the times when young farm girls go to factories because the farm does not need so many laborers (food mechanization) and new factories in the cities need the cheap labor (as we had seen with, for example the textile industry). It might have not only been that their fathers didn’t give them running water or a kitchen sink, but that there were increased opportunities outside of the farm. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Based on some of the letters written to the Farmer's Wife, it appears that the women were content with their new roles. However, I think that if they had been given technology to match what their husbands were using on the farm they would have been much more content. It does not appear that the women were resisting the transition too much, though with every change there is bound to be a certain degree of resistance. I think that the biggest issue the women had were that they no longer felt equal to their husbands. Also, I agree with Sara. I do not think that the lack of household technology necessarily drove the daughters off the farm. It may have been an excuse or the initial push, but they would not have left if there were no opportunities for them elsewhere. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I found the entire section on the producer vs. consumer conflict (175) to be really interesting. It provided a new view on the economics of Agriculture in the 1920's and how it might have lead to the Depression, a view I had really considered. However it makes sense because an economy cannot last long when the producer and consumer have two different expectations within the the same household. The provider wants to receive the maximum profit and the consumer wants to acquire the most goods for the least amount of money. However when whatever income you are generating is trying to meet the consumer demands and is pushed lower, than that hurts the entire household, because of the producer/consumer conflict. In order then to meet the demands of the household then more goods are produced, and we have a surplus of goods on the market. Which then causes more problems, such as an over abundance of eggs, which then leads to an over abundance of baked goods. :) However, technology itself played a large role in this because of how it changed these roles. Because of new technologies women were no longer the producers. Instead of churning their own butter, whatever milk was collected was shipped to manufacturers to create better butter there, which the women bought. Even though there is a lot of focus on the big picture, these changes drastically affected the household too. - Jenn<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the evolution of a woman’s responsibilities within her own home (both outside and inside the home), from the 19th to the 20th century very interesting. I had no prior knowledge of how blue-collar farm-working women evolved into housewives whom were arrested to duties pertaining only to the kitchen. The image of the dainty housewife of the 1950’s whose primary concerns only include cooking dinner for her husband before he comes home from work and tending to household matters was surely the final result of this type of farm-to-kitchen evolution. After reading the article, it seemed ironic that in the twentieth century, a century in which women fought for and earned the right to vote, they were actually being somewhat oppressed in a very subversive way. It seems to me that women were actually more independent in the 19th century, as many of their responsibilities relating to the maintenance of a farm were of vital importance. I’m not trying to say that cooking dinner and taking care of the kitchen is unimportant, but in the 19th century women were actually responsible for a large amount of production in the home. If women failed to produce cheese, then the family would not have cheese. However, as the agriculture business became swept by the Industrial Revolution and much of the business became dominated by machinery, capital, mechanization, and most importantly, men, women were no longer expected to serve as an important role on the farm. Gradually, homes relied entirely on consuming products from the nearest store, as production from the home decreased severely. While there has always been a sexual division of labor in the United States, I found it extremely interesting to see how the 20th century forced women to surrender their more physical and masculine responsibilities on the farm, including the production of the family’s food. Women were instead confined to a kitchen and kept inside the home depending on labor-saving devices to get chores and tasks done. ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the author, Christine Kleinegger, went back and forth about women and if they share the economic responsibility. The Banker-Farmer Journal urged women to buy these time saving technologies and either have their own savings or checking account, or to accompany your husband when he makes these decisions. They pushed this as to gain their business. The Farmer’s Wife, the popular woman’s magazine, also pushed for these women to buy these devices as well, but they did not think that the wife was as included in the finance part of the household (less than equal partners,p185). I wonder what the reality of this is and did they have any say at all? -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Venus Green ==<br />
<br />
In Green’s discussion, the most powerful pieces of evidence are the data table at the end of the section showing the percentages of workers by race per decade and the testimony of Walter D. Williams, one of the managers. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
The Green reading about the Bell System reminds me of the readings about the factories and workers. In the factories the workers were basically extensions of the machines they were overseeing. Green mentions, “The TSP operator really functioned as an adjunct to a machine rather than as controller of machinery” (258). So the Bell System found a way to exploit African American women in two ways: putting them in low status jobs, and putting them in jobs that are mechanical in nature. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note the idea that African American women should stay at the bottom of the heirachial ladder. They were given no credit at all for there intelligence, and they couldn't even be trained properly since white women refused to train them. On page 264, it states clearly that these women were hired as cheap labor and into positions that were technologically obsolete. These women were not allowed to reach their potential just based on society's judgement as a whole, which shows how society's views and morals impacted the work place especially in a service industry. They were also segregated and not allowed to reach management positions, which again is society's role in the workplace. It is baffling how the interviewee in the section had no facts about African American women's intelligence, but thought it was fair to treat his workers the way he did. -Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
I actually had a phone answering job where when you would answer telephone calls the phone would “beep” and then the customer would be there. It brought me back to this time where our phone system was the latest and greatest technology, now it’s 10x better. Now automation has taken over and getting a “real” person on the other end has become difficult. I also really never thought about how difficult it was for African American women to break into the workforce. I also found it interesting that white women were the majority of workers at the telephone company, not just for a couple of years, but a couple of decades. ---Pam Petzold</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_8_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 8 Questions/Comments2011-03-10T04:18:07Z<p>Bongo282: /* Christine Kleinegger */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Christine Kleinegger ==<br />
<br />
Kleinegger’s basic thesis is that the rise of urbanization and technology displaced farm women from their normal duties. Did increases in food production allow urbanization or did urbanization force technology to increase production abilities? On page 174, Kleinegger writes, “Several factors led to the greater mechanization of dairying. The rapidly increasing population in urban centers created a demand for milk far greater than… farm areas could meet.” It is a matter of what caused which, but it is central to this discussion. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
The discussion of making the woman an equal business partner is interesting, because it is almost two decades after the 19th Constitutional Amendment. It shows that the women’s equality movement had permeated into rural America just like the modern appliances and utilities had. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
Kleinegger discusses the magazine, Farmer’s Wife, and notes that it describes the, “woman’s new role as a consumer and her old role as the wife of a producer . . . ‘Out of the Barns and into the Kitchens’ can be understood not just as metaphor for changes that occurred in the nature of women’s work, but also as a literal description of a change . . . in the site of that work” (177). She also refers to farmwives as “a rural ‘Superwoman’” (179), and quotes the Farmer’s Wife: “‘If you can make your husband think of you as his partner, the rest is easy’” (185). Were women truly happy in their new roles? Did these shifts cause problems in families? Or did everyone adjust easily with the rise of new “labor saving” technology? –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
A theme I noticed in this reading was the romanticization of earlier farm techniques, including butter making, much like with what we had seen with, for example, the introduction of time, or industrialization. Similarly, there was tension between the farm wife and her husband with what their relationship was, as we had seen with the frustrations between factory workers and management. An interesting point is the idea of the daughters leaving the farm if their fathers did not bring in the new technology. I wonder, though, if we can really completely blame it on that. It seems as if these are the times when young farm girls go to factories because the farm does not need so many laborers (food mechanization) and new factories in the cities need the cheap labor (as we had seen with, for example the textile industry). It might have not only been that their fathers didn’t give them running water or a kitchen sink, but that there were increased opportunities outside of the farm. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Based on some of the letters written to the Farmer's Wife, it appears that the women were content with their new roles. However, I think that if they had been given technology to match what their husbands were using on the farm they would have been much more content. It does not appear that the women were resisting the transition too much, though with every change there is bound to be a certain degree of resistance. I think that the biggest issue the women had were that they no longer felt equal to their husbands. Also, I agree with Sara. I do not think that the lack of household technology necessarily drove the daughters off the farm. It may have been an excuse or the initial push, but they would not have left if there were no opportunities for them elsewhere. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I found the entire section on the producer vs. consumer conflict (175) to be really interesting. It provided a new view on the economics of Agriculture in the 1920's and how it might have lead to the Depression, a view I had really considered. However it makes sense because an economy cannot last long when the producer and consumer have two different expectations within the the same household. The provider wants to receive the maximum profit and the consumer wants to acquire the most goods for the least amount of money. However when whatever income you are generating is trying to meet the consumer demands and is pushed lower, than that hurts the entire household, because of the producer/consumer conflict. In order then to meet the demands of the household then more goods are produced, and we have a surplus of goods on the market. Which then causes more problems, such as an over abundance of eggs, which then leads to an over abundance of baked goods. :) However, technology itself played a large role in this because of how it changed these roles. Because of new technologies women were no longer the producers. Instead of churning their own butter, whatever milk was collected was shipped to manufacturers to create better butter there, which the women bought. Even though there is a lot of focus on the big picture, these changes drastically affected the household too. - Jenn<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the evolution of a woman’s responsibilities within her own home (both outside and inside the home), from the 19th to the 20th century very interesting. I had no prior knowledge of how blue-collar farm-working women evolved into housewives whom were arrested to duties pertaining only to the kitchen. The image of the dainty housewife of the 1950’s whose primary concerns only include cooking dinner for her husband before he comes home from work and tending to household matters was surely the final result of this type of farm-to-kitchen evolution. After reading the article, it seemed ironic that in the twentieth century, a century in which women fought for and earned the right to vote, they were actually being somewhat oppressed in a very subversive way. It seems to me that women were actually more independent in the 19th century, as many of their responsibilities relating to the maintenance of a farm were of vital importance. I’m not trying to say that cooking dinner and taking care of the kitchen is unimportant, but in the 19th century women were actually responsible for a large amount of production in the home. If women failed to produce cheese, then the family would not have cheese. However, as the agriculture business became swept by the Industrial Revolution and much of the business became dominated by machinery, capital, mechanization, and most importantly, men, women were no longer expected to serve as an important role on the farm. Gradually, homes relied entirely on consuming products from the nearest store, as production from the home decreased severely. While there has always been a sexual division of labor in the United States, I found it extremely interesting to see how the 20th century forced women to surrender their more physical and masculine responsibilities on the farm, including the production of the family’s food. Women were instead confined to a kitchen and kept inside the home depending on labor-saving devices to get chores and tasks done. ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the author, Christine Kleinegger, went back and forth about women and if they share the economic responsibility. The Banker-Farmer Journal urged women to buy these time saving technologies and either have their own savings or checking account, or to accompany your husband when he makes these decisions. They pushed this as to gain their business. The Farmer’s Wife, the popular woman’s magazine, also pushed for these women to buy these devices as well, but they did not think that the wife was as included in the finance part of the household (less than equal partners,p185). I wonder what the reality of this is and did they have any say at all? -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Venus Green ==<br />
<br />
In Green’s discussion, the most powerful pieces of evidence are the data table at the end of the section showing the percentages of workers by race per decade and the testimony of Walter D. Williams, one of the managers. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
The Green reading about the Bell System reminds me of the readings about the factories and workers. In the factories the workers were basically extensions of the machines they were overseeing. Green mentions, “The TSP operator really functioned as an adjunct to a machine rather than as controller of machinery” (258). So the Bell System found a way to exploit African American women in two ways: putting them in low status jobs, and putting them in jobs that are mechanical in nature. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note the idea that African American women should stay at the bottom of the heirachial ladder. They were given no credit at all for there intelligence, and they couldn't even be trained properly since white women refused to train them. On page 264, it states clearly that these women were hired as cheap labor and into positions that were technologically obsolete. These women were not allowed to reach their potential just based on society's judgement as a whole, which shows how society's views and morals impacted the work place especially in a service industry. They were also segregated and not allowed to reach management positions, which again is society's role in the workplace. It is baffling how the interviewee in the section had no facts about African American women's intelligence, but thought it was fair to treat his workers the way he did. -Patrick Kramer</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 6 Questions/Comments2011-02-17T05:04:27Z<p>Bongo282: /* Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The reading from last week discussing how nations and people view levels of civilization through a lens of technology is supported or enhanced by Nye’s discussion of the World’s Fair. In a walled off section, there was an electricity display with lights. From this point onward, all civilization would be judged based upon whether or not it was lit up at night by Edison’s innovations. In other parts of the fair, they had displays of less civilized people, such as Natives, Mexicans, and Blacks in the Old South. The bar of civilization has been raised.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that in the introductory readings in the first chapter, we read about the ways in which power came to symbolize much more than power, without going too much into what that meant for society. Part V of Chapter 5, with its focus on the social construction of the American power system, focused on non-commodified aspects of electricity, in its uses in wider society. I also saw an interesting parallel, related to what Kyle said above about "civilized people," between the bar for civilization among peoples and the bar for civilization among First-World individuals themselves, with farmers being lumped in with "less civilized people," deprived of electricity and without the capacity to handle it--supposedly.- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
== Electricity and the City -- Great White Way ==<br />
<br />
<br />
An important element of the introduction of electricity that I think we need to talk about is the greatly increased safety of them. Because gas lights were not as bright and tended to flicker, crime was rampant in the streets, even if those streets were lit. With the introduction of the electrically lit streets, the streets were more consistently and evenly lit, so even if the streets were not necessarily safer, at least the perceived safety has increased. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Going off of Sara's point, I think that electricity did increase perceived safety. I don't think it actually helped with crime rates. If someone is going to commit a crime they're going to find a way to do it whether its dark or not. However, the fact that people could see a little better gave them some confidence and safety, even if it wasn't actually safer. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
I also found it fascinating that electricity and lights played such an important role in the entertainment aspect of society. Of course today most of us decorate in some fashion with holiday lights, but I did not realize that this was going on so early. The idea of the basis of fairs being the best lighted exhibition baffles me. We still have these fairs today, and they are still fairly common, but it's hard to believe that the focus was once electricity. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
In regards to Meagan's comment about the role electricity played in society, I too found it a bit fascinating that once electricity and lights came into play, it seemed that life and everything else just took off. There was no stopping it and once it was fully embraced, the world at the time was never going to be the same. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
To add to Sara's point I would tend to agree that the general safety of electricity has increased in regard to city lighting. There are many positives when thinking about what good lighting can do in a heavily populated city. This could lead to less car accidents and possible crime. Back home in New Jersey, I grew up in a city where there was a decent amount of crime. The lighting at night definitely helps in regard to crime. Civilians could spot out a crook a lot easier for police. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
To think that this was the beginning of Broadway is really important. The "white way" is seen in pictures from the time period, but also you can tell where the most people would be. The movie industry was also benefiting from electricity, as well as artists and many other people and businesses. Electricity cultivated the social aspect of everyday life. When they cut the lights off for a couple of days people requested they be put back on, maybe out of fear that their respective social lives would suffer. Now people who live near large lighted signs use shades, especially at night, to combat the light. I wonder if the social aspect of our lives changed when they “turned the lights on” or would it have happened naturally? -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
I was very interested to read about how private investment, along with social, political and economic interests played such a heavy role in determining the development of the electrical system. Had electricity been more of a state-sponsored endeavor, it may be that it wouldn't have become a conspicuous commodity in its earliest stages (being used in the houses of the rich and for display) and may have made it into the average household sooner like it did in Europe. This did, however, allow it to be centralized and standardized more quickly, which helped it grow and spread more variedly. - Scott Birney<br />
<br />
Nye’s mention of Times Square is important because it describes the effect that electricity had on American culture. He notes, “The tourist came to Times Square not only to see the brilliant lighting, but to witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness” (Nye 69). The lighting was such a marvelous sight that tourists came to that part of Manhattan just to see the lights; electricity was such a phenomenon to the American people. He also mentions the later tradition of New Years Eve at Times Square. Nye comments, “Times Square thus became a ceremonial space filled by a vast crowd from every conceivable class and profession, reduced to momentary equality as they marked the passing of time” (71, 73). The fact that the invention of a lighting system became a public spectacle proves the innovation of electricity and its influence on society. <br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer ==<br />
<br />
Westinghouse had an electric car in 1901? This is quite interesting. According to a little online research, there were many other automobile companies testing electric automobiles, almost one hundred. It is interesting how the best technology does not always win or rather, what we conceive as the best technology. Had electricity and the storage of electricity been more feasible at the time, electric automobiles may have won the technological selection process and modern times would be quite different.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
There were issues with the trolleys operating on Sundays, or the Sabbath. Even the courts could tell that the people were changing their habits and customs. Can you imagine if we were not allowed to drive on Sundays now? It is also amazing that these families were spending up to 20% of their income on these streetcars. The streetcars were supposed to assist people, but they were becoming a problem. Strikes and safety issues were 2 of the main problems with the streetcars. People were being hit and dragged by the trolleys and overall safety was becoming an issue. There were many strikes at many of the streetcar companies and scabs were getting hurt, either by stoning or being assaulted, by the striking worker. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines==<br />
<br />
This reading also brings up the interesting discussion of the affect of electricity in rural america. As it would be expected, it took much longer for the electric lines and technologies to reach rural america. I believe it has less to do with an unwilling culture and more to do with the lack of private corporations that saw the spread out Midwest and South as feasible markets. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point that Nye brought up in his analysis of rural electrification is the question of what will this do to the farmer. Now that many of the jobs that used to take him and his hired hands hours or days to do can be shortened to a few minutes work, will farming as a profession become obsolete? These fears were certainly justified in those times, but I think the point that softens the blow of this is that farmers’ productivity was merely increased, and greatly. The time it took to do one job, and the number of hands required to do so decreased. The introduction of electricity to the farm may have made the farmers’ job a little easier, and we have certainly seen over the years that a small unit of farmers can have an even higher productivity. However, I think it might be worthwhile to examine the numbers of how many people were farmers at that time compared to what it was 20 or 30 years after rural electrification, or even today. Perhaps those jobs have been lost, but there was a shift in how the country, and world, gets its food, so the cultural and economic dynamic had to change.--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Nye mentions how technology improved the work of farmers and how productivity increased. Technology also had an effect on the family life of the farmer. Nye claims, “A TVA study showed that electric lights added two to four hours a day to a family’s potential working time, giving them more flexibility in planning the day’s activities . . . . Refrigerators retarded food spoilage and improved the family diet” (323-24). It is important that eventually electricity was not restricted to the cities because its use in rural areas increased productivity on farms. However it also was beneficial in factories. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class, the use of electricity in factories made it possible for machines to run longer and the factories did not have to be built near rivers.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? ==<br />
<br />
In reading the section between pages 182-184, electricity was different things to different people. You have the middle class people that saw it as a new way of life and something special. Reading about the construction of the dams and how they didn't take into consideration flood control or irrigation, it seemed that some of the bigger corporations were taking advantage of this new found technology and were only in it to make a quick profit, instead of looking at the big picture. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
In reading Nye pages 182-184, the electric system was an instant hit with the general public, contrary to what we can say about the early clocks in American society. As the electric system was perfected, the private utilities could produce power more cheaply and wider than public distributers, although connections with Westinghouse, General Electric, and the National Electric Light Association didn’t hurt either. What I found most interesting was the general impression of the electric system which “was one of utopian expectation, viewing electricity not as a commodity but as an enlivening ‘juice’ that could rejuvenate the nervous system and free mankind from toil,” (pg 182). <br />
>>> Mike Roche<br />
<br />
"Corporations were acting with foresight, singleness of purpose and vigor to control the water power of the country". So is Roosevelt saying that in regards to dams being built, it would have been possible to manage without dams? After reading more and more of the passage the book goes on to say "water resources often were developed without regards for needs other than power generation. So there was not even a thought? Or was it just to "keep up with the times". This was an interesting thought that I had after reading the rest of the passage. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting how when electricity was first being introduced to the public it wasn’t seen merely as a great innovation that would make life easier, but was actually expected to catapult society into a utopia. However, I then examined the differences in life before and after electricity; what would it be like to live in a world without lights powered by electricity, and then to one day have someone inform you that you would be able to light your home day and night? That your city would never get dark and that you could now perform an array of household tasks more much more efficiently and quickly? Are there any parallels to the present day in terms of our high hopes for technology? Doesn’t it seem like every new Apple product markets itself as the most wondrous creation the world has ever seen? It seems as if we as a species are never content with the technological innovations we already have. We are constantly looking forward, hoping that the next innovation will make us happier, and more efficient people, instead of utilizing the tools that are already at our disposal. From the reading, it seems as if people were emphatic about electricity for a short while, then quickly accepted it to be a common part of their everyday lives. There aren't very many people living in the United States these days who rant and rave upon entering a room and turning on a light bulb. On page 186, Nye describes how the public eventually saw electricity as an everyday right, and not something to be thankful for. Most of us wouldn’t even be able to make it through the day without our cell phones, Internet, and iPods. Do we ever stop and think about the electricity powering our homes and appliances? Isn’t it about time we stop praying to get a new iPad or Droid and instead be thankful for the innovations we already have at our disposal? If we don’t, we will always be looking for the “next big thing” instead of appreciating what we already have. Then again, some might argue that the need for constant progress and improvement is simply the nature of technology and innovation. Will there ever be a day when common light bulbs are rendered completely obsolete? Is it inevitable? Are the only truly great inventions and innovations the ones that stand for hundreds of years? ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting things that I found from this reading was the quote, "As could be heard in everyday metaphors describing the body as an electrical machine that could be overloaded, burned out, recharged, and shorted out." (p. 184) It reminded me of two things, one being the McEvoy reading about the ecological approach to industry and how the worker's body is the biological core or the industrial ecosystem. It also reminded me of the constant man vs. nature issue that we have been seeing all throughout this semester with the new technologies that are produced. Nye's, and the general public's metaphors really can show the importance of the growing technologies in America through this time. But going back to the main question of what is electricity, is it a commodity? This brings up Nye's statement, "One consequence of defining it as a commodity was that most farmers were excluded from the electrified world." (p. 184). The majority of Americans at this time, I believe I read were farmers, thus the majority of American were without electricity, and all because the electricity at the time was privately owned. --Claire Brooks</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 6 Questions/Comments2011-02-17T02:27:44Z<p>Bongo282: /* Electricity and the City -- Great White Way */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The reading from last week discussing how nations and people view levels of civilization through a lens of technology is supported or enhanced by Nye’s discussion of the World’s Fair. In a walled off section, there was an electricity display with lights. From this point onward, all civilization would be judged based upon whether or not it was lit up at night by Edison’s innovations. In other parts of the fair, they had displays of less civilized people, such as Natives, Mexicans, and Blacks in the Old South. The bar of civilization has been raised.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
<br />
== Electricity and the City -- Great White Way ==<br />
<br />
<br />
An important element of the introduction of electricity that I think we need to talk about is the greatly increased safety of them. Because gas lights were not as bright and tended to flicker, crime was rampant in the streets, even if those streets were lit. With the introduction of the electrically lit streets, the streets were more consistently and evenly lit, so even if the streets were not necessarily safer, at least the perceived safety has increased. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Going off of Sara's point, I think that electricity did increase perceived safety. I don't think it actually helped with crime rates. If someone is going to commit a crime they're going to find a way to do it whether its dark or not. However, the fact that people could see a little better gave them some confidence and safety, even if it wasn't actually safer. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
I also found it fascinating that electricity and lights played such an important role in the entertainment aspect of society. Of course today most of us decorate in some fashion with holiday lights, but I did not realize that this was going on so early. The idea of the basis of fairs being the best lighted exhibition baffles me. We still have these fairs today, and they are still fairly common, but it's hard to believe that the focus was once electricity. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
In regards to Meagan's comment about the role electricity played in society, I too found it a bit fascinating that once electricity and lights came into play, it seemed that life and everything else just took off. There was no stopping it and once it was fully embraced, the world at the time was never going to be the same. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
To add to Sara's point I would tend to agree that the general safety of electricity has increased in regard to city lighting. There are many positives when thinking about what good lighting can do in a heavily populated city. This could lead to less car accidents and possible crime. Back home in New Jersey, I grew up in a city where there was a decent amount of crime. The lighting at night definitely helps in regard to crime. Civilians could spot out a crook a lot easier for police. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
To think that this was the beginning of Broadway is really important. The "white way" is seen in pictures from the time period, but also you can tell where the most people would be. The movie industry was also benefiting from electricity, as well as artists and many other people and businesses. Electricity cultivated the social aspect of everyday life. When they cut the lights off for a couple of days people requested they be put back on, maybe out of fear that their respective social lives would suffer. Now people who live near large lighted signs use shades, especially at night, to combat the light. I wonder if the social aspect of our lives changed when they “turned the lights on” or would it have happened naturally? -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer ==<br />
<br />
Westinghouse had an electric car in 1901? This is quite interesting. According to a little online research, there were many other automobile companies testing electric automobiles, almost one hundred. It is interesting how the best technology does not always win or rather, what we conceive as the best technology. Had electricity and the storage of electricity been more feasible at the time, electric automobiles may have won the technological selection process and modern times would be quite different.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
<br />
== Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines==<br />
<br />
This reading also brings up the interesting discussion of the affect of electricity in rural america. As it would be expected, it took much longer for the electric lines and technologies to reach rural america. I believe it has less to do with an unwilling culture and more to do with the lack of private corporations that saw the spread out Midwest and South as feasible markets. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point that Nye brought up in his analysis of rural electrification is the question of what will this do to the farmer. Now that many of the jobs that used to take him and his hired hands hours or days to do can be shortened to a few minutes work, will farming as a profession become obsolete? These fears were certainly justified in those times, but I think the point that softens the blow of this is that farmers’ productivity was merely increased, and greatly. The time it took to do one job, and the number of hands required to do so decreased. The introduction of electricity to the farm may have made the farmers’ job a little easier, and we have certainly seen over the years that a small unit of farmers can have an even higher productivity. However, I think it might be worthwhile to examine the numbers of how many people were farmers at that time compared to what it was 20 or 30 years after rural electrification, or even today. Perhaps those jobs have been lost, but there was a shift in how the country, and world, gets its food, so the cultural and economic dynamic had to change.--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
<br />
== Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? ==<br />
<br />
In reading the section between pages 182-184, electricity was different things to different people. You have the middle class people that saw it as a new way of life and something special. Reading about the construction of the dams and how they didn't take into consideration flood control or irrigation, it seemed that some of the bigger corporations were taking advantage of this new found technology and were only in it to make a quick profit, instead of looking at the big picture. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
In reading Nye pages 182-184, the electric system was an instant hit with the general public, contrary to what we can say about the early clocks in American society. As the electric system was perfected, the private utilities could produce power more cheaply and wider than public distributers, although connections with Westinghouse, General Electric, and the National Electric Light Association didn’t hurt either. What I found most interesting was the general impression of the electric system which “was one of utopian expectation, viewing electricity not as a commodity but as an enlivening ‘juice’ that could rejuvenate the nervous system and free mankind from toil,” (pg 182). <br />
>>> Mike Roche<br />
<br />
"Corporations were acting with foresight, singleness of purpose and vigor to control the water power of the country". So is Roosevelt saying that in regards to dams being built, it would have been possible to manage without dams? After reading more and more of the passage the book goes on to say "water resources often were developed without regards for needs other than power generation. So there was not even a thought? Or was it just to "keep up with the times". This was an interesting thought that I had after reading the rest of the passage. -Jeff R.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 6 Questions/Comments2011-02-17T02:09:00Z<p>Bongo282: /* Electricity and the City -- Great White Way */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The reading from last week discussing how nations and people view levels of civilization through a lens of technology is supported or enhanced by Nye’s discussion of the World’s Fair. In a walled off section, there was an electricity display with lights. From this point onward, all civilization would be judged based upon whether or not it was lit up at night by Edison’s innovations. In other parts of the fair, they had displays of less civilized people, such as Natives, Mexicans, and Blacks in the Old South. The bar of civilization has been raised.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
<br />
== Electricity and the City -- Great White Way ==<br />
<br />
<br />
An important element of the introduction of electricity that I think we need to talk about is the greatly increased safety of them. Because gas lights were not as bright and tended to flicker, crime was rampant in the streets, even if those streets were lit. With the introduction of the electrically lit streets, the streets were more consistently and evenly lit, so even if the streets were not necessarily safer, at least the perceived safety has increased. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Going off of Sara's point, I think that electricity did increase perceived safety. I don't think it actually helped with crime rates. If someone is going to commit a crime they're going to find a way to do it whether its dark or not. However, the fact that people could see a little better gave them some confidence and safety, even if it wasn't actually safer. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
I also found it fascinating that electricity and lights played such an important role in the entertainment aspect of society. Of course today most of us decorate in some fashion with holiday lights, but I did not realize that this was going on so early. The idea of the basis of fairs being the best lighted exhibition baffles me. We still have these fairs today, and they are still fairly common, but it's hard to believe that the focus was once electricity. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
In regards to Meagan's comment about the role electricity played in society, I too found it a bit fascinating that once electricity and lights came into play, it seemed that life and everything else just took off. There was no stopping it and once it was fully embraced, the world at the time was never going to be the same. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
To add to Sara's point I would tend to agree that the general safety of electricity has increased in regard to city lighting. There are many positives when thinking about what good lighting can do in a heavily populated city. This could lead to less car accidents and possible crime. Back home in New Jersey, I grew up in a city where there was a decent amount of crime. The lighting at night definitely helps in regard to crime. Civilians could spot out a crook a lot easier for police. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
== Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer ==<br />
<br />
Westinghouse had an electric car in 1901? This is quite interesting. According to a little online research, there were many other automobile companies testing electric automobiles, almost one hundred. It is interesting how the best technology does not always win or rather, what we conceive as the best technology. Had electricity and the storage of electricity been more feasible at the time, electric automobiles may have won the technological selection process and modern times would be quite different.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
<br />
== Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines==<br />
<br />
This reading also brings up the interesting discussion of the affect of electricity in rural america. As it would be expected, it took much longer for the electric lines and technologies to reach rural america. I believe it has less to do with an unwilling culture and more to do with the lack of private corporations that saw the spread out Midwest and South as feasible markets. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point that Nye brought up in his analysis of rural electrification is the question of what will this do to the farmer. Now that many of the jobs that used to take him and his hired hands hours or days to do can be shortened to a few minutes work, will farming as a profession become obsolete? These fears were certainly justified in those times, but I think the point that softens the blow of this is that farmers’ productivity was merely increased, and greatly. The time it took to do one job, and the number of hands required to do so decreased. The introduction of electricity to the farm may have made the farmers’ job a little easier, and we have certainly seen over the years that a small unit of farmers can have an even higher productivity. However, I think it might be worthwhile to examine the numbers of how many people were farmers at that time compared to what it was 20 or 30 years after rural electrification, or even today. Perhaps those jobs have been lost, but there was a shift in how the country, and world, gets its food, so the cultural and economic dynamic had to change.--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
<br />
== Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? ==<br />
<br />
In reading the section between pages 182-184, electricity was different things to different people. You have the middle class people that saw it as a new way of life and something special. Reading about the construction of the dams and how they didn't take into consideration flood control or irrigation, it seemed that some of the bigger corporations were taking advantage of this new found technology and were only in it to make a quick profit, instead of looking at the big picture. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
In reading Nye pages 182-184, the electric system was an instant hit with the general public, contrary to what we can say about the early clocks in American society. As the electric system was perfected, the private utilities could produce power more cheaply and wider than public distributers, although connections with Westinghouse, General Electric, and the National Electric Light Association didn’t hurt either. What I found most interesting was the general impression of the electric system which “was one of utopian expectation, viewing electricity not as a commodity but as an enlivening ‘juice’ that could rejuvenate the nervous system and free mankind from toil,” (pg 182). <br />
>>> Mike Roche<br />
<br />
"Corporations were acting with foresight, singleness of purpose and vigor to control the water power of the country". So is Roosevelt saying that in regards to dams being built, it would have been possible to manage without dams? After reading more and more of the passage the book goes on to say "water resources often were developed without regards for needs other than power generation. So there was not even a thought? Or was it just to "keep up with the times". This was an interesting thought that I had after reading the rest of the passage. -Jeff R.</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 5 Questions/Comments2011-02-10T03:53:08Z<p>Bongo282: /* Christine Frederick, The New Housekeeping, 1913 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In the watchmaking article (151-152), I noticed a lot of similarities between the descriptions of the usage of women to work on watches in comparison to using women in the Lowell mills. The women tend to be more dexterous and can work on smaller, more detailed objects and therefore were more often and willingly hired to work in these situations. It also shows a little bit of the transfer from the apprenticeship/master to the factory—it was frustrating to lose women to marriage in watch making because learning those skills took a long time but as soon as they learned them, the women went off to be married, but in the Lowell system, sending women off to be married was not a problem because they were doing unskilled labor. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that women were hired because they were more dexterous with their hands and could do certain jobs easier than men, but they still were not paid as well. I know that women in general were not seen as efficient as men, but their reasoning for not paying as well seems faulty. Just becuase they are not doing labor that is physically as hard, they were still more efficient than the men at the jobs they were doing. If pay was measured in dexterity the women would have been making more. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I agree with everything above but I also noticed the brief mention of "Nine tenths are American born." It struck me as rather odd. On one hand it shows the reluctance in accepting immigrants; on the other hand I would've thought that immigrants would have been hired more because the belief that they would accept a lower pay than other workers (and thus frequently used as Scabs.)- Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This article interested me in the sense the jobs that women had. Doing the "smaller" work that required steadier and smaller hands as compared to a man. Women were left for the less strenuous work along with raising children in some cases. But women had to learn the craft and use it to adapt to the kind of work they were required to do. It fascinated me how important women were and still are to society. It is most certainly true that women can do some work that men definitely could not. This made women more important to society and culture. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
The watchmakers were very talented men and women. I was not aware that women were allowed to make watches during this time. It makes sense, their hands and fingers were smaller than a man’s. I also got a giggle that the reason why they hired these women was because they would want to marry soon and they would not need extra training. I wonder if a female did not want to get married would they force the female out at a certain point or would they treat the female like they would treat the male?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men, 221-232 ==<br />
<br />
In the earlier Colonial periods, the degree of civilization was based upon numerous characteristics, such as how the towns were set up, were there towns at all, were the inhabitants naked, did they have social hierarchy? These were the standards utilized by the Spanish, English, and French to justify subjugation, slavery, or conquering. In the industrial age, these ways of categorizing and describing cultures changes with the scientific inquiry and standards of measurement discussed by Adas in his article. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I found fault with his argument though that technology becomes the barometer for civilization, because the colonial powers used technology in earlier periods to describe superiority as well. For example, the use of crude guns, gunpowder, metallurgy, and other trades were seen as far superior to the Native technologies and therefore showed their culture’s lower place in the natural order. If anything, the type of technology and the amount of technology used as a barometer for civilization expands, but it did not begin here. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
"Machines and equations, or their absence, were themselves indicators of the level of development a given society had attained" (7). Adas claims in his account that technology was the largest factor in measuring how civilized a society was or if they were civilized at all. Adas gave an example of a quote by Mary Kingsley when making his claim that read, "Well, that is just how I feel about the first bit of magnificent machinery I come across; it is the manifestation of the superiority of my race" (5). I think Adas made a valid argument. I would agree. This excerpt was in reference to the British, French, and German being technologically advanced and superior to Africans and Asians, however we can look at the founding of America and the thoughts about indigeneous populations, as well, to understand that technology was a large factor in distinguishing between "civilized" and "savage, primitive" cultures. Other factors were taken into account as well, such as lack of social organization, conception of private property, and the ways in which the people utilized the resources and space they inhabited. If we consider that in addition to machinery and the like that we typically classify as "technology," technology is considered to be "the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems, or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or create an artistic perspective" (wikipedia). In this way, technological innovation really did measure the advancement of a civilization. -Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
== Overall comments on primary source readings in Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
Reading the short letters at the end of the reading, we are seeing different ways where people are trying to be more productive by shortening the length of time it takes to do something. In the Laundress writing, you have them shortening the distance the iron was carried and how far the operator was walking per uniform and they were becoming more effective and productive. Whereas with the canoe makers, they create these dry bins to reduce the drying time from ten days down to four. After shipping out the canoes to Macys, 275 of the 500 came back due to warping and cracking. While everyone wants to find new ways to be more productive, however the logistics involved didn't quite add up for the canoes. Shortening the distance someone has to walk to do laundry was clearly a time saver, whereas the canoe makers found out the hard way that canoes need ten days for a reason. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
== Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
Frederick Taylor’s article on Scientific Management reminded me of the article we read for last week that focused on men as being part of the machine. It seems to be a common trend in this era that those that run the factory think of men as merely part of the machine, but there is a pushback from workers with unions, strikes, resistance, etc. Scientific Management controls every movement of the worker, as if it was controlling a machine that can be fixed and adjusted. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
There has always been tension between management and employees. The management wants to be in control of the workers because they are invested and want to increase production. The workers are only there because they need a means to support themselves. It seems to me that if the management and the workers were to compromise that everyone would benefit. The workers would be more willing to produce more and work more effectively if the working conditions and pay were better, and the management would have to spend slightly more to pay the workers, but they would save time by preventing strikes. But I guess it is all easier said than done.<br />
<br />
To add to Sara's comment men were the machine. Machines back in the early 1900s were not nearly as effective as the machines we have today. There was still a huge amount of work that had to be done by man that could not be done by machine. I could see that the argument would be that the machine would lessen the amount the employer has to pay, but at the same time they were not scientifically advanced at that time to make significant changes. In other words, they still needed man-power in the early 1900s. Although today in some ways machine has taken some of the jobs that used to occupy man in today's society. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the article about Scientific Management was interesting because it altered the way we do things even today. I don’t agree that every person needed to do a certain job in the amount of time that they designate to the job. That’s why many people lost their job or were not getting paid for doing a specialty job that now has been streamlined. The only professions that did not go through this were being a doctor or a lawyer. You had to go to school for these professions. When machines were invented it really took a person’s specialty skills and made them feel useless. Now there are more specialty jobs for people who have the training, certificates, or schooling.---Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Christine Frederick, The New Housekeeping, 1913 ==<br />
The principals that are discussed in this article may have worked during this time due to the schedules that people would keep. (Work during the day when it was light, and went to sleep when it was dark) This is not the case now, due to the fact that both men and women have to work. They may work different shifts or they may need to have two jobs. People now do things when they can and take as much time as they need to do the task at home. There are still some jobs that require timing for everything; it’s just not talked about as it was during this time. It was new to people so change was not high on people’s priority list. I can’t lie; I myself have found I sometimes time myself doing certain tasks. If I didn’t do that then I would never sleep. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== James O’Connell – 1911 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1913 Watertown arsenal’s striking workers’ petition to end Taylorism ==<br />
<br />
Many men at the Watertown arsenal were more than upset with taylorism. We see stores everyday (like Lowes recently) cut back on certain aspects of the company to make more money. In this case, taylorism literally changed the dynamic of the workplace. Artisans who had practiced their craft for years were no longer able to make a living like they were before. Men were forced to work at a much faster pace than they were used to, and many men were not even physically able to due the work that was laid in front of them. The letter also states that with a decrease of skilled artisans in the workplace, the quality of work done decreased with the increase of unskilled workers in the arsenal.<br />
The one thing that caught my eye was the part about the watch. Since watches were becoming popular during this time period, it is interesting to see that the workers hated them. Since employers could now time their employees on production rate, there was a scare for the workers for two reasons: 1) because it makes them work much harder than most of them are physically capable of and 2) because employee-employer relations worsened as the employers took a much more direct control of worker's output. -Patrick K.<br />
<br />
== 1939 textbook on scientific management ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Satires about efficiency system – Henry Mitchell, Penobscot Indian, 1938 & 1930's tale of “Highpockets” in Chicago ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Prof. Frank T. Carlton criticizes Taylorism for what? – 1914 ==<br />
<br />
Like Prof. Frank T. Carlon, I find many aspects of Taylorism, a managerial philosophy stemming from “scientific management,” extremely troubling. On the surface, proponents of Taylorism may claim that is a positive philosophy, and manages to find the “one best way” to make a product. Taylorism also emphasizes employee efficiency within the workplace – no movement or minute should be wasted. I have a problem with how Taylorism views human beings – as interchangeable, emotionless components of a larger machine. As factories and companies adopted the practices of scientific management, workers were no longer treated as human beings with feelings. Workers were not allowed to talk to one another, because this was viewed as being “inefficient.” I agree with Carlton’s notion that “work and recreation should be blended for each and every individual.” However, an activity like recreation was viewed as being unproductive, and therefore was eliminated from the workplace. I think that many of these employers failed to understand that the human psyche is a very fragile thing, and that if a person is not allowed time for leisure, and time to interact with others in a non-threatening social manner, the person will eventually turn against the company he or she is working for. However, this didn’t seem to bother employers. They knew that if one menial worker quit, they could just as easily hire two more. Once again, this is an example of how Taylorism drove any sense of humanity out of the workplace. These employers were looking for ways to maximize production from their workers, and forgot that an incredibly important part of one’s work and life is recreation, and taking breaks from the daily grind of one’s select occupation. ~Kevin Gottschalk</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 5 Questions/Comments2011-02-10T03:40:03Z<p>Bongo282: /* Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, 1911 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In the watchmaking article (151-152), I noticed a lot of similarities between the descriptions of the usage of women to work on watches in comparison to using women in the Lowell mills. The women tend to be more dexterous and can work on smaller, more detailed objects and therefore were more often and willingly hired to work in these situations. It also shows a little bit of the transfer from the apprenticeship/master to the factory—it was frustrating to lose women to marriage in watch making because learning those skills took a long time but as soon as they learned them, the women went off to be married, but in the Lowell system, sending women off to be married was not a problem because they were doing unskilled labor. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that women were hired because they were more dexterous with their hands and could do certain jobs easier than men, but they still were not paid as well. I know that women in general were not seen as efficient as men, but their reasoning for not paying as well seems faulty. Just becuase they are not doing labor that is physically as hard, they were still more efficient than the men at the jobs they were doing. If pay was measured in dexterity the women would have been making more. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I agree with everything above but I also noticed the brief mention of "Nine tenths are American born." It struck me as rather odd. On one hand it shows the reluctance in accepting immigrants; on the other hand I would've thought that immigrants would have been hired more because the belief that they would accept a lower pay than other workers (and thus frequently used as Scabs.)- Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This article interested me in the sense the jobs that women had. Doing the "smaller" work that required steadier and smaller hands as compared to a man. Women were left for the less strenuous work along with raising children in some cases. But women had to learn the craft and use it to adapt to the kind of work they were required to do. It fascinated me how important women were and still are to society. It is most certainly true that women can do some work that men definitely could not. This made women more important to society and culture. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
The watchmakers were very talented men and women. I was not aware that women were allowed to make watches during this time. It makes sense, their hands and fingers were smaller than a man’s. I also got a giggle that the reason why they hired these women was because they would want to marry soon and they would not need extra training. I wonder if a female did not want to get married would they force the female out at a certain point or would they treat the female like they would treat the male?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men, 221-232 ==<br />
<br />
In the earlier Colonial periods, the degree of civilization was based upon numerous characteristics, such as how the towns were set up, were there towns at all, were the inhabitants naked, did they have social hierarchy? These were the standards utilized by the Spanish, English, and French to justify subjugation, slavery, or conquering. In the industrial age, these ways of categorizing and describing cultures changes with the scientific inquiry and standards of measurement discussed by Adas in his article. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I found fault with his argument though that technology becomes the barometer for civilization, because the colonial powers used technology in earlier periods to describe superiority as well. For example, the use of crude guns, gunpowder, metallurgy, and other trades were seen as far superior to the Native technologies and therefore showed their culture’s lower place in the natural order. If anything, the type of technology and the amount of technology used as a barometer for civilization expands, but it did not begin here. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
"Machines and equations, or their absence, were themselves indicators of the level of development a given society had attained" (7). Adas claims in his account that technology was the largest factor in measuring how civilized a society was or if they were civilized at all. Adas gave an example of a quote by Mary Kingsley when making his claim that read, "Well, that is just how I feel about the first bit of magnificent machinery I come across; it is the manifestation of the superiority of my race" (5). I think Adas made a valid argument. I would agree. This excerpt was in reference to the British, French, and German being technologically advanced and superior to Africans and Asians, however we can look at the founding of America and the thoughts about indigeneous populations, as well, to understand that technology was a large factor in distinguishing between "civilized" and "savage, primitive" cultures. Other factors were taken into account as well, such as lack of social organization, conception of private property, and the ways in which the people utilized the resources and space they inhabited. If we consider that in addition to machinery and the like that we typically classify as "technology," technology is considered to be "the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems, or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or create an artistic perspective" (wikipedia). In this way, technological innovation really did measure the advancement of a civilization. -Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
== Overall comments on primary source readings in Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
Reading the short letters at the end of the reading, we are seeing different ways where people are trying to be more productive by shortening the length of time it takes to do something. In the Laundress writing, you have them shortening the distance the iron was carried and how far the operator was walking per uniform and they were becoming more effective and productive. Whereas with the canoe makers, they create these dry bins to reduce the drying time from ten days down to four. After shipping out the canoes to Macys, 275 of the 500 came back due to warping and cracking. While everyone wants to find new ways to be more productive, however the logistics involved didn't quite add up for the canoes. Shortening the distance someone has to walk to do laundry was clearly a time saver, whereas the canoe makers found out the hard way that canoes need ten days for a reason. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
== Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
Frederick Taylor’s article on Scientific Management reminded me of the article we read for last week that focused on men as being part of the machine. It seems to be a common trend in this era that those that run the factory think of men as merely part of the machine, but there is a pushback from workers with unions, strikes, resistance, etc. Scientific Management controls every movement of the worker, as if it was controlling a machine that can be fixed and adjusted. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
There has always been tension between management and employees. The management wants to be in control of the workers because they are invested and want to increase production. The workers are only there because they need a means to support themselves. It seems to me that if the management and the workers were to compromise that everyone would benefit. The workers would be more willing to produce more and work more effectively if the working conditions and pay were better, and the management would have to spend slightly more to pay the workers, but they would save time by preventing strikes. But I guess it is all easier said than done.<br />
<br />
To add to Sara's comment men were the machine. Machines back in the early 1900s were not nearly as effective as the machines we have today. There was still a huge amount of work that had to be done by man that could not be done by machine. I could see that the argument would be that the machine would lessen the amount the employer has to pay, but at the same time they were not scientifically advanced at that time to make significant changes. In other words, they still needed man-power in the early 1900s. Although today in some ways machine has taken some of the jobs that used to occupy man in today's society. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the article about Scientific Management was interesting because it altered the way we do things even today. I don’t agree that every person needed to do a certain job in the amount of time that they designate to the job. That’s why many people lost their job or were not getting paid for doing a specialty job that now has been streamlined. The only professions that did not go through this were being a doctor or a lawyer. You had to go to school for these professions. When machines were invented it really took a person’s specialty skills and made them feel useless. Now there are more specialty jobs for people who have the training, certificates, or schooling.---Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Christine Frederick, The New Housekeeping, 1913 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== James O’Connell – 1911 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1913 Watertown arsenal’s striking workers’ petition to end Taylorism ==<br />
<br />
Many men at the Watertown arsenal were more than upset with taylorism. We see stores everyday (like Lowes recently) cut back on certain aspects of the company to make more money. In this case, taylorism literally changed the dynamic of the workplace. Artisans who had practiced their craft for years were no longer able to make a living like they were before. Men were forced to work at a much faster pace than they were used to, and many men were not even physically able to due the work that was laid in front of them. The letter also states that with a decrease of skilled artisans in the workplace, the quality of work done decreased with the increase of unskilled workers in the arsenal.<br />
The one thing that caught my eye was the part about the watch. Since watches were becoming popular during this time period, it is interesting to see that the workers hated them. Since employers could now time their employees on production rate, there was a scare for the workers for two reasons: 1) because it makes them work much harder than most of them are physically capable of and 2) because employee-employer relations worsened as the employers took a much more direct control of worker's output. -Patrick K.<br />
<br />
== 1939 textbook on scientific management ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Satires about efficiency system – Henry Mitchell, Penobscot Indian, 1938 & 1930's tale of “Highpockets” in Chicago ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Prof. Frank T. Carlton criticizes Taylorism for what? – 1914 ==<br />
<br />
Like Prof. Frank T. Carlon, I find many aspects of Taylorism, a managerial philosophy stemming from “scientific management,” extremely troubling. On the surface, proponents of Taylorism may claim that is a positive philosophy, and manages to find the “one best way” to make a product. Taylorism also emphasizes employee efficiency within the workplace – no movement or minute should be wasted. I have a problem with how Taylorism views human beings – as interchangeable, emotionless components of a larger machine. As factories and companies adopted the practices of scientific management, workers were no longer treated as human beings with feelings. Workers were not allowed to talk to one another, because this was viewed as being “inefficient.” I agree with Carlton’s notion that “work and recreation should be blended for each and every individual.” However, an activity like recreation was viewed as being unproductive, and therefore was eliminated from the workplace. I think that many of these employers failed to understand that the human psyche is a very fragile thing, and that if a person is not allowed time for leisure, and time to interact with others in a non-threatening social manner, the person will eventually turn against the company he or she is working for. However, this didn’t seem to bother employers. They knew that if one menial worker quit, they could just as easily hire two more. Once again, this is an example of how Taylorism drove any sense of humanity out of the workplace. These employers were looking for ways to maximize production from their workers, and forgot that an incredibly important part of one’s work and life is recreation, and taking breaks from the daily grind of one’s select occupation. ~Kevin Gottschalk</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 5 Questions/Comments2011-02-10T03:20:31Z<p>Bongo282: /* Virginia Penny – Watchmaking, 1863 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In the watchmaking article (151-152), I noticed a lot of similarities between the descriptions of the usage of women to work on watches in comparison to using women in the Lowell mills. The women tend to be more dexterous and can work on smaller, more detailed objects and therefore were more often and willingly hired to work in these situations. It also shows a little bit of the transfer from the apprenticeship/master to the factory—it was frustrating to lose women to marriage in watch making because learning those skills took a long time but as soon as they learned them, the women went off to be married, but in the Lowell system, sending women off to be married was not a problem because they were doing unskilled labor. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that women were hired because they were more dexterous with their hands and could do certain jobs easier than men, but they still were not paid as well. I know that women in general were not seen as efficient as men, but their reasoning for not paying as well seems faulty. Just becuase they are not doing labor that is physically as hard, they were still more efficient than the men at the jobs they were doing. If pay was measured in dexterity the women would have been making more. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I agree with everything above but I also noticed the brief mention of "Nine tenths are American born." It struck me as rather odd. On one hand it shows the reluctance in accepting immigrants; on the other hand I would've thought that immigrants would have been hired more because the belief that they would accept a lower pay than other workers (and thus frequently used as Scabs.)- Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This article interested me in the sense the jobs that women had. Doing the "smaller" work that required steadier and smaller hands as compared to a man. Women were left for the less strenuous work along with raising children in some cases. But women had to learn the craft and use it to adapt to the kind of work they were required to do. It fascinated me how important women were and still are to society. It is most certainly true that women can do some work that men definitely could not. This made women more important to society and culture. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
The watchmakers were very talented men and women. I was not aware that women were allowed to make watches during this time. It makes sense, their hands and fingers were smaller than a man’s. I also got a giggle that the reason why they hired these women was because they would want to marry soon and they would not need extra training. I wonder if a female did not want to get married would they force the female out at a certain point or would they treat the female like they would treat the male?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men, 221-232 ==<br />
<br />
In the earlier Colonial periods, the degree of civilization was based upon numerous characteristics, such as how the towns were set up, were there towns at all, were the inhabitants naked, did they have social hierarchy? These were the standards utilized by the Spanish, English, and French to justify subjugation, slavery, or conquering. In the industrial age, these ways of categorizing and describing cultures changes with the scientific inquiry and standards of measurement discussed by Adas in his article. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I found fault with his argument though that technology becomes the barometer for civilization, because the colonial powers used technology in earlier periods to describe superiority as well. For example, the use of crude guns, gunpowder, metallurgy, and other trades were seen as far superior to the Native technologies and therefore showed their culture’s lower place in the natural order. If anything, the type of technology and the amount of technology used as a barometer for civilization expands, but it did not begin here. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
"Machines and equations, or their absence, were themselves indicators of the level of development a given society had attained" (7). Adas claims in his account that technology was the largest factor in measuring how civilized a society was or if they were civilized at all. Adas gave an example of a quote by Mary Kingsley when making his claim that read, "Well, that is just how I feel about the first bit of magnificent machinery I come across; it is the manifestation of the superiority of my race" (5). I think Adas made a valid argument. I would agree. This excerpt was in reference to the British, French, and German being technologically advanced and superior to Africans and Asians, however we can look at the founding of America and the thoughts about indigeneous populations, as well, to understand that technology was a large factor in distinguishing between "civilized" and "savage, primitive" cultures. Other factors were taken into account as well, such as lack of social organization, conception of private property, and the ways in which the people utilized the resources and space they inhabited. If we consider that in addition to machinery and the like that we typically classify as "technology," technology is considered to be "the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems, or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or create an artistic perspective" (wikipedia). In this way, technological innovation really did measure the advancement of a civilization. -Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
== Overall comments on primary source readings in Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
Reading the short letters at the end of the reading, we are seeing different ways where people are trying to be more productive by shortening the length of time it takes to do something. In the Laundress writing, you have them shortening the distance the iron was carried and how far the operator was walking per uniform and they were becoming more effective and productive. Whereas with the canoe makers, they create these dry bins to reduce the drying time from ten days down to four. After shipping out the canoes to Macys, 275 of the 500 came back due to warping and cracking. While everyone wants to find new ways to be more productive, however the logistics involved didn't quite add up for the canoes. Shortening the distance someone has to walk to do laundry was clearly a time saver, whereas the canoe makers found out the hard way that canoes need ten days for a reason. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
== Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
Frederick Taylor’s article on Scientific Management reminded me of the article we read for last week that focused on men as being part of the machine. It seems to be a common trend in this era that those that run the factory think of men as merely part of the machine, but there is a pushback from workers with unions, strikes, resistance, etc. Scientific Management controls every movement of the worker, as if it was controlling a machine that can be fixed and adjusted. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
There has always been tension between management and employees. The management wants to be in control of the workers because they are invested and want to increase production. The workers are only there because they need a means to support themselves. It seems to me that if the management and the workers were to compromise that everyone would benefit. The workers would be more willing to produce more and work more effectively if the working conditions and pay were better, and the management would have to spend slightly more to pay the workers, but they would save time by preventing strikes. But I guess it is all easier said than done.<br />
<br />
To add to Sara's comment men were the machine. Machines back in the early 1900s were not nearly as effective as the machines we have today. There was still a huge amount of work that had to be done by man that could not be done by machine. I could see that the argument would be that the machine would lessen the amount the employer has to pay, but at the same time they were not scientifically advanced at that time to make significant changes. In other words, they still needed man-power in the early 1900s. Although today in some ways machine has taken some of the jobs that used to occupy man in today's society. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
== Christine Frederick, The New Housekeeping, 1913 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== James O’Connell – 1911 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1913 Watertown arsenal’s striking workers’ petition to end Taylorism ==<br />
<br />
Many men at the Watertown arsenal were more than upset with taylorism. We see stores everyday (like Lowes recently) cut back on certain aspects of the company to make more money. In this case, taylorism literally changed the dynamic of the workplace. Artisans who had practiced their craft for years were no longer able to make a living like they were before. Men were forced to work at a much faster pace than they were used to, and many men were not even physically able to due the work that was laid in front of them. The letter also states that with a decrease of skilled artisans in the workplace, the quality of work done decreased with the increase of unskilled workers in the arsenal.<br />
<br />
The one thing that caught my eye was the part about the watch. Since watches were becoming popular during this time period, it is interesting to see that the workers hated them. Since employers could now time their employees on production rate, there was a scare for the workers for two reasons: 1) because it makes them work much harder than most of them are physically capable of and 2) because employee-employer relations worsened as the employers took a much more direct control of worker's output. -Patrick K.<br />
<br />
== 1939 textbook on scientific management ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Satires about efficiency system – Henry Mitchell, Penobscot Indian, 1938 & 1930's tale of “Highpockets” in Chicago ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Prof. Frank T. Carlton criticizes Taylorism for what? – 1914 ==<br />
<br />
Like Prof. Frank T. Carlon, I find many aspects of Taylorism, a managerial philosophy stemming from “scientific management,” extremely troubling. On the surface, proponents of Taylorism may claim that is a positive philosophy, and manages to find the “one best way” to make a product. Taylorism also emphasizes employee efficiency within the workplace – no movement or minute should be wasted. I have a problem with how Taylorism views human beings – as interchangeable, emotionless components of a larger machine. As factories and companies adopted the practices of scientific management, workers were no longer treated as human beings with feelings. Workers were not allowed to talk to one another, because this was viewed as being “inefficient.” I agree with Carlton’s notion that “work and recreation should be blended for each and every individual.” However, an activity like recreation was viewed as being unproductive, and therefore was eliminated from the workplace. I think that many of these employers failed to understand that the human psyche is a very fragile thing, and that if a person is not allowed time for leisure, and time to interact with others in a non-threatening social manner, the person will eventually turn against the company he or she is working for. However, this didn’t seem to bother employers. They knew that if one menial worker quit, they could just as easily hire two more. Once again, this is an example of how Taylorism drove any sense of humanity out of the workplace. These employers were looking for ways to maximize production from their workers, and forgot that an incredibly important part of one’s work and life is recreation, and taking breaks from the daily grind of one’s select occupation. ~Kevin Gottschalk</div>Bongo282https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_4_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 4 Questions/Comments2011-02-03T00:42:48Z<p>Bongo282: /* Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Danly, RR in American Art ==<br />
It is surprising that the artists were showing picturesque scenes of the railroads. What was their motivation? For some of the artists, they were paid to paint the scenes within the train cars and on the coal cars, but what about the other artists? It may be that the artists did not quite grasp the long-term effects of the train. They saw it as bringing economic prosperity and opening up new lands, which are all positive things. The most obvious answer is the idea of Manifest Destiny. Some of the paintings, such as Lackawanna Valley, show a transition between modernity and the beautiful pastoral lands, but the changing landscape does not look ugly or repulsive. In Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way, it is interesting that the smoke is blowing onto the Native Americans. This could be symbolic of many things, but mostly how technology will conquer the West. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
In response to Kyle and what the motivation was for making the scenes of the railroad picturesque: I feel that early on, to try and convince people to travel by railway, the artists goal was to paint a picture of something that was beautiful and inviting. Drawing a picture of a train going through the desert doesn't have the same appeal to a first time traveler as a picture of a train going past a river with mountains in the background. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
It was interesting to me to see the transition of trying to make positive art work at the beginning of the Railroad’s operation to industrializing the factories and the Railroad lines. In my opinion the daguerreotypists gave the public images of what the reality of the Railroad situation was. As cars and planes were becoming more popular with people the last ditch effort by the train companies was to make them more luxurious and comfortable to travel in, plus you had a “beautiful landscape” to appreciate. Later in the 1920’s – 1930’s we started to see the industrial side of the artists and what the landscape really looked like. I wonder if the artist drew what they saw, or were paid by some of the Railroad companies to “spice it up” and make it so everyone wanted to travel by train? ---Pam Petzold <br />
<br />
== Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety” ==<br />
<br />
McEvoy tended to really emphasize the workplace as an ecological system, of which the worker’s body was the biological core. He used this analogy at least three times in his essay. It’s difficult to think of a human body as a part of the machine, but I think that’s the point here. Without a body, the machine simply cannot function. I thought it was an interesting comparison that McEvoy made with this analogy on page 81 where he says that industrial accidents hurt workers’ bodies like industry hurts the environment. When it came to the Bowers’ essay, this theory became all the more obvious. Bowers’ numerical summary of how worker injury takes away from industry is shocking and enlightening, even if it is a little disturbing to see injury quantified in that manner. Nevertheless, this quantification with McEvoy’s analysis shows the importance of workers’ health and safety and how much money and time is lost should a worker not be taken care of.--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Employers escaped liability for a number of years. In Farwell v. Boston and Worchester Railroad, the employee loses his arm due to another employee’s negligence. “Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that engineer Farwell had assumed the risk of injury-even at the hands of negligent fellow workers-when he agreed to work on the railroad” (79). I learned in my Business Law class that assumption of risk is one exception to a suit of negligence. However, there is no way that Farwell could have assumed or predicted that his co-worker would cause him to lose him arm. However, McEvoy’s essay mentions numerous times that these work “accidents” were not a major priority to employers. Safety precautions would be expensive and would cut down on profits. McEvoy also mentions the view towards the workers as, “The worker’s body became a mere appendage of the machine” (86). Employers viewed their employees as nothing more than a means of production. Loss of limbs was considered “normal” which is why working conditions did not immediately change. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
McEvoy was trying to make you understand in his writings that people only saw the capitalism in the industrial areas. The people during this time didn’t think about what the factories and mills would do to the landscape, they just knew it meant money in their pockets. I wonder if the people who lived around these areas were having problems getting clean water or breathing clean air? Of course accidents would happen, but because factories were more concerned in making money people’s health suffered. Why did it take so long for these factories to understand that a person’s health or life is more important? ---Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work? A Study of Industrial Accidents” ==<br />
<br />
Lighting a match and putting it inside the gas tank to determine if the tank would hold more gasoline...brilliant idea. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
The statistics that Bowers presents at the beginning of his essay are alarming. “On the basis of 20,000 fatalities per year, [the country] is deprived of 380,000 man-years of labor . . . The less serious injuries account for probably 3,000,000 weeks of lost labor annually. All types of injuries taken together cause an annual loss of time of more than 280,000,000 working days” (102). With this much at stake, it is amazing that the employers did not implement safer working conditions. Would the loss of profit from creating safety precautions really outweigh the loss of production from work-related fatalities and injuries? –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I also found the statistics staggering. I have always heard about working conditions or the dangerous of working in a factory from the past, but did not consider that it was still so dangerous. I guess I assumed that with time there would be more precautions in place to help protect the workers in these environments, even though I know that they could not fix the problem fully. I think that the employers have made working conditions safer, but it appears that a lot of the accidents are due to stupidity, which is hard to prevent. However, it did say that employers were hesistant at spending money to implement safer conditions. It would appear that it would be cheaper to have safer working conditions than to lose money from injuries or deaths. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
Bowers article hit home for me. The saw with no guide was the reason my brother-in-law lost one of his fingers. He did not sue the company because he realized it was his fault, but people everyday don’t see this when they become injured. Some companies do comply with OSHA and other safety precautions, but there are still some businesses out there that do not. Why has this still gone on? I also like Matthew’s comments about the “bright one” that lit a match to look into a gas tank; I guess they learned as they lived. ---Pam Petzold</div>Bongo282 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