McClurken Wiki

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php</b> on line <b>195</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>571</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>585</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>578</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>603</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>553</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>186</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>203</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>196</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>212</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>175</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php</b> on line <b>135</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php</b> on line <b>234</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php</b> on line <b>292</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php</b> on line <b>755</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php</b> on line <b>907</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php</b> on line <b>908</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>627</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>629</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>630</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>631</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>633</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>634</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php</b> on line <b>402</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Cbrau</id>
		<title>McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Cbrau"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Cbrau"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T22:25:31Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-21T23:50:11Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference.  What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that  had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn&amp;#039;t just get support from other &amp;quot;hard hatted&amp;quot; women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the &amp;quot;sisterhood&amp;quot; aspect of the women&amp;#039;s lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving.  Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through.   Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy.  It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy.  She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them.  She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women.  As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field.  -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, &amp;quot;Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two&amp;quot; (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss.  I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married.   I enjoyed Eisenberg&amp;#039;s perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can&amp;#039;t imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive.  “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important thing that kept these women going, despite the difficult working conditions was the camaraderie among these women and without this, working in construction and life would of been more difficult.  The higher graduation rate in the trade school was &amp;quot;owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other&amp;quot; (278).  They also formed groups for personal support and to discuss the varied problems they faced on the job-site.  It seems when times are desperate, women have constantly bonded together to acheive a goal weather it be the right to vote, or just gaining respect and fitting in on a constuction site.  They have an immense sense of pride in what they accomplish and this is demonstrated at the end of this excerpt where an older Eisenberg drove around showing her daughter the buildings she had a part in. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. &lt;br /&gt;
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Real &amp;quot;Norma Rae&amp;quot; Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277)  It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper.  My interviewee&amp;#039;s father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did.  &amp;quot;[They] didn&amp;#039;t think I ought to go&amp;quot; (274).  However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity.  Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable.  Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class.  Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions.  This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton&amp;#039;s determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Norma Rae was an interesting piece.  Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together.  Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions.  Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it.  A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up.  When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I!  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn&amp;#039;t sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, &amp;quot;Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter.&amp;quot;(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268).  We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Morgan has stated.  It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify.  The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon&amp;#039;s distinction between &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man.  She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare.  Her line, &amp;quot;The truth is that A.F.D.C  is like a supersexist marriage.  You trade in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man for &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man&amp;quot; (287).  It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence.  This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states,  &amp;quot;There&amp;#039;s one good thing about welfare.  It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don&amp;#039;t make it.  If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything&amp;quot; (289).  If this doesn&amp;#039;t read like empowerment, I&amp;#039;m not sure what else does.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan&amp;#039;s and Abratchi&amp;#039;s comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn&amp;#039;t say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like &amp;quot;In this country if you&amp;#039;re any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you&amp;#039;re all those things you don&amp;#039;t count at all except as a statistic.&amp;quot; ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today&amp;#039;s society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn&amp;#039;t read a testimonial of today&amp;#039;s Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn&amp;#039;t had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it&amp;#039;s just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem  to be a &amp;quot;size&amp;quot; 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its&amp;#039; true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement &amp;quot;Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success&amp;quot; (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don&amp;#039;t understand how a male who isn&amp;#039;t exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it&amp;#039;s hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won&amp;#039;t run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it&amp;#039;s okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn&amp;#039;t make sense. I&amp;#039;m not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It&amp;#039;s a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society&amp;#039;s standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn&amp;#039;t an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it?  --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, &amp;quot;It doesn&amp;#039;t take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,...&amp;quot;(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points.  I think her willingness to show that the issue of &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; actually produces a negative view on women is interesting.  She believes that &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings.  I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious.  Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings.  Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual.   -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would have to agree with Roiphe that when it comes to rape, some people really do go overboard with it.  It is of course a very serious issue, but I at least agree with her irritation with women who are suspcious of all their male friends.  Those poor guys!  And rape including including more than the physical act (i.e. verbal coercion)?  I think this warping of the definition can be likened to how the seriousness of rape is really downplayed in our culture today.  People have it in their every day vocabulary (it&amp;#039;s a commonly used internet and gaming term) and many people still don&amp;#039;t realize just how traumatizing rape can be (not to mention, some people don&amp;#039;t seem to treat it like the crime it is!).  I am just wondering how we went from one extreme to the other; from hysteria to disinterest?  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, &amp;quot;cripple&amp;quot; and said, &amp;quot;[people]-wince at the word &amp;#039;&amp;#039;cripple&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, as they do not at handicapped or disabled.&amp;quot;(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the &amp;quot;World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits,&amp;quot; 1978==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the disparity between men and women&amp;#039;s pay, such as this woman: &amp;quot;whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Times&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Washington bureau.&amp;quot; (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, &amp;quot;sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper.&amp;quot; (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a &amp;quot;genteel form&amp;quot; that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn&amp;#039;t understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, &amp;quot;If she weren&amp;#039;t a woman, she&amp;#039;d be in the bullpen right now!&amp;quot; (P. 465) Why didn&amp;#039;t he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Day in the Kitchen (photograph) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I saw this picture, I immediately had the thought that this woman is proud of her job.  Just the way that she carries herself and her facial expression, she seems to take great pride in her work.  And yet, we have to ask ourselves at least two things.  Has she been posed?  And is she actually happy with what she is doing?  Her expression seems genuine, but maybe she is a woman that makes the best out of what she has.  Perhaps if she had the option to become a chef or not, she would not have.  It could only be through society&amp;#039;s limited career options for blacks that she became a chef.  And in the caption, it is implied that even though African American women have held jobs longer than white women, they are still discriminated against and pushed aside by those lesser experienced white women.  This certainly makes one think.  Do employers really look at skill?  Or are they still blindsided by prejudices?  They probably were when this photo was taken (1976).  --  CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-21T23:35:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* A Day in the Kitchen */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference.  What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that  had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn&amp;#039;t just get support from other &amp;quot;hard hatted&amp;quot; women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the &amp;quot;sisterhood&amp;quot; aspect of the women&amp;#039;s lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving.  Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through.   Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy.  It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy.  She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them.  She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women.  As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field.  -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, &amp;quot;Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two&amp;quot; (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss.  I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married.   I enjoyed Eisenberg&amp;#039;s perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can&amp;#039;t imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive.  “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important thing that kept these women going, despite the difficult working conditions was the camaraderie among these women and without this, working in construction and life would of been more difficult.  The higher graduation rate in the trade school was &amp;quot;owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other&amp;quot; (278).  They also formed groups for personal support and to discuss the varied problems they faced on the job-site.  It seems when times are desperate, women have constantly bonded together to acheive a goal weather it be the right to vote, or just gaining respect and fitting in on a constuction site.  They have an immense sense of pride in what they accomplish and this is demonstrated at the end of this excerpt where an older Eisenberg drove around showing her daughter the buildings she had a part in. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. &lt;br /&gt;
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Real &amp;quot;Norma Rae&amp;quot; Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277)  It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper.  My interviewee&amp;#039;s father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did.  &amp;quot;[They] didn&amp;#039;t think I ought to go&amp;quot; (274).  However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity.  Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable.  Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class.  Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions.  This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton&amp;#039;s determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Norma Rae was an interesting piece.  Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together.  Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions.  Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it.  A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up.  When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I!  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn&amp;#039;t sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, &amp;quot;Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter.&amp;quot;(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268).  We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Morgan has stated.  It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify.  The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon&amp;#039;s distinction between &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man.  She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare.  Her line, &amp;quot;The truth is that A.F.D.C  is like a supersexist marriage.  You trade in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man for &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man&amp;quot; (287).  It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence.  This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states,  &amp;quot;There&amp;#039;s one good thing about welfare.  It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don&amp;#039;t make it.  If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything&amp;quot; (289).  If this doesn&amp;#039;t read like empowerment, I&amp;#039;m not sure what else does.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan&amp;#039;s and Abratchi&amp;#039;s comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn&amp;#039;t say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like &amp;quot;In this country if you&amp;#039;re any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you&amp;#039;re all those things you don&amp;#039;t count at all except as a statistic.&amp;quot; ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today&amp;#039;s society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn&amp;#039;t read a testimonial of today&amp;#039;s Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn&amp;#039;t had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it&amp;#039;s just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem  to be a &amp;quot;size&amp;quot; 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its&amp;#039; true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement &amp;quot;Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success&amp;quot; (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don&amp;#039;t understand how a male who isn&amp;#039;t exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it&amp;#039;s hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won&amp;#039;t run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it&amp;#039;s okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn&amp;#039;t make sense. I&amp;#039;m not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It&amp;#039;s a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society&amp;#039;s standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn&amp;#039;t an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it?  --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, &amp;quot;It doesn&amp;#039;t take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,...&amp;quot;(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points.  I think her willingness to show that the issue of &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; actually produces a negative view on women is interesting.  She believes that &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings.  I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious.  Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings.  Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual.   -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, &amp;quot;cripple&amp;quot; and said, &amp;quot;[people]-wince at the word &amp;#039;&amp;#039;cripple&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, as they do not at handicapped or disabled.&amp;quot;(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the &amp;quot;World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits,&amp;quot; 1978==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the disparity between men and women&amp;#039;s pay, such as this woman: &amp;quot;whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Times&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Washington bureau.&amp;quot; (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, &amp;quot;sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper.&amp;quot; (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a &amp;quot;genteel form&amp;quot; that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn&amp;#039;t understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, &amp;quot;If she weren&amp;#039;t a woman, she&amp;#039;d be in the bullpen right now!&amp;quot; (P. 465) Why didn&amp;#039;t he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Day in the Kitchen (photograph) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I saw this picture, I immediately had the thought that this woman is proud of her job.  Just the way that she carries herself and her facial expression, she seems to take great pride in her work.  And yet, we have to ask ourselves at least two things.  Has she been posed?  And is she actually happy with what she is doing?  Her expression seems genuine, but maybe she is a woman that makes the best out of what she has.  Perhaps if she had the option to become a chef or not, she would not have.  It could only be through society&amp;#039;s limited career options for blacks that she became a chef.  And in the caption, it is implied that even though African American women have held jobs longer than white women, they are still discriminated against and pushed aside by those lesser experienced white women.  This certainly makes one think.  Do employers really look at skill?  Or are they still blindsided by prejudices?  They probably were when this photo was taken (1976).  --  CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-21T23:34:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference.  What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that  had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn&amp;#039;t just get support from other &amp;quot;hard hatted&amp;quot; women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the &amp;quot;sisterhood&amp;quot; aspect of the women&amp;#039;s lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving.  Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through.   Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy.  It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy.  She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them.  She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women.  As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field.  -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, &amp;quot;Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two&amp;quot; (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss.  I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married.   I enjoyed Eisenberg&amp;#039;s perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can&amp;#039;t imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive.  “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important thing that kept these women going, despite the difficult working conditions was the camaraderie among these women and without this, working in construction and life would of been more difficult.  The higher graduation rate in the trade school was &amp;quot;owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other&amp;quot; (278).  They also formed groups for personal support and to discuss the varied problems they faced on the job-site.  It seems when times are desperate, women have constantly bonded together to acheive a goal weather it be the right to vote, or just gaining respect and fitting in on a constuction site.  They have an immense sense of pride in what they accomplish and this is demonstrated at the end of this excerpt where an older Eisenberg drove around showing her daughter the buildings she had a part in. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. &lt;br /&gt;
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Real &amp;quot;Norma Rae&amp;quot; Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277)  It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper.  My interviewee&amp;#039;s father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did.  &amp;quot;[They] didn&amp;#039;t think I ought to go&amp;quot; (274).  However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity.  Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable.  Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class.  Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions.  This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton&amp;#039;s determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Norma Rae was an interesting piece.  Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together.  Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions.  Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it.  A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up.  When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I!  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn&amp;#039;t sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, &amp;quot;Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter.&amp;quot;(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268).  We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Morgan has stated.  It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify.  The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon&amp;#039;s distinction between &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man.  She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare.  Her line, &amp;quot;The truth is that A.F.D.C  is like a supersexist marriage.  You trade in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man for &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man&amp;quot; (287).  It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence.  This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states,  &amp;quot;There&amp;#039;s one good thing about welfare.  It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don&amp;#039;t make it.  If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything&amp;quot; (289).  If this doesn&amp;#039;t read like empowerment, I&amp;#039;m not sure what else does.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan&amp;#039;s and Abratchi&amp;#039;s comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn&amp;#039;t say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like &amp;quot;In this country if you&amp;#039;re any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you&amp;#039;re all those things you don&amp;#039;t count at all except as a statistic.&amp;quot; ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today&amp;#039;s society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn&amp;#039;t read a testimonial of today&amp;#039;s Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn&amp;#039;t had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it&amp;#039;s just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem  to be a &amp;quot;size&amp;quot; 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its&amp;#039; true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement &amp;quot;Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success&amp;quot; (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don&amp;#039;t understand how a male who isn&amp;#039;t exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it&amp;#039;s hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won&amp;#039;t run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it&amp;#039;s okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn&amp;#039;t make sense. I&amp;#039;m not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It&amp;#039;s a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society&amp;#039;s standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn&amp;#039;t an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it?  --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, &amp;quot;It doesn&amp;#039;t take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,...&amp;quot;(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points.  I think her willingness to show that the issue of &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; actually produces a negative view on women is interesting.  She believes that &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings.  I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious.  Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings.  Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual.   -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, &amp;quot;cripple&amp;quot; and said, &amp;quot;[people]-wince at the word &amp;#039;&amp;#039;cripple&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, as they do not at handicapped or disabled.&amp;quot;(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the &amp;quot;World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits,&amp;quot; 1978==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the disparity between men and women&amp;#039;s pay, such as this woman: &amp;quot;whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Times&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Washington bureau.&amp;quot; (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, &amp;quot;sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper.&amp;quot; (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a &amp;quot;genteel form&amp;quot; that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn&amp;#039;t understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, &amp;quot;If she weren&amp;#039;t a woman, she&amp;#039;d be in the bullpen right now!&amp;quot; (P. 465) Why didn&amp;#039;t he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Day in the Kitchen ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I saw this picture, I immediately had the thought that this woman is proud of her job.  Just the way that she carries herself and her facial expression, she seems to take great pride in her work.  And yet, we have to ask ourselves at least two things.  Has she been posed?  And is she actually happy with what she is doing?  Her expression seems genuine, but maybe she is a woman that makes the best out of what she has.  Perhaps if she had the option to become a chef or not, she would not have.  It could only be through society&amp;#039;s limited career options for blacks that she became a chef.  And in the caption, it is implied that even though African American women have held jobs longer than white women, they are still discriminated against and pushed aside by those lesser experienced white women.  This certainly makes one think.  Do employers really look at skill?  Or are they still blindsided by prejudices?  They probably were when this photo was taken (1976).  --  CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-16T01:50:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /*  */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;THIS WEEK&amp;#039;S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING.  You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers.  A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class discussion:  We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see that &amp;quot;typical housewife and mother&amp;quot; trend with a majority of the women interviewed.  The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs.  I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn&amp;#039;t been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn&amp;#039;t what society expected.  However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later.  With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching).  Overall, I think it&amp;#039;s important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with CBrau. I was surprised by how many other women had experiences that were similar to the woman that I interviewed. Like CBrau stated, women seemed to enter into nursing and teaching the most, but it seemed like they were forced into these positions for lack of opportunity elsewhere. It also seems like most of the women were forced into these positions because their fathers or husbands believed that they would be starting a family and spending money on an education was wasteful. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was very interesting and amusing that in Alices&amp;#039; paper, Lois Wagner had miniature army corps suits and have fake machine guns and little did they know that the real women in the WAC never saw any action in battle.  Also, these were just young girls and had no idea of a feminist movement or what women were going through at this particular period yet they were supporting the efforts of women, even if they were too young to understand. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the story about the WAC suits!  Normally you would think of boys putting on uniforms and imitating soldiers, and yet here was a little girl doing it.  I&amp;#039;ve honestly never thought about little girls being interested in the military or what children had to balance during WWII (&amp;quot;fun and fear&amp;quot;).  -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw many similarities between the women who were interviewed including the roles they had as mothers, wives, and women in the workforce and society. I definitely saw the pattern of many women who worked in the domestic sphere who also sometimes worked in careers outside the home. Most of the women seemed to have had children of the baby boom generation or were baby boomers themselves. In Dvorak&amp;#039;s paper, the woman she interviewed challenged some of the trends of the time by focusing on her education and career of dentistry rather than on finding a husband and starting a family right away. I also noticed in Rowley&amp;#039;s paper, the woman got a divorce about the time in the 1960s that we talked about in class when there seemed to be a high divorce rate. I think it&amp;#039;s interesting so see the similarities between the people who were interviewed but good to also note that all of their stories are still unique in their own way. -Avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The similarities between the women interviewed are clearly defined, many became mothers and housewives right after graduation and a few had careers but the majority of women thought they should fulfill the roles they were told to. They produced the children who led further reforms for women and I saw in a few papers such as Mary Ann&amp;#039;s the women, who produced the baby boomers, did not have time to be politically active and brushed it aside. It reminded me of the woman I interviewed who admitted they were too tied up in their worlds to pay attention to outside influences. In a few papers I thought the women who were single mothers and able to support themselves and children were leaders of the Women&amp;#039;s Movement even if they did not openly admit it. Those women started the trend towards independence and without their mark in the workplace and challenging &amp;quot;male dominated roles&amp;quot; women may not have acheived what they did in the 1960-1970s era. I agree with Avanness it is important to note that even with all the similarities all of the women were exceptional in their stories. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I read through these papers, many of us focused on working women because I think that is something that changed continuously throughout the 20th century. The trends of women working never remained the same; they changed almost decade to decade. It seemed that many of the women interviewed returned to work after raising their children and I think for most women that was a way of raising self-esteem, that women were capable of being both a wife and a career women. I think the idea of women not working because of the influence it would have on their children was another recurring trend. In Taylor Brann’s paper, she talked about a woman who left her job in the 1980s to take care of her children. It was almost socially unacceptable for women to even think of balancing work and a career at the time, espeically when the focus was transitioning more and more towards the family. Although I say that most experiences seemed similar, I think some stood out, such as Meg’s interview and Fitch’s interview. In both these interviews, the women they interviewed seemed to have no problem finding jobs or even moving into the professional world and I think that was definitely a step in the right direction. These women seemed to have defied some of the odds against women, especially for Meg&amp;#039;s interviewee, who worked as a dental professional. Another noticeable feature was the jobs women traditionally took on. Many of them were related to nursing, or clerical work. Along with everyone else, it amazed me that although these women lived their life at different times in the 20th century, their experiences were quite similar, with history being passed down from generation to generation. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, I’d like to add a detail to my own paper that was in my footnotes, but since the footnotes did not show up in Google Docs, I want to say it here, because I think it’s important.  Why exactly Lois left Mary Washington is uncertain, since in previous conversations I’ve had with her, she claimed that the school kicked her out for getting married.  Though, if it’s true that the school kicked her out, I’m under the suspicion that it’s more likely because she was pregnant.  However, when I sat down with her in the interview, she changed the story to the one presented in the main body of my paper.  In the long run, it doesn’t change the fact that she has no regrets about never finishing college, but it would effect how we view the college’s policy towards such a situation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a different topic, I found it interesting to see the women’s reactions to the feminist movement.  Ms. Blalock outright opposed the movement, not because she objected to women working or equality between men and women, but because she saw it as detrimental to children.  There is no denying the authority she has on the subject of children, having been an educator for so long, but it makes me think of our earlier discussions of how someone always sees the American family as being on the brink of failure.    Other women, like Deb Lee and Sue Ward, don’t seem to particularly dislike the movement, but it did not appear to really play much into their lives, which judging from my own interview as well, seems typical.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time. Working mothers have struggled with maintaining both for many decades, but for the most part (aside from WWII), society was against them working. As was mentioned in the lecture (which I wish I could have used in my paper), society’s view on working women began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. Some women, as the papers showed, managed to balance work and family and do it successfully, and for once they had the backing of the public while they were doing it. Daycares, for instance, were a great help in maintaining this balance. However, many mothers still struggled with the balance, and while they had society more willing to support them working, they now had a new ideal to live up to. My interviewee, for instance, drove herself into depression in her attempt to “have it all,” and she believes that the media helped trick women into thinking they can do it all. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting how strikingly similar the experiences of many of the interviewed women were. Among the slew of really well written papers that I read, I focused on three in particular, Taylor Braun&amp;#039;s, Catherine Brau&amp;#039;s, and Ellen Fritz&amp;#039;s paper. These three interviewees shared a similar view to each other in the fact that they rejected or simply cared not to participate in the NOW movement and women&amp;#039;s liberation. In Braun and Fritz&amp;#039;s papers the women felt that they wanted to focus on raising their children and maintaining a healthy family. In Brau&amp;#039;s paper, her interviewee had very little time to devote to the women&amp;#039;s lib movement, though, like my interview subject, she was involved in the anti-war movement. These women expressed many of the concerns and comments that we have been discussing in class about a women&amp;#039;s balance between domestic and public life, with their family and work, and the roles they played in all of these arenas. I appreciated how some of the other papers focused on the academic efforts that their interviewees pursued. My interviewee also received a college degree and returned to school later in life to pursue her law degree.  What I thought was really interesting is that my interviewee felt that she did not live the “typical” life that many baby boomer women did, but after reading these papers, her answers turned out to be so similar to many of the others. I agree with Megan to an extent about how the women fulfilled the roles that they were “supposed to” fill, but some of them really seemed to want that life. In Taylor’s paper, her interviewee felt guilty and wrong for returning to work once the children were in school. It seems that some of the women did not want to fulfill the typical roles but others seemed content in their actions. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Caryn, I noticed that a lot of the women had similar life experiences, or that there were at least some common themes among a lot of the papers. The fact that so many women were happy being housewives always strikes me, because I always revert to the image of the depressed and oppressed mid-century wife and mother. Yes, some women felt restricted by that life, but not all, and we shouldn&amp;#039;t forget that many women were happy when we look at what, to many of us, appears to have been a pretty limiting situation. Socioeconomic status also played a huge role in these women&amp;#039;s lives in terms of the education and opportunities open to them but also in the expectations set for them. For example, Women whose parents had some money were expected to go to college, meaning that they probably weren&amp;#039;t marrying while still in high school. Finally, many of the women broke traditional norms in different ways, from not marrying at all, to going to dental school, to raising children as a single parent. The big name leaders of the women&amp;#039;s rights movement did a lot, but it&amp;#039;s really the collective actions of all of these everyday women that created the more egalitarian society we have today, yet most of them seem largely unaware of the changes they were helping to bring about. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even if women were limited to specific fields when trying to obtain work, I found that many were working for at least a point in their lives.  Many of these women were middle class and attended high school and even college.  Most women got jobs after college or after high school and either kept working or got married.  It seems like a fair amount of women stayed in the home, but it was becoming less expected of them and many worked even if they were also raising families.  There were a few single mothers and they worked mostly because they had no choice and were the sole provider&amp;#039;s for their family.  Working women were certainly becoming more prominent. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of these women had similar life experiences regarding their role in the latter half of the 20th century.  What I found fascinating was that the women that had children at an early age often sought a career after their children were older.  These women found a second life at the age of 40 or 45 in which they had raised their family and now had the opportunity and freedom to pursue their dreams.  Additionally, these women have the benefit of life experiences which would affect their choices for the future.  The professional women who had gone to college right from high school often waited to their late 20&amp;#039;s or early 30&amp;#039;s to start a family and then were either forced to choose between their career or their kids; or to put their children into daycare.  They are also more financially secure and stable than the women who married at a young age.  Who&amp;#039;s to say which option is better.  Women, unlike men in society, are forced to be put in the position of making these decisions and living with any ramifications. - EFritz&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-16T01:49:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /*  */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;THIS WEEK&amp;#039;S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING.  You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers.  A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class discussion:  We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see that &amp;quot;typical housewife and mother&amp;quot; trend with a majority of the women interviewed.  The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs.  I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn&amp;#039;t been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn&amp;#039;t what society expected.  However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later.  With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching).  Overall, I think it&amp;#039;s important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with CBrau. I was surprised by how many other women had experiences that were similar to the woman that I interviewed. Like CBrau stated, women seemed to enter into nursing and teaching the most, but it seemed like they were forced into these positions for lack of opportunity elsewhere. It also seems like most of the women were forced into these positions because their fathers or husbands believed that they would be starting a family and spending money on an education was wasteful. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was very interesting and amusing that in Alices&amp;#039; paper, Lois Wagner had miniature army corps suits and have fake machine guns and little did they know that the real women in the WAC never saw any action in battle.  Also, these were just young girls and had no idea of a feminist movement or what women were going through at this particular period yet they were supporting the efforts of women, even if they were too young to understand. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the story about the WAC suits!  Normally you would think of boys putting on uniforms and imitating soldiers, and yet here was a little girl doing it.  I&amp;#039;ve honestly never thought about what children had to balance during WWII (&amp;quot;fun and fear&amp;quot;).  -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw many similarities between the women who were interviewed including the roles they had as mothers, wives, and women in the workforce and society. I definitely saw the pattern of many women who worked in the domestic sphere who also sometimes worked in careers outside the home. Most of the women seemed to have had children of the baby boom generation or were baby boomers themselves. In Dvorak&amp;#039;s paper, the woman she interviewed challenged some of the trends of the time by focusing on her education and career of dentistry rather than on finding a husband and starting a family right away. I also noticed in Rowley&amp;#039;s paper, the woman got a divorce about the time in the 1960s that we talked about in class when there seemed to be a high divorce rate. I think it&amp;#039;s interesting so see the similarities between the people who were interviewed but good to also note that all of their stories are still unique in their own way. -Avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The similarities between the women interviewed are clearly defined, many became mothers and housewives right after graduation and a few had careers but the majority of women thought they should fulfill the roles they were told to. They produced the children who led further reforms for women and I saw in a few papers such as Mary Ann&amp;#039;s the women, who produced the baby boomers, did not have time to be politically active and brushed it aside. It reminded me of the woman I interviewed who admitted they were too tied up in their worlds to pay attention to outside influences. In a few papers I thought the women who were single mothers and able to support themselves and children were leaders of the Women&amp;#039;s Movement even if they did not openly admit it. Those women started the trend towards independence and without their mark in the workplace and challenging &amp;quot;male dominated roles&amp;quot; women may not have acheived what they did in the 1960-1970s era. I agree with Avanness it is important to note that even with all the similarities all of the women were exceptional in their stories. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I read through these papers, many of us focused on working women because I think that is something that changed continuously throughout the 20th century. The trends of women working never remained the same; they changed almost decade to decade. It seemed that many of the women interviewed returned to work after raising their children and I think for most women that was a way of raising self-esteem, that women were capable of being both a wife and a career women. I think the idea of women not working because of the influence it would have on their children was another recurring trend. In Taylor Brann’s paper, she talked about a woman who left her job in the 1980s to take care of her children. It was almost socially unacceptable for women to even think of balancing work and a career at the time, espeically when the focus was transitioning more and more towards the family. Although I say that most experiences seemed similar, I think some stood out, such as Meg’s interview and Fitch’s interview. In both these interviews, the women they interviewed seemed to have no problem finding jobs or even moving into the professional world and I think that was definitely a step in the right direction. These women seemed to have defied some of the odds against women, especially for Meg&amp;#039;s interviewee, who worked as a dental professional. Another noticeable feature was the jobs women traditionally took on. Many of them were related to nursing, or clerical work. Along with everyone else, it amazed me that although these women lived their life at different times in the 20th century, their experiences were quite similar, with history being passed down from generation to generation. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, I’d like to add a detail to my own paper that was in my footnotes, but since the footnotes did not show up in Google Docs, I want to say it here, because I think it’s important.  Why exactly Lois left Mary Washington is uncertain, since in previous conversations I’ve had with her, she claimed that the school kicked her out for getting married.  Though, if it’s true that the school kicked her out, I’m under the suspicion that it’s more likely because she was pregnant.  However, when I sat down with her in the interview, she changed the story to the one presented in the main body of my paper.  In the long run, it doesn’t change the fact that she has no regrets about never finishing college, but it would effect how we view the college’s policy towards such a situation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a different topic, I found it interesting to see the women’s reactions to the feminist movement.  Ms. Blalock outright opposed the movement, not because she objected to women working or equality between men and women, but because she saw it as detrimental to children.  There is no denying the authority she has on the subject of children, having been an educator for so long, but it makes me think of our earlier discussions of how someone always sees the American family as being on the brink of failure.    Other women, like Deb Lee and Sue Ward, don’t seem to particularly dislike the movement, but it did not appear to really play much into their lives, which judging from my own interview as well, seems typical.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time. Working mothers have struggled with maintaining both for many decades, but for the most part (aside from WWII), society was against them working. As was mentioned in the lecture (which I wish I could have used in my paper), society’s view on working women began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. Some women, as the papers showed, managed to balance work and family and do it successfully, and for once they had the backing of the public while they were doing it. Daycares, for instance, were a great help in maintaining this balance. However, many mothers still struggled with the balance, and while they had society more willing to support them working, they now had a new ideal to live up to. My interviewee, for instance, drove herself into depression in her attempt to “have it all,” and she believes that the media helped trick women into thinking they can do it all. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting how strikingly similar the experiences of many of the interviewed women were. Among the slew of really well written papers that I read, I focused on three in particular, Taylor Braun&amp;#039;s, Catherine Brau&amp;#039;s, and Ellen Fritz&amp;#039;s paper. These three interviewees shared a similar view to each other in the fact that they rejected or simply cared not to participate in the NOW movement and women&amp;#039;s liberation. In Braun and Fritz&amp;#039;s papers the women felt that they wanted to focus on raising their children and maintaining a healthy family. In Brau&amp;#039;s paper, her interviewee had very little time to devote to the women&amp;#039;s lib movement, though, like my interview subject, she was involved in the anti-war movement. These women expressed many of the concerns and comments that we have been discussing in class about a women&amp;#039;s balance between domestic and public life, with their family and work, and the roles they played in all of these arenas. I appreciated how some of the other papers focused on the academic efforts that their interviewees pursued. My interviewee also received a college degree and returned to school later in life to pursue her law degree.  What I thought was really interesting is that my interviewee felt that she did not live the “typical” life that many baby boomer women did, but after reading these papers, her answers turned out to be so similar to many of the others. I agree with Megan to an extent about how the women fulfilled the roles that they were “supposed to” fill, but some of them really seemed to want that life. In Taylor’s paper, her interviewee felt guilty and wrong for returning to work once the children were in school. It seems that some of the women did not want to fulfill the typical roles but others seemed content in their actions. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Caryn, I noticed that a lot of the women had similar life experiences, or that there were at least some common themes among a lot of the papers. The fact that so many women were happy being housewives always strikes me, because I always revert to the image of the depressed and oppressed mid-century wife and mother. Yes, some women felt restricted by that life, but not all, and we shouldn&amp;#039;t forget that many women were happy when we look at what, to many of us, appears to have been a pretty limiting situation. Socioeconomic status also played a huge role in these women&amp;#039;s lives in terms of the education and opportunities open to them but also in the expectations set for them. For example, Women whose parents had some money were expected to go to college, meaning that they probably weren&amp;#039;t marrying while still in high school. Finally, many of the women broke traditional norms in different ways, from not marrying at all, to going to dental school, to raising children as a single parent. The big name leaders of the women&amp;#039;s rights movement did a lot, but it&amp;#039;s really the collective actions of all of these everyday women that created the more egalitarian society we have today, yet most of them seem largely unaware of the changes they were helping to bring about. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even if women were limited to specific fields when trying to obtain work, I found that many were working for at least a point in their lives.  Many of these women were middle class and attended high school and even college.  Most women got jobs after college or after high school and either kept working or got married.  It seems like a fair amount of women stayed in the home, but it was becoming less expected of them and many worked even if they were also raising families.  There were a few single mothers and they worked mostly because they had no choice and were the sole provider&amp;#039;s for their family.  Working women were certainly becoming more prominent. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of these women had similar life experiences regarding their role in the latter half of the 20th century.  What I found fascinating was that the women that had children at an early age often sought a career after their children were older.  These women found a second life at the age of 40 or 45 in which they had raised their family and now had the opportunity and freedom to pursue their dreams.  Additionally, these women have the benefit of life experiences which would affect their choices for the future.  The professional women who had gone to college right from high school often waited to their late 20&amp;#039;s or early 30&amp;#039;s to start a family and then were either forced to choose between their career or their kids; or to put their children into daycare.  They are also more financially secure and stable than the women who married at a young age.  Who&amp;#039;s to say which option is better.  Women, unlike men in society, are forced to be put in the position of making these decisions and living with any ramifications. - EFritz&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-14T22:34:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /*  */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;THIS WEEK&amp;#039;S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING.  You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers.  A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class discussion:  We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see that &amp;quot;typical housewife and mother&amp;quot; trend with a majority of the women interviewed.  The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs.  I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn&amp;#039;t been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn&amp;#039;t what society expected.  However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later.  With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching).  Overall, I think it&amp;#039;s important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-14T22:34:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /*  */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;THIS WEEK&amp;#039;S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING.  You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers.  A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class discussion:  We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see that &amp;quot;typical housewife and mother&amp;quot; trend with a majority of these women.  The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs.  I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn&amp;#039;t been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn&amp;#039;t what society expected.  However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later.  With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching).  Overall, I think it&amp;#039;s important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-14T22:34:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;THIS WEEK&amp;#039;S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING.  You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers.  A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class discussion:  We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see that &amp;quot;typical housewife and mother&amp;quot; trend with these women.  The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs.  I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn&amp;#039;t been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn&amp;#039;t what society expected.  However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later.  With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching).  Overall, I think it&amp;#039;s important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-06T04:10:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie&amp;quot; (p. 225).  We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail.  I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played.  I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women.  They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike.  White women also understood the important of keeping black women&amp;#039;s involvement in the boycotts a secret.  It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired.  I&amp;#039;m just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement?  Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced.  In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason:  &amp;quot;forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies.&amp;quot;  So, the procedure was a permanent birth control.  I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-06T04:09:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie&amp;quot; (p. 225).  We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail.  I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played.  I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women.  They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike.  White women also understood the important of keeping black women&amp;#039;s involvement in the boycotts a secret.  It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired.  I&amp;#039;m just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement?  Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that Chicanas have unfortunately experienced.  In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason:  &amp;quot;forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies.&amp;quot;  So, the procedure was a permanent birth control.  I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-06T03:48:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: New page: == Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==  &amp;quot;Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie&amp;quot; (p. 225).  We have all heard the story of Ros...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie&amp;quot; (p. 225).  We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail.  I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played.  I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women.  They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike.  White women also understood the important of keeping black women&amp;#039;s involvement in the boycotts a secret.  It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired.  I&amp;#039;m just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement?  Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-01T00:55:37Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* A Letter to the Editor of The Ladder from an African American Lesbian, 1957 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family,&amp;quot; Betty Jeanne Boggs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Always this-- &amp;#039;because you&amp;#039;re a woman&amp;#039;&amp;quot; (page 208). I was really moved by this article and felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. I can&amp;#039;t believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn&amp;#039;t pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. I still felt strong emotions towards her statement &amp;quot;For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn&amp;#039;t know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby&amp;quot; (page 210) because it&amp;#039;s something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can&amp;#039;t imagine it&amp;#039;s ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don&amp;#039;t allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it&amp;#039;s nice to imagine. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but I also noticed her husband&amp;#039;s willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war. I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she &amp;quot;wanted to be in two places at one time.&amp;quot; I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker, and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today&amp;#039;s working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs&amp;#039; story, and  I feel that it&amp;#039;s a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs&amp;#039; case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs&amp;#039; did want to eventually continue her career she didn&amp;#039;t do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, &amp;quot;...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go,&amp;quot; (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible to juggle both or weren&amp;#039;t sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible otherwise the &amp;quot;problem that has no name&amp;quot; would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not the world&amp;#039;s biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. Ridiculous that her response &amp;quot;No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now&amp;quot; (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that &amp;quot;A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world&amp;quot; (page 228). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has achieved complete control over &amp;#039;&amp;#039;himself&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and his environment. Only then can &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future? Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erin, I noticed that Church uses &amp;#039;he&amp;#039; throughout the piece, but I don&amp;#039;t necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just a quirk of grammar. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women &amp;quot;will be taking their rightful place in world affairs,&amp;quot; and so girls should be &amp;quot;provided with the same opportunities&amp;quot; (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of &amp;#039;parents&amp;#039; rather than simply the role of &amp;#039;mother. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann&amp;#039;s statement above. One of Church&amp;#039;s main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that &amp;quot;neither the father nor mother should reign supreme&amp;quot; (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that &amp;quot;girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys&amp;quot; (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don&amp;#039;t believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. I also found the wording of Church&amp;#039;s essay interesting when she states &amp;quot;women will be taking their &amp;#039;&amp;#039;rightful&amp;#039;&amp;#039; places in society&amp;quot; (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs. --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of one&amp;#039;s moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn&amp;#039;t mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn&amp;#039;t fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)in today&amp;#039;s world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said &amp;quot;Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual&amp;quot; (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman&amp;#039;s right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I&amp;#039;m happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, I&amp;#039;m also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??) because if she hadn&amp;#039;t had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson&amp;#039;s decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn&amp;#039;t a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It&amp;#039;s amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation.  Why was that?  Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure?  And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure? – Alice W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like Alice found interesting that the doctor described other procedures he performed but would not dare mention abortion. I do not think he really cared about women&amp;#039;s health, I think he was worried that if women came to him who were pregnant and wanted abortions one he would know they were pregnant outside of marriage and two he did not want people (government) to find out he was performing them, at the time I feel like he could of lost his license if it was found out. Maybe he did care about women but with all the precautions he took and the way he spoke to Joyce I have to say I do not think he did, he may of just been a doctor who did not believe in having children outside of marriage. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot;, by Joanna Rubin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, &amp;quot;When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics&amp;quot; (217). Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered. -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, &amp;quot;Although I didn&amp;#039;t for a minute think I didn&amp;#039;t want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn&amp;#039;t &amp;#039;Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.&amp;#039;&amp;quot;(217) She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;taking the easy way out,&amp;quot; it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece. I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women. Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury,  and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so.  It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control.  I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50&amp;#039;s and 60&amp;#039;s and what would lead to the landmark courtcase &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Roe v Wade&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name,&amp;quot; Betty Friedan, 1963==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife. This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women&amp;#039;s lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they&amp;#039;d still feel isolated in that they couldn&amp;#039;t share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It&amp;#039;s telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry &amp;quot;just to know they are not alone.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home.  Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties.  If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them?  In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife?  It became a moral dilemma.  Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles.  I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.)  Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Farnham and Lundberg==&lt;br /&gt;
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;have jobs themselves&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting.  It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities.  But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences.  I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home.  Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations.  Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family?  I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements.  I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated.  They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children.  They seem to really find danger to a woman&amp;#039;s feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men.  They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==&lt;br /&gt;
I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around. Just imagine being in that courtroom. Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace. Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how &amp;quot;women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making&amp;quot; (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can&amp;#039;t handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously? --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw WSP as more sly and manipulative.  They knew that the most effective way to get a woman&amp;#039;s voice heard was to play up those female stereotypes, especially in court.  No judge would throw out a bunch of sweet women who weren&amp;#039;t doing anything wrong!  And they couldn&amp;#039;t go militant or get too forceful with their protests.  That kind of thing tends to irritate and annoy people rather than make them agreeable to the cause.  I just think that if you&amp;#039;re going to go with that method, you can&amp;#039;t complain about being treated like a stereotype afterwards.  So, Taylor complaining about wanting to be treated equally while manipulating the female stereotypes is definitely hypocritical.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Star Struck,&amp;quot; Vicki L. Ruiz ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920&amp;#039;s to 1950&amp;#039;s written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today.  All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.”  -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article could easily be related to today and how women are percieved or told how they should be percieved in the media. While I feel that many immigrant groups wanted to promote their culture, especially the Mexican Americans through language and traditions, the children of immigrant parents wanted to assimilate into American culture, and the leading way in California was through &amp;quot;the public fascination with Hollywood.&amp;quot;(367). Today, things have still not changed infact I believe we as a society have become more fascinated with Hollywood and how it defines America, I cannot even count how many times I have heard the story about Sandra Bullock and her husband and very little on world affairs or even the healthcare bill. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==&lt;br /&gt;
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts.  This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking.  This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212).  This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially.  It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives.  Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well.  This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Letter to the Editor of The Ladder from an African American Lesbian, 1957==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here.  Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society.  On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.”  The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses  the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422).  It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This line really caught my attention:  &amp;quot;He (Wilma&amp;#039;s father) must have honestly believed that in a distant city he could provide a better life for his children, with all the modern amenities&amp;quot; (p. 212).  Interesting, considering Wilma and her family were very poor and I&amp;#039;m assuming isolated from modern civilization at Mankiller Flats.  So how did Wilma&amp;#039;s father know about modern civilization and the chances it offered?  From talking to the BIA?  From going to Boarding School?  From working?  Or perhaps it really was their poverty that convinced him they needed to move and try for a new life (despite the risks and separation from home).  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416). A man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating. Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-01T00:39:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Taylor, Women Strike for Peace */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family,&amp;quot; Betty Jeanne Boggs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Always this-- &amp;#039;because you&amp;#039;re a woman&amp;#039;&amp;quot; (page 208). I was really moved by this article and felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. I can&amp;#039;t believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn&amp;#039;t pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. I still felt strong emotions towards her statement &amp;quot;For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn&amp;#039;t know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby&amp;quot; (page 210) because it&amp;#039;s something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can&amp;#039;t imagine it&amp;#039;s ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don&amp;#039;t allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it&amp;#039;s nice to imagine. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but I also noticed her husband&amp;#039;s willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war. I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she &amp;quot;wanted to be in two places at one time.&amp;quot; I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker, and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today&amp;#039;s working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs&amp;#039; story, and  I feel that it&amp;#039;s a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs&amp;#039; case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs&amp;#039; did want to eventually continue her career she didn&amp;#039;t do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, &amp;quot;...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go,&amp;quot; (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible to juggle both or weren&amp;#039;t sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible otherwise the &amp;quot;problem that has no name&amp;quot; would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not the world&amp;#039;s biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. Ridiculous that her response &amp;quot;No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now&amp;quot; (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that &amp;quot;A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world&amp;quot; (page 228). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has achieved complete control over &amp;#039;&amp;#039;himself&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and his environment. Only then can &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future? Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erin, I noticed that Church uses &amp;#039;he&amp;#039; throughout the piece, but I don&amp;#039;t necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just a quirk of grammar. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women &amp;quot;will be taking their rightful place in world affairs,&amp;quot; and so girls should be &amp;quot;provided with the same opportunities&amp;quot; (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of &amp;#039;parents&amp;#039; rather than simply the role of &amp;#039;mother. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann&amp;#039;s statement above. One of Church&amp;#039;s main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that &amp;quot;neither the father nor mother should reign supreme&amp;quot; (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that &amp;quot;girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys&amp;quot; (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don&amp;#039;t believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. I also found the wording of Church&amp;#039;s essay interesting when she states &amp;quot;women will be taking their &amp;#039;&amp;#039;rightful&amp;#039;&amp;#039; places in society&amp;quot; (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs. --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of one&amp;#039;s moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn&amp;#039;t mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn&amp;#039;t fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)in today&amp;#039;s world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said &amp;quot;Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual&amp;quot; (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman&amp;#039;s right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I&amp;#039;m happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, I&amp;#039;m also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??) because if she hadn&amp;#039;t had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson&amp;#039;s decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn&amp;#039;t a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It&amp;#039;s amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation.  Why was that?  Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure?  And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure? – Alice W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like Alice found interesting that the doctor described other procedures he performed but would not dare mention abortion. I do not think he really cared about women&amp;#039;s health, I think he was worried that if women came to him who were pregnant and wanted abortions one he would know they were pregnant outside of marriage and two he did not want people (government) to find out he was performing them, at the time I feel like he could of lost his license if it was found out. Maybe he did care about women but with all the precautions he took and the way he spoke to Joyce I have to say I do not think he did, he may of just been a doctor who did not believe in having children outside of marriage. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot;, by Joanna Rubin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, &amp;quot;When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics&amp;quot; (217). Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered. -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, &amp;quot;Although I didn&amp;#039;t for a minute think I didn&amp;#039;t want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn&amp;#039;t &amp;#039;Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.&amp;#039;&amp;quot;(217) She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;taking the easy way out,&amp;quot; it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece. I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women. Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury,  and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so.  It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control.  I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50&amp;#039;s and 60&amp;#039;s and what would lead to the landmark courtcase &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Roe v Wade&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name,&amp;quot; Betty Friedan, 1963==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife. This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women&amp;#039;s lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they&amp;#039;d still feel isolated in that they couldn&amp;#039;t share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It&amp;#039;s telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry &amp;quot;just to know they are not alone.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home.  Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties.  If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them?  In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife?  It became a moral dilemma.  Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles.  I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.)  Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Farnham and Lundberg==&lt;br /&gt;
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;have jobs themselves&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting.  It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities.  But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences.  I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home.  Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations.  Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family?  I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements.  I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated.  They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children.  They seem to really find danger to a woman&amp;#039;s feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men.  They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==&lt;br /&gt;
I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around. Just imagine being in that courtroom. Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace. Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how &amp;quot;women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making&amp;quot; (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can&amp;#039;t handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously? --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw WSP as more sly and manipulative.  They knew that the most effective way to get a woman&amp;#039;s voice heard was to play up those female stereotypes, especially in court.  No judge would throw out a bunch of sweet women who weren&amp;#039;t doing anything wrong!  And they couldn&amp;#039;t go militant or get too forceful with their protests.  That kind of thing tends to irritate and annoy people rather than make them agreeable to the cause.  I just think that if you&amp;#039;re going to go with that method, you can&amp;#039;t complain about being treated like a stereotype afterwards.  So, Taylor complaining about wanting to be treated equally while manipulating the female stereotypes is definitely hypocritical.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Star Struck,&amp;quot; Vicki L. Ruiz ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920&amp;#039;s to 1950&amp;#039;s written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today.  All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.”  -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==&lt;br /&gt;
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts.  This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking.  This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212).  This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially.  It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives.  Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well.  This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Letter to the Editor of The Ladder from an African American Lesbian, 1957==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here.  Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society.  On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.”  The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses  the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422).  It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416). A man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating. Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-25T02:52:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it&amp;#039;s almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable &amp;quot;Rosie&amp;quot; to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It&amp;#039;s amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it&amp;#039;d be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman.  She was able to make more money than she had before the War.  Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child.  I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities.   -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill&amp;#039;s experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I&amp;#039;m glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn&amp;#039;t, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller&amp;#039;s poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill&amp;#039;s off hand comment of &amp;quot;they weren&amp;#039;t hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse&amp;quot; (186). I know this is a women&amp;#039;s history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Putting it into context and the time period, its not that surprising there were more opportunities for black women during the war, there was more opportunities for everybody.  As with all the sources we read, having an individual story, a tangible person does make things seem more real, more personal, more easily relateable. - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job&amp;quot; (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today&amp;#039;s understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it&amp;#039;s easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply &amp;quot;didn&amp;#039;t click&amp;quot; for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn&amp;#039;t someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the problem that Mr.s Norma Yerger Queen has is that while women were expected to give more to the war effort, since men&amp;#039;s duty was going to war, the ones who were left at home were not expected to contribute as much.  I think it brings up a question of who should fill the jobs that men left behind.  The wives of the young men who went off to fight would most likely be the ones with small children, which would make it difficult to work.  Also, as brought up in this piece, there were plenty of women who had to takeover farms with the absence of men.  Overall I think the idea of women working during the war is not as simple as it sounds.  - John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II&amp;#039;s new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family&amp;#039;s heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it&amp;#039;s not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that &amp;quot;she&amp;#039;d never had the time&amp;quot; to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It&amp;#039;s easy to see how real-life women in Gertie&amp;#039;s situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Doll maker&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of  what they wanted their life to be like.  I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage.  Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted.  As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages.    -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine.  Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression.  This family moved to Detroit due to the country&amp;#039;s massive mobilization and hopefully a job.  I think their experience there was nothing like they expected.  They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status.  But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work.  Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring.  The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was &amp;quot;adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room.&amp;quot;  I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living.  Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, &amp;quot;Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall.&amp;quot; (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband&amp;#039;s job.  I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie&amp;#039;s life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, &amp;quot;When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?&amp;quot; (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this story provided a good contrast to the readings that talk about all of the success people found because of the war. The war did improve the lives of many people, and following the war was there was unprecedented wealth, but there were also people who didn’t find success and continued in the same poor conditions they always had. Though this reading is part of a fictional novel, I think it provides a balance for all of the improvements in Americans lives that we’ve read about. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women&amp;#039;s Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were &amp;quot;perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater&amp;quot; (pg. 375) was on to something. It&amp;#039;s noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn&amp;#039;t seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to &amp;quot;less exhausting&amp;quot; positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army.  “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m not sure that I would call them submissive or passive at all. These women were carefully selected for unusual military situations the same way men were selected then and both sexes are selected nowadays. Character flaws may not be such a big deal in the regular infantry or a typical steno pool, but under stressful conditions &amp;quot;irritating habits&amp;quot; can severely damage the morale of the entire unit. For such an elite unit, grouchy or talkative MEN would not be chosen, nor would overqualified men OR women (not just because they can&amp;#039;t be promoted, but more because the unit has to work together and every member has to carry out orders given by authority to make the unit run smoothly. If one member thinks they are better than the rest--has had more training or a higher IQ or anything--that causes unrest in the unit, which is the last thing you need on the front lines, which is where these women were). It seems to me that men would be held to these same standards when selecting an elite unit. Self-reliance, the ability to handle stress, and the ability to work well with others--these are not specific to females. These courageous and ground-breaking women challenged perceptions of both the soldiers and their commanding officers, and I&amp;#039;m sure the public reading about them on the home front. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt for these Japanese-American people.  There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a terrible time in American History.  We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.  The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps.  This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S.  In continuing with Morgan&amp;#039;s mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower.  These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad.  The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Morgan&amp;#039;s comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler&amp;#039;s concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America&amp;#039;s internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities.  Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting.  I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all of the above statements but I feel even more strongly about the internment camps. While I agree with what kokeefe said that the internment camps were different from concentration camps, how Americans de-humanized the Japanese was similar. Japanese-Americans became a number much like a test rat in a labratory, they were organized by numbers and letters and were not allowed outside of the high fences, much like a cage. They had poor shelter, food, and were watched everyday including giving the Japanese a bedtime of 10:00, and thinking it was okay. I think there should be a museum representing the stories and lives of the Japanese who were forced into these internment camps much like the Holocaust museum so more Americans can understand what we did as a nation in World War II. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember learning about Japanese internment camps when i was young being just totally confused by it.  In part, because it did seem eerily similar to what had been going on in Nazi Germany, as many others had mentioned.  This passage really brings out a lot of the degradation that i imagine many Japanese-Americans must have felt to have been controlled and suspected and discriminated against because of what was for many, including the author of this piece, a relatively distant ancestry.  She&amp;#039;d grown up being an &amp;quot;American&amp;quot;, and now she was alienated from that identity without really being able to identify with the &amp;quot;Japanese&amp;quot; for which she was interned.  I think that the author&amp;#039;s discussion of the issei and nisei sort of gets at that struggle to pin down an identity and differences between generational reactions. -Erin B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it says a lot about the meaning of Japanese internment camps to the Japanese who were in them when Monica Sone says, &amp;quot;Maybe I wasn&amp;#039;t considered an American anymore.&amp;quot; (Page 201) Just that mere sentence probably sums up the thoughts of the Japanese Americans at the time. Many of the Japanese were not immigrants but were born in America, making them citizens. Besides the fact that the government&amp;#039;s decision to use internment camps resembled the Nazi labor/concentration camps, the government was more or less imprisoning its own citizens. What happened to all the rights American citizens had? They just simply overlooked. Was there nobody in the government who thought that this was wrong in so many ways? I understand the American fear because of the war and because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but Germany was a watching enemy at the time also, but German-American citizens weren&amp;#039;t sent to internment camps. The internment camps just seem inconsistent with what America stood for. I thought it was interesting how Monica Sone talked about the &amp;quot;wire fence.&amp;quot; She says, &amp;quot;Of one thing I was sure. The wire fence was real. I no longer had the right to walk out of it. It was also because some people had little faith in the ideas and ideals of democracy.&amp;quot; (p. 201). I think it was extremely sad that at this point in time, Monica and other Japanese/Japanese Americans were not proud to be Americans or be in America, and to be honest, I don&amp;#039;t blame them one bit. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this, and already knowing of the internment camps, it just shows the the good ole US of A isn&amp;#039;t always as cracked up as it&amp;#039;s supposed to be.  America makes laws and does thing that can be just as horrendous as the next guy (Hello Chinese Exclusion Acts). This wasn&amp;#039;t the first time they had issues with our Asian neighbors across the Pacific. Yes the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor, but that doesn&amp;#039;t mean every single Japanese should be sent away.  If Americans received the same treatment somewhere else in the world, mirroring what we did to the Japanese, it just wouldn&amp;#039;t fly. As Alex said, I completely understand the not being proud to be American bit.  Ummm hello they just locked you away and took all of your rights from you!!- Christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece to be fairly hard to read because this was definitely not a highlight in American history. Sometimes I think that japanese internment gets over looked and pushed under the carpet, but the notion of labeling a family (who had been an active and participating member of American society, sometimes for more than one generation) as a number and forcing them to move from their homes and into something barely better than horse stables, is not something that Americans associate with WWII. Many times the US is looked at as a protector of freedom and responsible for helping bring down the Nazi regime and ending the Holocost, and even though internment camps wer far from death camps, the idea of separating one ethnicity or nationality from the rest of society and keeping them in a fenced in, cramped area, was present in America. Fear makes people do crazy scary things. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was particularly interesting.  I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women.  She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her.  I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth&amp;#039;s husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work.  All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how &amp;quot;The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives.&amp;quot; (205)  I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruth Marshak seems like an optimistic person who overcame the obstacles in her life without fuss (but plenty of worrying).  I liked that she stood by her husband and instead of focusing on the secrets between them too much, she focused on housework, baking cakes (well, avoiding them, really), socializing with other wives and various recreational activities.  I am wondering how her experience compares to other wive&amp;#039;s whose husbands were deployed overseas and fighting on the warfront.  I agree that her life was far from easy since she had to move to a new home, separate herself from her family, and remain clueless when it came to the &amp;quot;secret project.&amp;quot;  And yet, she lived in a beautiful place, her husband was working safely within the U.S. (although, perhaps she worried over his safety since she was unsure of his work), and they even seemed to enjoy recreational activities together (at least she hints at this when she talks about the physicists being able to partake in such activities despite long work hours).  Perhaps not the easiest life, but I don&amp;#039;t know if I want to compare her to someone who has a husband overseas. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties?  She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts.  Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness.  She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it.  There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work.  However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children.  – Alice W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a &amp;quot;new woman&amp;quot; and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, &amp;quot;fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death.&amp;quot; (MAW, 191). Marion&amp;#039;s letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC&amp;#039;s wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marion Stegeman is really having a field day with her war-time piloting experience.  Her story about getting blown off-course is hilarious.  As has already been mentioned, the language she uses in these letters is extremely 1940&amp;#039;s colorful and seems care-free - which was totally cloying at first to read - which made her last letter seem somewhat sad, as she sounds rather deflated and is obviously fishing for reassurance that she&amp;#039;s doing the right thing.  The experience of having so much freedom as a pilot along with the constant patriotism-fueled encouragement must have been exhilarating for a lot of women, and work of any kind - particularly if you get to fly - must have been a good distraction from the reality of war.  -Erin B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this section, especially the language that Marion used (&amp;quot;smackers&amp;quot; made my day and I may have to use that at some point). I found it interesting that once she felt that she &amp;quot;had&amp;quot; to do something or report to someone in contrast to being a pilot for her own enjoyment, she made the decsion that she wanted to get married. Wouldn&amp;#039;t she have to report to her husband at that point? I feel as if she was care-free and almost living in her own personal world, and was out to find personal enjoyment rather than work, which was a different way of looking at things than the previous excerts that we have read. Most of the women that we have read are looking for work for extra spending money (or survival money during the Depression) and if they enjoy it then its a bonus, whereas Marion is looking for enjoyment first. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Photos taken during WWII by Esther Bubley==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, I want to say that I found the photos to be really helpful. Not only can I understand the history of women during WWII but I can see them, I think this makes a big difference in fully understanding the time. Next, I want to say that what stood out to me was the different ways that women were dressed. All of these pictures were taken during the war, however, some women were wearing typical woman&amp;#039;s clothing of the time, while other women were wearing pants. What is more interesting is that women in the skirts all seemed to sit in a really uncomfortable, uptight looking way with their legs crossed at the bottom or held tightly together with their hands in their laps. The women in pants, on the other hand, are sitting in traditionally male positions as we would see them today, slouched with legs wide open, leaning on the thighs. I&amp;#039;m not sure if that means anything, but it stood out to me. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed looking at these photographs, Esther Bubley truly captured “average Americans” just as she intended to.  The image that struck me the most was the Instructor of the Capital Transit Company.  The title from the website describes exactly what I was thinking: “Bending gender roles for ‘the duration’”.  This is the image that was painted in class on Tuesday when we were talking about women working outside the home in “men’s” positions.  I wonder how the men behind the instructor felt when they were being taught by a woman. They look about 40 in the photo so it must have been quite a transition for them.  I wonder how the men who stayed behind during the war felt in general, I know that this is a Women’s History course but WWII was a turning point for women in the work place, and I wonder how much, if any, resistance they were met with from the men who had stayed behind.  Just a thought. – Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So neat! Sometimes it&amp;#039;s hard to imagine how things were in just general situations back then, but these photographs give us great, real pictures! My favorites were the one with the soldiers waiting for the service bus, and there&amp;#039;s a woman standing there in uniform among the. She just looked like she belonged, and it was really cool to see that. I also like the one with the men and women laughing on the bus together... it&amp;#039;s a photo of great emotion, and I think the women&amp;#039;s joy is telling. I do wish that we had more complete captions, or even little essays that explained what exactly was going on and how Esther Bubley was seeing it, or what she wanted us to notice in the photo.   --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mary McLeod Bethune Urges President Roosevelt to Turn to Qualified Negro Women for Help, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be really interesting because it shows that black women felt the need to help their country just as much as the white women did. The reason it is so interesting to me is because up until this time, the country had not done much for the black community, so why should they feel like they need to be helping their country? The answer to that question is sort of what Bethune is getting at. She is saying that the black community has earned the right to be patriotic and defensive of their country because they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;are&amp;#039;&amp;#039; citizens. She wants to be treated like the white citizens who are defending their country because she is a hardworking citizen too. On page 372, she says while speaking about the black community, &amp;quot;they, too, have earned the right to be numbered among the active forces who are working towards the protection of our democratic stronghold.&amp;quot; I think that Mary Bethune wants the President to know that black women love their country and want to protect it, and they should be given the right to do so.  - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Angie. It also seems that McLeod is reminding the President that unity in America is paramount when fighting against religious and racial hatred overseas.  On a secondary note, I am not sure how pertinent this is but I found it interesting that McLeod addresses the African American community as his. “…the Negro, as a minority group in this nation, express anew his faith in your leadership and his unswerving adherence …” (371). I just find it interesting that a woman who is writing about black women fighting for their country would address her community in a masculine form.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, A Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought reading this article was really kind of sad because of how much Jeanne didn&amp;#039;t seem to want anything to do with her Japanese culture. I don&amp;#039;t think it was really a conscious decision on her part, its just that she was American and wanted to do American things. She didn&amp;#039;t want to learn the traditional Japanese form of dance but instead wanted to do baton twirling and go to catechism. Furthermore, it was pretty obvious that she didn&amp;#039;t care whether or not she found a Japanese husband or not. Jeanne and probably many other girls just like her really were not foreign at all. Jeanne didn&amp;#039;t even speak Japanese. Americans at this time were terrified of anyone of that race and threw them all into the same category whether they belonged or not. This is a perfect example of someone who didn&amp;#039;t belong. Women were already fighting hard for more equality and these girls had it even harder because, just like African Americans, they didn&amp;#039;t have gender OR race on their side. - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ve always thought that Japanese American internment/relocation camps were probably the worst decision FDR ever made in office. A lot of the people put into camps had lived in America for many years, and their children had never been to Japan in their lives. They were Americans, and some of them, as in the case of Jeanne, were very much disconnected from Japanese culture. Jeanne didn’t speak Japanese, and she twirled batons and wanted to be a Catholic. How much far removed from Japan could you get?&lt;br /&gt;
The Sone reading mentioned that “some people had little faith in the ideas and ideals of democracy” so they put Japanese Americans in camps to ensure loyalty. But it wasn’t Japanese Americans that didn’t have faith in democracy, it was the people who put them into camps. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wartime Workers (photo) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, I didn&amp;#039;t even notice that these women were wearing pants until I read it in the caption.  And then I thought it was interesting that they were actually allowed to wear them.  Of course pants are the most appropriate clothing for factory and industry work, but I wonder who realized this fact and gave women permission to wear pants in factories.  How did women feel about wearing men&amp;#039;s clothing while working?  Also, after reading Fanny Hill&amp;#039;s account, did these women enjoy their jobs as much as Fanny apparently did?  They certainly don&amp;#039;t look miserable, but then again they could be posing for the picture. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-25T02:33:18Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it&amp;#039;s almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable &amp;quot;Rosie&amp;quot; to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It&amp;#039;s amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it&amp;#039;d be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman.  She was able to make more money than she had before the War.  Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child.  I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities.   -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill&amp;#039;s experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I&amp;#039;m glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn&amp;#039;t, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller&amp;#039;s poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill&amp;#039;s off hand comment of &amp;quot;they weren&amp;#039;t hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse&amp;quot; (186). I know this is a women&amp;#039;s history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Putting it into context and the time period, its not that surprising there were more opportunities for black women during the war, there was more opportunities for everybody.  As with all the sources we read, having an individual story, a tangible person does make things seem more real, more personal, more easily relateable. - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job&amp;quot; (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today&amp;#039;s understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it&amp;#039;s easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply &amp;quot;didn&amp;#039;t click&amp;quot; for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn&amp;#039;t someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II&amp;#039;s new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family&amp;#039;s heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it&amp;#039;s not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that &amp;quot;she&amp;#039;d never had the time&amp;quot; to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It&amp;#039;s easy to see how real-life women in Gertie&amp;#039;s situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Doll maker&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of  what they wanted their life to be like.  I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage.  Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted.  As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages.    -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine.  Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression.  This family moved to Detroit due to the country&amp;#039;s massive mobilization and hopefully a job.  I think their experience there was nothing like they expected.  They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status.  But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work.  Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring.  The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was &amp;quot;adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room.&amp;quot;  I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living.  Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, &amp;quot;Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall.&amp;quot; (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband&amp;#039;s job.  I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie&amp;#039;s life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, &amp;quot;When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?&amp;quot; (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this story provided a good contrast to the readings that talk about all of the success people found because of the war. The war did improve the lives of many people, and following the war was there was unprecedented wealth, but there were also people who didn’t find success and continued in the same poor conditions they always had. Though this reading is part of a fictional novel, I think it provides a balance for all of the improvements in Americans lives that we’ve read about. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women&amp;#039;s Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were &amp;quot;perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater&amp;quot; (pg. 375) was on to something. It&amp;#039;s noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn&amp;#039;t seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to &amp;quot;less exhausting&amp;quot; positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army.  “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m not sure that I would call them submissive or passive at all. These women were carefully selected for unusual military situations the same way men were selected then and both sexes are selected nowadays. Character flaws may not be such a big deal in the regular infantry or a typical steno pool, but under stressful conditions &amp;quot;irritating habits&amp;quot; can severely damage the morale of the entire unit. For such an elite unit, grouchy or talkative MEN would not be chosen, nor would overqualified men OR women (not just because they can&amp;#039;t be promoted, but more because the unit has to work together and every member has to carry out orders given by authority to make the unit run smoothly. If one member thinks they are better than the rest--has had more training or a higher IQ or anything--that causes unrest in the unit, which is the last thing you need on the front lines, which is where these women were). It seems to me that men would be held to these same standards when selecting an elite unit. Self-reliance, the ability to handle stress, and the ability to work well with others--these are not specific to females. These courageous and ground-breaking women challenged perceptions of both the soldiers and their commanding officers, and I&amp;#039;m sure the public reading about them on the home front. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt for these Japanese-American people.  There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a terrible time in American History.  We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.  The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps.  This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S.  In continuing with Morgan&amp;#039;s mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower.  These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad.  The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Morgan&amp;#039;s comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler&amp;#039;s concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America&amp;#039;s internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities.  Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting.  I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all of the above statements but I feel even more strongly about the internment camps. While I agree with what kokeefe said that the internment camps were different from concentration camps, how Americans de-humanized the Japanese was similar. Japanese-Americans became a number much like a test rat in a labratory, they were organized by numbers and letters and were not allowed outside of the high fences, much like a cage. They had poor shelter, food, and were watched everyday including giving the Japanese a bedtime of 10:00, and thinking it was okay. I think there should be a museum representing the stories and lives of the Japanese who were forced into these internment camps much like the Holocaust museum so more Americans can understand what we did as a nation in World War II. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember learning about Japanese internment camps when i was young being just totally confused by it.  In part, because it did seem eerily similar to what had been going on in Nazi Germany, as many others had mentioned.  This passage really brings out a lot of the degradation that i imagine many Japanese-Americans must have felt to have been controlled and suspected and discriminated against because of what was for many, including the author of this piece, a relatively distant ancestry.  She&amp;#039;d grown up being an &amp;quot;American&amp;quot;, and now she was alienated from that identity without really being able to identify with the &amp;quot;Japanese&amp;quot; for which she was interned.  I think that the author&amp;#039;s discussion of the issei and nisei sort of gets at that struggle to pin down an identity and differences between generational reactions. -Erin B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it says a lot about the meaning of Japanese internment camps to the Japanese who were in them when Monica Sone says, &amp;quot;Maybe I wasn&amp;#039;t considered an American anymore.&amp;quot; (Page 201) Just that mere sentence probably sums up the thoughts of the Japanese Americans at the time. Many of the Japanese were not immigrants but were born in America, making them citizens. Besides the fact that the government&amp;#039;s decision to use internment camps resembled the Nazi labor/concentration camps, the government was more or less imprisoning its own citizens. What happened to all the rights American citizens had? They just simply overlooked. Was there nobody in the government who thought that this was wrong in so many ways? I understand the American fear because of the war and because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but Germany was a watching enemy at the time also, but German-American citizens weren&amp;#039;t sent to internment camps. The internment camps just seem inconsistent with what America stood for. I thought it was interesting how Monica Sone talked about the &amp;quot;wire fence.&amp;quot; She says, &amp;quot;Of one thing I was sure. The wire fence was real. I no longer had the right to walk out of it. It was also because some people had little faith in the ideas and ideals of democracy.&amp;quot; (p. 201). I think it was extremely sad that at this point in time, Monica and other Japanese/Japanese Americans were not proud to be Americans or be in America, and to be honest, I don&amp;#039;t blame them one bit. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this, and already knowing of the internment camps, it just shows the the good ole US of A isn&amp;#039;t always as cracked up as it&amp;#039;s supposed to be.  America makes laws and does thing that can be just as horrendous as the next guy (Hello Chinese Exclusion Acts). This wasn&amp;#039;t the first time they had issues with our Asian neighbors across the Pacific. Yes the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor, but that doesn&amp;#039;t mean every single Japanese should be sent away.  If Americans received the same treatment somewhere else in the world, mirroring what we did to the Japanese, it just wouldn&amp;#039;t fly. As Alex said, I completely understand the not being proud to be American bit.  Ummm hello they just locked you away and took all of your rights from you!!- Christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece to be fairly hard to read because this was definitely not a highlight in American history. Sometimes I think that japanese internment gets over looked and pushed under the carpet, but the notion of labeling a family (who had been an active and participating member of American society, sometimes for more than one generation) as a number and forcing them to move from their homes and into something barely better than horse stables, is not something that Americans associate with WWII. Many times the US is looked at as a protector of freedom and responsible for helping bring down the Nazi regime and ending the Holocost, and even though internment camps wer far from death camps, the idea of separating one ethnicity or nationality from the rest of society and keeping them in a fenced in, cramped area, was present in America. Fear makes people do crazy scary things. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was particularly interesting.  I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women.  She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her.  I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth&amp;#039;s husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work.  All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how &amp;quot;The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives.&amp;quot; (205)  I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties?  She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts.  Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness.  She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it.  There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work.  However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children.  – Alice W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a &amp;quot;new woman&amp;quot; and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, &amp;quot;fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death.&amp;quot; (MAW, 191). Marion&amp;#039;s letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC&amp;#039;s wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marion Stegeman is really having a field day with her war-time piloting experience.  Her story about getting blown off-course is hilarious.  As has already been mentioned, the language she uses in these letters is extremely 1940&amp;#039;s colorful and seems care-free - which was totally cloying at first to read - which made her last letter seem somewhat sad, as she sounds rather deflated and is obviously fishing for reassurance that she&amp;#039;s doing the right thing.  The experience of having so much freedom as a pilot along with the constant patriotism-fueled encouragement must have been exhilarating for a lot of women, and work of any kind - particularly if you get to fly - must have been a good distraction from the reality of war.  -Erin B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this section, especially the language that Marion used (&amp;quot;smackers&amp;quot; made my day and I may have to use that at some point). I found it interesting that once she felt that she &amp;quot;had&amp;quot; to do something or report to someone in contrast to being a pilot for her own enjoyment, she made the decsion that she wanted to get married. Wouldn&amp;#039;t she have to report to her husband at that point? I feel as if she was care-free and almost living in her own personal world, and was out to find personal enjoyment rather than work, which was a different way of looking at things than the previous excerts that we have read. Most of the women that we have read are looking for work for extra spending money (or survival money during the Depression) and if they enjoy it then its a bonus, whereas Marion is looking for enjoyment first. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Photos taken during WWII by Esther Bubley==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, I want to say that I found the photos to be really helpful. Not only can I understand the history of women during WWII but I can see them, I think this makes a big difference in fully understanding the time. Next, I want to say that what stood out to me was the different ways that women were dressed. All of these pictures were taken during the war, however, some women were wearing typical woman&amp;#039;s clothing of the time, while other women were wearing pants. What is more interesting is that women in the skirts all seemed to sit in a really uncomfortable, uptight looking way with their legs crossed at the bottom or held tightly together with their hands in their laps. The women in pants, on the other hand, are sitting in traditionally male positions as we would see them today, slouched with legs wide open, leaning on the thighs. I&amp;#039;m not sure if that means anything, but it stood out to me. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed looking at these photographs, Esther Bubley truly captured “average Americans” just as she intended to.  The image that struck me the most was the Instructor of the Capital Transit Company.  The title from the website describes exactly what I was thinking: “Bending gender roles for ‘the duration’”.  This is the image that was painted in class on Tuesday when we were talking about women working outside the home in “men’s” positions.  I wonder how the men behind the instructor felt when they were being taught by a woman. They look about 40 in the photo so it must have been quite a transition for them.  I wonder how the men who stayed behind during the war felt in general, I know that this is a Women’s History course but WWII was a turning point for women in the work place, and I wonder how much, if any, resistance they were met with from the men who had stayed behind.  Just a thought. – Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mary McLeod Bethune Urges President Roosevelt to Turn to Qualified Negro Women for Help, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be really interesting because it shows that black women felt the need to help their country just as much as the white women did. The reason it is so interesting to me is because up until this time, the country had not done much for the black community, so why should they feel like they need to be helping their country? The answer to that question is sort of what Bethune is getting at. She is saying that the black community has earned the right to be patriotic and defensive of their country because they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;are&amp;#039;&amp;#039; citizens. She wants to be treated like the white citizens who are defending their country because she is a hardworking citizen too. On page 372, she says while speaking about the black community, &amp;quot;they, too, have earned the right to be numbered among the active forces who are working towards the protection of our democratic stronghold.&amp;quot; I think that Mary Bethune wants the President to know that black women love their country and want to protect it, and they should be given the right to do so.  - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, A Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought reading this article was really kind of sad because of how much Jeanne didn&amp;#039;t seem to want anything to do with her Japanese culture. I don&amp;#039;t think it was really a conscious decision on her part, its just that she was American and wanted to do American things. She didn&amp;#039;t want to learn the traditional Japanese form of dance but instead wanted to do baton twirling and go to catechism. Furthermore, it was pretty obvious that she didn&amp;#039;t care whether or not she found a Japanese husband or not. Jeanne and probably many other girls just like her really were not foreign at all. Jeanne didn&amp;#039;t even speak Japanese. Americans at this time were terrified of anyone of that race and threw them all into the same category whether they belonged or not. This is a perfect example of someone who didn&amp;#039;t belong. Women were already fighting hard for more equality and these girls had it even harder because, just like African Americans, they didn&amp;#039;t have gender OR race on their side. - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ve always thought that Japanese American internment/relocation camps were probably the worst decision FDR ever made in office. A lot of the people put into camps had lived in America for many years, and their children had never been to Japan in their lives. They were Americans, and some of them, as in the case of Jeanne, were very much disconnected from Japanese culture. Jeanne didn’t speak Japanese, and she twirled batons and wanted to be a Catholic. How much far removed from Japan could you get?&lt;br /&gt;
The Sone reading mentioned that “some people had little faith in the ideas and ideals of democracy” so they put Japanese Americans in camps to ensure loyalty. But it wasn’t Japanese Americans that didn’t have faith in democracy, it was the people who put them into camps. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wartime Workers (photo) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, I didn&amp;#039;t even notice that these women were wearing pants until I read it in the caption.  And then I thought it was interesting that they were actually allowed to wear them.  Of course pants are the most appropriate clothing for factory and industry work, but I wonder who realized this fact and gave women permission to wear pants in factories.  How did women feel about wearing men&amp;#039;s clothing while working?  Also, after reading Fanny Hill&amp;#039;s account, did these women enjoy their jobs as much as Fanny apparently did?  They certainly don&amp;#039;t look miserable, but then again they could be posing for the picture. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-17T19:35:21Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work.  LeSueur describes women who &amp;quot;sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in&amp;quot; (146).  One can really feel the desperation in these women&amp;#039;s lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece  shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment.  Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity.  Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc.  I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn&amp;#039;t find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression.  I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.  I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat.  She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them.  That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily.  The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says &amp;quot;if she&amp;#039;s proud then she starves silently&amp;quot; (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today&amp;#039;s societal norms.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating.  It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==&lt;br /&gt;
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can&amp;#039;t afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur&amp;#039;s writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don&amp;#039;t want to admit that they haven&amp;#039;t achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn&amp;#039;t the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are.  (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters &amp;quot;were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action&amp;quot; (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn&amp;#039;t know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren&amp;#039;t working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women &amp;quot;are not good mothers and housekeepers&amp;quot; (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==&lt;br /&gt;
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn&amp;#039;t stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change.  Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home.  She was knowledgeable of how the system worked.  It was no surprise that they took on this role.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money.  I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm.  It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm.  She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting.  In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities.  I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the &amp;quot;Slave Markets&amp;quot; Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery&amp;#039;s end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women&amp;#039;s willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for &amp;quot;the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women&amp;quot; (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman&amp;#039;s domestic service would be labeled a &amp;quot;slave market.&amp;quot; Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week&amp;#039;s article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s. Mollie&amp;#039;s life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.  I found Carlotta&amp;#039;s family&amp;#039;s generosity amazing during such a rough time.  Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money.  They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate.  The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays.  Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community.  While I&amp;#039;m sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them.  And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity.  And they didn&amp;#039;t oppose to having a picture taken of them!  Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn&amp;#039;t actually the case?  Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it?  Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women.  Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-17T19:09:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work.  LeSueur describes women who &amp;quot;sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in&amp;quot; (146).  One can really feel the desperation in these women&amp;#039;s lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece  shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment.  Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity.  Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc.  I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn&amp;#039;t find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression.  I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.  I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat.  She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them.  That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily.  The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says &amp;quot;if she&amp;#039;s proud then she starves silently&amp;quot; (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today&amp;#039;s societal norms.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating.  It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==&lt;br /&gt;
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can&amp;#039;t afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur&amp;#039;s writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don&amp;#039;t want to admit that they haven&amp;#039;t achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn&amp;#039;t the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are.  (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters &amp;quot;were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action&amp;quot; (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn&amp;#039;t know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren&amp;#039;t working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women &amp;quot;are not good mothers and housekeepers&amp;quot; (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==&lt;br /&gt;
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn&amp;#039;t stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change.  Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home.  She was knowledgeable of how the system worked.  It was no surprise that they took on this role.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money.  I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm.  It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm.  She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the &amp;quot;Slave Markets&amp;quot; Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery&amp;#039;s end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women&amp;#039;s willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for &amp;quot;the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women&amp;quot; (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman&amp;#039;s domestic service would be labeled a &amp;quot;slave market.&amp;quot; Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week&amp;#039;s article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s. Mollie&amp;#039;s life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.  I found Carlotta&amp;#039;s family&amp;#039;s generosity amazing during such a rough time.  Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money.  They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate.  The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays.  Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community.  While I&amp;#039;m sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-17T19:07:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work.  LeSueur describes women who &amp;quot;sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in&amp;quot; (146).  One can really feel the desperation in these women&amp;#039;s lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece  shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment.  Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity.  Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc.  I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn&amp;#039;t find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression.  I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.  I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat.  She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them.  That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily.  The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says &amp;quot;if she&amp;#039;s proud then she starves silently&amp;quot; (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today&amp;#039;s societal norms.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating.  It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==&lt;br /&gt;
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can&amp;#039;t afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur&amp;#039;s writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don&amp;#039;t want to admit that they haven&amp;#039;t achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn&amp;#039;t the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are.  (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters &amp;quot;were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action&amp;quot; (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn&amp;#039;t know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren&amp;#039;t working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women &amp;quot;are not good mothers and housekeepers&amp;quot; (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==&lt;br /&gt;
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn&amp;#039;t stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change.  Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home.  She was knowledgeable of how the system worked.  It was no surprise that they took on this role.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money.  I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm.  It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm.  She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the &amp;quot;Slave Markets&amp;quot; Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery&amp;#039;s end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women&amp;#039;s willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for &amp;quot;the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women&amp;quot; (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman&amp;#039;s domestic service would be labeled a &amp;quot;slave market.&amp;quot; Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week&amp;#039;s article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s. Mollie&amp;#039;s life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.  I found Carlotta&amp;#039;s family&amp;#039;s generosity amazing during such a rough time.  Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money.  They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate.  The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrate holidays with parties and parades, and go to the movies and attend plays.  Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community.  While I&amp;#039;m sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-17T19:07:28Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work.  LeSueur describes women who &amp;quot;sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in&amp;quot; (146).  One can really feel the desperation in these women&amp;#039;s lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece  shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment.  Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity.  Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc.  I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn&amp;#039;t find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression.  I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.  I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat.  She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them.  That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily.  The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says &amp;quot;if she&amp;#039;s proud then she starves silently&amp;quot; (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today&amp;#039;s societal norms.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating.  It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==&lt;br /&gt;
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can&amp;#039;t afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur&amp;#039;s writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don&amp;#039;t want to admit that they haven&amp;#039;t achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn&amp;#039;t the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are.  (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters &amp;quot;were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action&amp;quot; (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn&amp;#039;t know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren&amp;#039;t working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women &amp;quot;are not good mothers and housekeepers&amp;quot; (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==&lt;br /&gt;
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn&amp;#039;t stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change.  Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home.  She was knowledgeable of how the system worked.  It was no surprise that they took on this role.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money.  I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm.  It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm.  She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the &amp;quot;Slave Markets&amp;quot; Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery&amp;#039;s end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women&amp;#039;s willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for &amp;quot;the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women&amp;quot; (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman&amp;#039;s domestic service would be labeled a &amp;quot;slave market.&amp;quot; Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week&amp;#039;s article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s. Mollie&amp;#039;s life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.  I found Carlotta&amp;#039;s family&amp;#039;s generosity amazing during such a rough time.  Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money.  They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate.  The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrate holidays with parties and parades, and go to the movies and attend plays.  Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community.  While I&amp;#039;m sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-17T19:07:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work.  LeSueur describes women who &amp;quot;sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in&amp;quot; (146).  One can really feel the desperation in these women&amp;#039;s lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece  shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment.  Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity.  Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc.  I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn&amp;#039;t find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression.  I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.  I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat.  She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them.  That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily.  The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says &amp;quot;if she&amp;#039;s proud then she starves silently&amp;quot; (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today&amp;#039;s societal norms.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating.  It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==&lt;br /&gt;
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can&amp;#039;t afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur&amp;#039;s writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don&amp;#039;t want to admit that they haven&amp;#039;t achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn&amp;#039;t the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are.  (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters &amp;quot;were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action&amp;quot; (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn&amp;#039;t know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren&amp;#039;t working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women &amp;quot;are not good mothers and housekeepers&amp;quot; (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==&lt;br /&gt;
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn&amp;#039;t stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change.  Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home.  She was knowledgeable of how the system worked.  It was no surprise that they took on this role.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money.  I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm.  It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm.  She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the &amp;quot;Slave Markets&amp;quot; Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery&amp;#039;s end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women&amp;#039;s willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for &amp;quot;the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women&amp;quot; (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman&amp;#039;s domestic service would be labeled a &amp;quot;slave market.&amp;quot; Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week&amp;#039;s article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s. Mollie&amp;#039;s life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.  I found Carlotta&amp;#039;s family&amp;#039;s generosity amazing during such a rough time.  Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money.  They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate.  The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrate holidays with parties and parades, and go to the movies and attend plays.  Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community.  While I&amp;#039;m sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-16T02:37:31Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Women of the Ku Klux Klan */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;EXTRA CREDIT:  Focusing only on the primary source readings, discuss the context within which one or two of these documents were created: What were the goals of the people writing?  Who were they writing for?  Consider the circumstances of their creation.  How would people at the time have received those ideas or claims and why?   (Think broadly; some people would like some ideas that others would not.) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith==&lt;br /&gt;
Since we didn&amp;#039;t get a chance to spend time on them in class, you can listen to some of their music [http://kokoro.umwblogs.org/2010/03/13/ma-rainey-and-bessie-smith/ here]. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks Taylor! - christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching.  I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so.  I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal.  -Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the phrase “hope in a jar” (P.360) was interesting because it showed how women depended so much on make up to bring them more importance in the world. They also expected make-up to make life smoother for them, bringing them new opportunities. So many acts, like using make up that were previously looked down upon, were suddenly accepted when society saw that movie stars/high class people would use cosmetics. Society and culture was so easily influenced by outside factors such as movies. I think during this time, cosmetics created a false sense of “the self.&amp;quot; “A woman’s personal success relied on her appearance.” (P.355) What about her abilities, her work ethic, etc? -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wonder what the guys in the class think about makeup in this class. I personally don&amp;#039;t like makeup, but that might be more of a personal opinion reflecting my upbringing and interpretations of media. I suppose the question is--if makeup is not linked to prostitution anymore, then what is, because for some reason I think that makeup still represents that oldest of professions to some degree. I have no idea how looking &amp;quot;exotic&amp;quot; is supposed to be less offensive...I don&amp;#039;t really understand the WASP middle class fascination with all things different--is this a new development or something that arose around this time period? I like Mary Ann&amp;#039;s interpretation of the rise of makeup, highlighting feminine features when increasing numbers of women were entering the public sphere. So my question is whether or not the rising popularity of makeup indicative of a new level of freedom experienced by women or something that more firmly entrenched and highlighted their separateness from men? I suppose this goes back to the arguments between the feminists and social feminists insofar as making a truly equal society or preserving protective legislation... -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time.  The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well.  I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why would Dr. Frederick &amp;quot;of course...tried to explain it away?&amp;quot; Didn&amp;#039;t Jane Addams, Louise DeKoven Brown and other Chicago reformers blame overwork, commercialized recreation and alcohol for &amp;quot;bringing out natural yearnings and instincts that THEY preferred to see repressed&amp;quot;? Why would these women want to see these instincts repressed? Wouldn&amp;#039;t a prominent woman such as Addams OF COURSE have approved of open sexual practices? And why would Dr. Frederick have bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex? Mosher&amp;#039;s study wasn&amp;#039;t common nor was it published, so why are we assuming today that it was a common thing to ask women about their attitudes towards sex a century ago? And didn&amp;#039;t the Mosher survey find that some women didn&amp;#039;t have an interest in sex? I&amp;#039;m sure that women&amp;#039;s history is a contentious topic but objectivity needs to be maintained and we need to make sure that we don&amp;#039;t project our modern day assumptions into history.  -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, no one’s assuming that it was common practice for women to be interviewed about sex at that time, or really for anyone to be interviewed about it at that time. Nor do I see anyone projecting modern day assumptions. Frederick’s suggesting that “sexual desire is entirely absent in a much larger number of women than is generally supposed&amp;quot; (291) and that any woman who expresses real sexual desire is pretty much a nymphomaniac. I simply pointed out that, despite the impropriety of asking such questions at the time and in particular coming from a man, if he had done &amp;#039;&amp;#039;actual&amp;#039;&amp;#039; scientific research, such as the interviews conducted by Mosher (and from the samples we saw, all of the women often found sex agreeable), that he would have probably disregarded the answers and tried to explain them away because it didn’t jive with his and society’s beliefs about women. A lot of people probably would have done the same. Yet, clearly the Mosher survey shows that there were some women of the period who were more open to sex and recognized that they enjoyed it or even that it was necessary to their health. So, sure, maybe there were women like Jane Addams who preferred to see sex repressed, but there were also women who didn’t want to repress their sexual desires. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Taylor here. The Mosher survey is an example of dialogue beginning to open, but certainly not the norm.  The doctor was not going door to door asking all women these questions; this was just a small sample group. That being said a survey such as this not only reveals that women at this time did harbor sexual desire, it also illustrates that types of marriages that they had. Though some of the women believed that sex was primarily for the purpose of procreation and male sexual satisfaction, others felt that it was a key component to the marriage. This was not a popular conversation at the time so I do not see how any of the former posts were projecting modern ideals onto the study.   –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses Discuss the Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses stressed the importance of the sexual relationship between the husband and wife, in order to obtain a fulfilled and happy marriage.  Their goals were to make sex education more available to the “average” person and not limited to only professional classes and to show the importance of women’s own active participation in the physical relationship of marriage.  They acknowledged that women had recognized themselves as sexual beings in this modern era and needed to be educated to fulfill those roles in a marriage of mutual companionship.  I think they were writing for those who restricted this information from getting out.  They are showing that by restricting this information that they are impairing (what they called handicapping) women from obtaining that fulfilled happy marriage and encouraging personality conflicts by allowing ignorance on the subject of sex.  In general, I don’t think people knew how to react to this information.  They probably felt it was needed and wanted but some were afraid to openly acknowledge this but secretly may have wanted to obtain it.  There were religious reasons that encouraged people to reject this in fear of being immoral and inappropriate.  Some women may have been comfortable with the rigidity of women’s role whereas others felt that it allowed women a  more equal partner in the marriage.  Blanchard and Manasses were saying that by educating women, they would meet the needs of their own sexual desires and expectations and being more apt to satisfying her partner.  These women are liberal in their thoughts on pre-marital sex and emphasized that one should try their partners out sexually before marriage to see if they would be compatible.  I don’t think that this was generally accepted though it wouldn’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t being practiced.  In the eyes of these two Psychologists, the modern marriage required a larger emphasis on the physical side and this made the importance of educating women about sex and contraceptives even more important.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carlton C. Fredericks, M.D.’s assessment of what he calls “Nymphomania” was absurd. He even goes as far to propose that women who view sex or masturbation as gratifying automatically classify them as perverts. It seems that any sexual expression that he deemed as improper was in some way perverse. It was such a contrast to the Mosher study because Fredericks views a women’s sexual appetite as “insane or mildly insane”(291) where Mosher is finding that many women feel it is necessary to carry on a healthy marriage. It is interesting as well because the Mosher&amp;#039;s study took place at around the same time, the duality between these two school of thought are amazing! –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If there was one article I read out loud incredulously as I forced my roommate to listen, it was this one. Fredericks gets the Women&amp;#039;s History prize for Official Idiot, and I hope he was recognized as such during his time, although I doubt it. His accusations are not only wildly speculative and libelous, but also unfounded and unsupported by neutral documentation. Even if you took out the ridiculous subject material, his disturbing lack of evidence and wild examples would make for an extremely weak argument.  --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wonder if I am finding this thread to be a bit ridiculous because I am a male or if there is just a little hint of a bias in peoples&amp;#039; interpretations of this primary source. First, unless I am mistaken and if I am, then someone please correct me, but I had thought that masturbation by anyone, males or females, was considered a perversion of sorts during this time period. Second, did Mosher find anything contrary to what Frederick did? I don&amp;#039;t remember reading any of Mosher&amp;#039;s own interpretations of the interview results, the reading is just the interview questions and answers--none of Mosher&amp;#039;s own analysis there, unless I forgot something. Differences between results? Where was Frederick based out of? Were Californians more liberal back then as they are now? Even if they weren&amp;#039;t, geographical considerations have to be taken into account before a comparison can be made. Why is Frederick&amp;#039;s study less convincing? Does it not represent the popular AND professional understanding of femininity and sexuality at the time? And before we dismiss his claim that the numbers and variations of practices were too various to include and such, this was published in a journal, and therefore couldn&amp;#039;t include whatever raw data he might or might not have collected. Again, why was Frederick an idiot--for publishing something that was in line with the prevalent medical opinion concerning this issue? Same argument for the other complaints about Frederick. I&amp;#039;m not defending Frederick as a person, I am only arguing for trying to retain some semblance of objectivity when reading primary documents and trying to put them in the context of their time period rather than impose our own conceptions onto history. -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that the people finding Frederick’s report ridiculous do recognize that it would have been in line with traditional medical assumptions of the day. You’re right that the survey has none of Mosher’s own analysis, but I think the answers (at least the ones we were able to read and that’s key for anything we say regarding it) speak for themselves. All of the women found sex agreeable, except for one woman who found it agreeable “usually.” All of them said there were times when they desired sex, and some of them said the ideal would be to have sex when both the husband and wife wanted it. The idea of a woman actually &amp;#039;&amp;#039;wanting&amp;#039;&amp;#039; sex, and not being a nympho, is the complete opposite of Frederick’s report. So, to answer your question, yes, the survey contradicts Frederick, and that’s putting it lightly. Reading the Mosher survey right before Frederick’s report really highlights his lack of evidence for his claims, and maybe that’s why people were reacting so harshly towards him in their comments. Wanting scientific evidence isn’t even out of line with the time period either. Frankly, for all of your talk about looking at primary sources within their context, I think you’re ignoring the Mosher survey within its context. To me, the survey (in the parts we read) suggests that perhaps Frederick’s assumptions about women and their sexual desire, or lack thereof, weren’t as prevalent in actual society as believed. Perhaps public assumptions about sex didn’t completely match up with personal assumptions about sex, if that makes any sense. Unfortunately, we don’t have many surveys like Mosher’s. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, Taylor I agree. The Fredericks report seems quite frankly, his opinion of women. I understand that this was a popular notion held by many medical professionals at the time, but he shows no objectivity, nor does he express any scientific evidence to back up his claim. The Mosher study, though it does not provide and analysis of the subject matter at the end, still demonstrates how WOMEN viewed sex and sexual satisfaction at the time. The Mosher survey is a sociological study where as the Fredericks Report is an editorialized account. I think when comparing these two primary sources, we have to remember that fact. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
This was a speech given by Carrie Chapman Catt, to the League of Women&amp;#039;s Voters right after the ninteenth amendment was passed and women were given the right to vote.  Now that they have this right, they need to excercise it and become involved in politics and this speech is intended to do just that.  The context for this speech is very important because if it was made before women had the right to vote, it would not carry as much weight.  However, now that they have this right, they can take immediate action and get involved politically.  I think in this slight time of confusion of what exactly to do with this huge, new important right, this speech can help give women much needed direction.  -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  &amp;quot;You won&amp;#039;t be so welcome there, but that is the place to be,&amp;quot; (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says &amp;quot;this is the same old struggle but in a new field.&amp;quot; She new that just because women had the right to vote didn&amp;#039;t mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights.  The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process.  Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak.  EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I concur (big word) with EFritz with the acknowledgement that Catt was fully aware of the impending struggles of women. She recognizes the difficulties women will now face as voters. Though they have the right to vote, it does not inherently mean that everything else they desired, namely equality with men, will be achieved. Though suffrage was obtained it does not bring about total reconstruction in societal norms, which have been in place for centuries. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that at the bottom of this article there is a very simple goal for Carrie Chapman Catt, to get recognition from the world of the actual substantiality of women. Since that is a rather large, ambiguous, and (considering it still has not been a completed goal)impossible goal she had to first start aiming that goal toward the women she expected to lead the fight to accomplish it. Although it almost seems as though Catt is talking to women she had already convinced to join her in the fight towards suffrage, I personally believe she is attempting to persuade women who may not understand that they are being oppressed by the lack of societal recognition for their greatness. She is trying to inform them that they were born great women and should fight to be recognized for that, even if that fight means going against the crowd that would rather the women would just shut up and deal with their place in life. I think the people who she wasn&amp;#039;t trying to persuade with this message would take it the same way that people in today&amp;#039;s society react when they&amp;#039;re reminded with the continued inequality of Women in places like the workforce; They&amp;#039;d either not care, not understand why anyone would bother to care, care a lot, or justify the reasoning for the inequalities on arbitrary facts (like women being capable of getting pregnant meaning that they will use that capability to miss out on working and lose the company money, which is why they aren&amp;#039;t paid as much). On the other side, people hearing this argument from the other side might find an invigoration for the cause so great that they dedicate their life to changing and fighting for the rights of women. Men might read this article and realize that they have no justification within society for the woman to still be dealing with the same fight she&amp;#039;d been dealing with throughout the entirety of the existence of the United States. That reaction, however, I feel is entirely unlikely and considering the lack of women&amp;#039;s equality still existing today to a great extent, it probably was unlikely. Carrie Chapman Catt, however, probably felt that she had to write this article because she had to express to her followers, potential followers and dissenters that she wasn&amp;#039;t done fighting just because women finally got the right to vote. To her, that was just the first step. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Carrie Chapman Catt gave this cautionary speech to women as a way to remind them that they should not forget what they fought so hard for. She wants women to use their heads and think for themselves. She doesn&amp;#039;t want them to vote how their husbands vote just because. She doesn&amp;#039;t want them to only discuss politics within their homes and only influence their husbands. She wants women to realize that just voting is not enough, but they have to step into the political arena and voice their opinions. I think this probably did not go over well with many people at the time, especially conservative men. Just like in the first western states that gave women suffrage, men were probably expecting women to just follow their lead in political opinion. I&amp;#039;m sure they were surprised and a bit distraught to learn that Carrie Chapman Catt was directing women to learn about politics themselves, formulate their own opinions, and then fight to get their ideas and views out there. --Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All speeches have a purpose. In her speech, Catt is trying to convince the women in the audience to position themselves on the inside of politics. In this case, the audience is the League of Women Voters, whose stated goal was to prove that women could be effective, involved voters. Therefore, this audience would likely to agree with Catt’s opinion that the fight for suffrage was hard, but the potential revolutionary impact of women having the right to vote hadn’t yet been realized. Had Catt given this same speech to a different audience I doubt she would have had the excited reaction and applause as she did when speaking to the League of Women Voters. Some women were happy merely having the right to vote, and probably would have seen Catt’s opinions about women being in the most public of positions wrong because they were against the perceived gender roles of the time. It is important to keep in mind that the majority of women who supported women’s suffrage did so in order to support issues that they found important, for most of these women, women’s rights was not at the forefront of their priorities. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment.  Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society.  To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men.  Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion.  Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true.  She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women.  She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE&amp;#039;RE EQUAL!! Others didn&amp;#039;t quite that stance. It&amp;#039;s important to remember that many women approved of women&amp;#039;s suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different.  She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified.  ---jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the two arguments that Alice Hamilton and Doris Stevens gave I found Steven’s debate to be more influential than Hamilton’s. Steven’s was very straight forward about what she wanted, especially in listing what the Equal Rights Amendment would achieve for women. The list itself is eye-catching because it isn’t part of a paragraph, a radical move by a radical woman I suppose. I think that Doris is the epitome of what younger women didn’t want to be like, as Bromley further suggestes in her article. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously the debate that appeared in The Forum in 1924 would have been written for people who were able to obtain copies-mostly white, middle class, men and some women. Both sides were defending their positions of whether to have an Equal Rights Amendment or not. Doris Stevens basically believed that suffrage alone did not give women full rights as humans and needed more protection of the law and equality. She clearly defined the rights she thought women were due including &amp;quot;Equal Citizenship rights&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Equal pay for equal rights&amp;quot; (125). Like Morgan, I don&amp;#039;t find Hamilton&amp;#039;s argument nearly as convincing. I may also be biased, however, because I still find it very unusual for women to not desire the same amount of rights that men had or think that having more rights might even be harmful for women or cause more problems. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The goals of both authors, Doris Stevens and Alice Hamilton, were to appeal to their affiliations and to persuade readers that their certain cause was more just than the others.  Whether this was accomplished is debatable however. I can see why some women, either part of the National Women’s Party or the League of Women’s Voters, may have read this debate and changed side based upon it. Not being part of either I can see both side’s points and the validity behind them. The circumstances under which the debate was written was at a time of the 1920’s when women had achieved suffrage and were looking for something else that they could fight for, as well as bond together over. Most women after being given the right to vote, as well as Congress, didn’t see anything else that women needed. There was so much that could be gained by an Equal Rights Amendment, but the younger generation seemed unwilling to fight for it. Even the white, middle class women who had always had issues with something political or male oriented. I think that the arguments presented between both women were viewed as a good show, but nothing of great importance. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz, &amp;quot;Sexual Geography &amp;amp; Gender Economy&amp;quot; in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This essay discusses the growing sexual and emotional freedom that women were obtaining in the eartly 20th century.  They were able to choose how they wanted to carry themselves sexually in society.  However, to me, this essay was also a great paradox.  Although these women expressed themselves more feely than in the past, they were also severley tied down to men still.  Even in these so-called &amp;quot;furnished-room&amp;quot; districts, there was still sexual oppression and these women were subject to rape, poor conditions and economic dependence.  Although they could conceibably choose their different sex partners, they were also very dependent on these men for their business.  They need to break away from these districts in order to be truly sexually liberated.  Many downplayed these factors, but in order for women to liberated, these constraints must be lifted.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, &amp;quot;opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion&amp;quot; (US, 335). This &amp;quot;freedom of urban life&amp;quot; gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today the women described in this article would be a combination of a prostitute and a “sugar-baby” to a “sugar-daddy”.  Like others I found “dating,” “pick-ups,” “occasional prostitution,” and “temporary alliances” (329) as odd names to give to these casual sexual encounters, as if they were nothing at all. I doubt that these women thought anything of it and let it become a way of life though. Instead of going out and finding better jobs or more work, they fell back onto the notion of being a woman could get them what they wanted without the work. “If I did not have a man, I could not get along on my wages.” (330) -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What&amp;#039;s behind the three different versions of the sexual revolution? Flappers vs independent new women vs working-class rowdy girls. Is there one single interpretation that can explain the revolution or do all three have some merit? Also interesting, it seems as though some people now see prostitution as a good thing, if not a means to get by economically. I recall that most people were shocked and upset when reading about the Chinese prostitutes during the late nineteenth century...so what changed that makes people more comfortable with this idea? The seeming lack of organization insofar as the kind of bookkeeping that we saw with the bills of sales of Chinese prostitutes? Does the lack of that kind of documentation naturally imply that women were no longer coerced into prostitution, even if it was to just get by once in a while? Or were there pimps, perhaps some of the men living with them in these furnished districts that acted in such a capacity but without drawing up bills or contracts since prostitution was illegal now? And if this wasn&amp;#039;t the case, which I suspect might have been in at least some shape or form, perhaps societal pressures from their peers coerced them into prostitution, since apparently if a good looking girl didn&amp;#039;t sell herself she was considered a fool. What&amp;#039;s worse? That kind of social coercion or the kind of legal coercion that we saw in California? -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feminism.. &amp;quot;For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman&amp;#039;s place in the world...&amp;quot; I enjoyed this line... that&amp;#039;s how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I found it interesting how &amp;quot;Feminist-New Style&amp;quot; felt superior to the older women who had enabled them to lead the comfortable, sociable lifestyles they pursued. They felt no gratitude towards these former suffragettes, only contempt. Is this because they felt stronger than them because of their youth, felt more independent because of their economic independence, or just simply thought they were entitled to all of the rights they had? The answer baffles me. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Anna&amp;#039;s question, I think it might have a been a combination of the three. Even today, it is obvious in some cases where youths are ungrateful for what they have been given or the privileges they have been born with. For instance, many Americans view the opportunity to vote as a right, not the privilege it is. The same can be said for the women of this particular era. Simultaneously,  the economic independence that these women were able to benefit from would give them almost a false sense of self. They would not appreciate the labors their mothers had to endure. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I absolutely loved this article because I think it actually represents alot of the ideals that modern women have today. I think it was really progressive for Bromley to talk about women being able to have both a career AND a family, giving equal attention to both. That is the sort of equality that women have been fighting for, the right to be happy. Bromley is saying that women the new woman, if she balances everything correctly, can be very happy. She has the ability to be a professional and still has the ability to be a mom. She doesn&amp;#039;t need to constantly argue that she is as good as a man because she can just simply prove it in her actions. I think its really cool how she sort of brings all the different opinions of what women should be doing together and forms a type of super woman. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My favorite part of this article, other than the ambition of younger women to have a family and a career (as Angie points out) was the reference to war materials. “With a battle-cry still on their lips…still throwing hand grenades,” (128).  This article was written in 1927 and “The Great War” had only ended ten years earlier. I believe that tensions in the Us may have still been raw and that may be the reason for such a reference. Bromley effectively suggests that the 1st and 2nd generation women as battle-hardened veterans. As veterans I would expect them to cold and judgmental toward those that they had fought against, men. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I thought some of the points made by the New Style Feminists were good, I can&amp;#039;t help but feel that their mothers and even grandmothers would be sad to see the flippant way they discussed their struggles and triumphs. They seem to have forgotten that these women fought hard so that they their daughters would not have to. While their argument about creating your own identity instead of fighting to keep your maiden name was valid these new style feminists seemed to have overlooked what was at the core of the feminist movement. It was interesting to see how this article shows the differences between generations. Although the New Style idea of the stereotype of feminism has a cause for angry and embittered women has definitely persevered.--Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The goal of Dorothy Bromley’s “Feminist-New Style” article, of 1927, was to differentiate between the three generations of women that were part of the 1920’s era and to emphasize the younger generation. Obviously Bromley was a strong supporter, defender, of the younger generation and was writing to enhance her reasons for disliking the older generations of women. The young women would have received this article whole heartily as a defense against the older generations, as a response to the criticism they had already received.  The older generations probably saw this article as an attack against them and what they had stood for. Possibly an attack on what they had already accomplished insofar as the younger generation not being appreciative of what they had done for them and the freedoms they had created for them.  Bromley’s article was written at the end of the 1920’s and the beginning of the sexual revolution of the 1930’s just around the corner, the young generation of women were already showing rebellion towards the traditional behavior of women that was expected. This article may have helped instill in the younger generation that what they were doing was ok and more “modern” women, such as Bromley, understood and accepted them, even if the older generations did not. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, I agree with Morgan that perhaps Dorothy Bromley was trying to encourage younger women. I also think that this was a sort of defensive piece as well, though. At the time, men probably were not 100% comfortable with women having their own professional lives and this can be seen as her letting everyone know that the new feminist can balance a family as well as a career. She says things like &amp;quot;she will not, however, live for her job alone&amp;quot; (p. 128) and &amp;quot;nor has she become hostile to the other sex&amp;quot; (p. 129). These statements are comforting to those people that have some crazy idea of a cold-hearted feminist. Perhaps there were a few of them during the suffrage days, but Bromley is trying to convince women AND men that that really is not the case. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anxious mothers were certainly anxious, but who could blame them with a high “maternal and infant” (130) mortality rate.  Like the others who have posted I was quite intrigued by both mother number 2 and number 3. The second mother had, what seemed to me, laughable concerns. I have to remember that women were generally clueless about prenatal care at this point, so I could understand that if you crave something so intensely denying yourself would seem detrimental to the baby, but I was unclear as to why touching your face had anything to do with this. The third mother expressed the most valid concerns of the three. The shear idea of justice in a medical malpractice suit must have seemed so far-fetched at the time, considering that medical malpractices suits are hard to prove today! As the third mother recounted, many of the doctors who claimed to be experts, did not provide adequate care to these mothers in both the pre and post natal area.  The third mothers call for government regulation of hospital practices must have been quite revolutionary at the time, given the fact that many professionals such as doctors were trusted almost blindly. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after.  I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one.  I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program.  It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was &amp;#039;marking&amp;#039; the baby by her cravings.  I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to.  In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article shocking, even mildly sad. The desperation of these women to obtain information about their bodies and pregnancy is a stark contrast to today, when all you have to do is log onto the internet to answer any and every question. What is even worse is that I&amp;#039;m sure the postal system did not operate very quickly back then, leaving the women waiting weeks for an answer from the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau. However, I liked that the government finally took an interest in women&amp;#039;s concerns and created this branch. It clearly was of service to many women of very diverse backgrounds.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this article was really interesting and it was nice to see that the government was giving attention to an area that was obviously in need of federal aid or even just attention. I think sometimes we take for granted how the improvements in modern medicine and healthcare overall have made childbirth significantly safer for women. I was sad to see that the program ended in 1929. Judging by these letters the Bureau was important and helpful to a lot of women. --Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters remind us both that women in the 1920s faced very real threats to their lives during pregnancy and childbirth and that the lives of many women throughout the country continued to revolve around their children and families and not political issues like the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment. The authors of the letters want to do everything they can to be good mothers and protect the health of their children and themselves. But it sounds as though discussion of the matters relating to childbearing, despite the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau publications, were largely absent from public discourse and women found themselves very isolated. Perhaps, like birth control, pregnancy and childbirth was seen as too crude to be discussed openly or even among friends, as the author of the second letter indicates no one in her immediate circle cares about her questions. And women&amp;#039;s issues remained low on the list of priorities of doctors, causing many women to suffer health consequences. One would think that in an age that valued motherhood, especially white middle class motherhood, so extensively, that women like those who wrote the letters would have had more options to keep themselves and their children healthy. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mary Ann is right on point.  Women during this time had little access to health care, especially poor and working class women.  I think it is good to keep in mind that it was usually only the mid to upper class who had access to health care and doctors because they could afford for it.  Also, since this was the period of Comstock Laws, women were unable to access information about birth control which made pregnancy a very real, yet fearful thing because of the risks that were involved.  I believe that these women were writing simply out of need for information they could not access elsewhere.  These women display just a snapshot of the reality of pregnancy during this period, while also echoing the concerns of women who were now expected to be completely responsible for both the home and the children.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann as well. We do have also remove ourselves from the modern notions of child birth and child rearing and remember that it was quite life threatening.  It was not uncommon for women to have one child after another as well because of the lack of birth control. It must have been very comforting to these women to have a Federal agency such as the Children’s Bureau   to guide them.  In the aftermath of the Great War, I gather that many women turned to Children’s Bureau for help. I looked up some more information on the Bureau on our favorite Wikipedia and found out that it was created by President Taft In 1912 and that Julia Lathrop was the first head of the Bureau. I wonder if Taft appointed her because he thought that as a woman she was more qualified to run the Bureau or if she was simply THE person for the job.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Excerpt from &amp;quot;Passing&amp;quot; by Nella Larsen ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember reading this scene from &amp;quot;Passing&amp;quot; back when my high school class covered the novel, and I was very intrigued by the notion of passing and the possible reasons for it. The story Clare gives for her own experience in passing in this section seems to be one of convenience and opportunity (raised by white aunts that did not advertise her background), deception (she manipulates her husband to run away with her before her aunts could reveal she was black), and a lot of yearning (she seems to resent her aunt&amp;#039;s treatment of her and other white people, which makes her passing as a white person ironic).     --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Sarah about how intriguing this passage was. After reading this excerpt, I think that Nella Larsen&amp;#039;s topic was something that had crossed the minds of many African Americans at the time. The idea of &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; into another life, just to experience the other side, was something that I&amp;#039;m sure, African American men and women all had imagined at some point.  It was sad though, how Clare had to hide her race, at the request of her aunts. It was interesting to me that although she lived with her aunts, she was still expected to &amp;quot;doing all the housework, and most of the washing.&amp;quot; (P. 140) In the story, Clare even says that she had &amp;quot;Negro blood&amp;quot; and apparently that is why she did all the housework, and it was almost expected of her because of her race. The Harlem Renaissance gave Nella Larsen a way to voice this imaginative idea, to maybe give the rest of the world the idea that African Americans merely wanted to be like everyone else, and she portrayed this by showing how important &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; was for Clare. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The negative stereotypes associated with African Americans really stands out in this passage and I think they are important to emphasizing why an African American would consider &amp;quot;passing.&amp;quot;  They include African Americans being poor, domestic servants, charity cases, promiscuous, and inferior to whites.  Even if they were hard-working or good people, African Americans had to overcome some rather harsh stereotypes.  I can definitely see trying to &amp;quot;pass&amp;quot; as a white and living with less trials as tempting.  On another note, Clare having to hide her race, and being able to, made me think of the light skinned black models on the magazine covers we looked at in class.  While they were clearly appealing to African American audiences, I feel like the magazines were putting out a message that said &amp;quot;being white is where it is at!&amp;quot;  So, perhaps light skinned black women did try &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; as whites by downplaying their color and race?  I am sure make-up made that feat much easier.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women of the Ku Klux Klan==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that these women necessarily hated the races that the KKK targeted or necessarily wished them harm, but they probably felt threatened by the large waves of immigrants coming in to America in the early twentieth century.  These immigrants were coming in to America in large numbers and practically taking over the job market.  And like we learned in class, these women were most likely afraid of both their shrinking family size and the white race.  Of course, the race was not dying out, but it certainly seemed like it with all of the other races that either continued to have many children and or just seemed to be everywhere.  In reality, I believe that the KKK offered white women a place to come together and feel like a unified race in an America that was suddenly becoming filled with so many different races.  --  CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-16T02:37:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;EXTRA CREDIT:  Focusing only on the primary source readings, discuss the context within which one or two of these documents were created: What were the goals of the people writing?  Who were they writing for?  Consider the circumstances of their creation.  How would people at the time have received those ideas or claims and why?   (Think broadly; some people would like some ideas that others would not.) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith==&lt;br /&gt;
Since we didn&amp;#039;t get a chance to spend time on them in class, you can listen to some of their music [http://kokoro.umwblogs.org/2010/03/13/ma-rainey-and-bessie-smith/ here]. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks Taylor! - christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching.  I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so.  I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal.  -Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the phrase “hope in a jar” (P.360) was interesting because it showed how women depended so much on make up to bring them more importance in the world. They also expected make-up to make life smoother for them, bringing them new opportunities. So many acts, like using make up that were previously looked down upon, were suddenly accepted when society saw that movie stars/high class people would use cosmetics. Society and culture was so easily influenced by outside factors such as movies. I think during this time, cosmetics created a false sense of “the self.&amp;quot; “A woman’s personal success relied on her appearance.” (P.355) What about her abilities, her work ethic, etc? -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wonder what the guys in the class think about makeup in this class. I personally don&amp;#039;t like makeup, but that might be more of a personal opinion reflecting my upbringing and interpretations of media. I suppose the question is--if makeup is not linked to prostitution anymore, then what is, because for some reason I think that makeup still represents that oldest of professions to some degree. I have no idea how looking &amp;quot;exotic&amp;quot; is supposed to be less offensive...I don&amp;#039;t really understand the WASP middle class fascination with all things different--is this a new development or something that arose around this time period? I like Mary Ann&amp;#039;s interpretation of the rise of makeup, highlighting feminine features when increasing numbers of women were entering the public sphere. So my question is whether or not the rising popularity of makeup indicative of a new level of freedom experienced by women or something that more firmly entrenched and highlighted their separateness from men? I suppose this goes back to the arguments between the feminists and social feminists insofar as making a truly equal society or preserving protective legislation... -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time.  The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well.  I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why would Dr. Frederick &amp;quot;of course...tried to explain it away?&amp;quot; Didn&amp;#039;t Jane Addams, Louise DeKoven Brown and other Chicago reformers blame overwork, commercialized recreation and alcohol for &amp;quot;bringing out natural yearnings and instincts that THEY preferred to see repressed&amp;quot;? Why would these women want to see these instincts repressed? Wouldn&amp;#039;t a prominent woman such as Addams OF COURSE have approved of open sexual practices? And why would Dr. Frederick have bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex? Mosher&amp;#039;s study wasn&amp;#039;t common nor was it published, so why are we assuming today that it was a common thing to ask women about their attitudes towards sex a century ago? And didn&amp;#039;t the Mosher survey find that some women didn&amp;#039;t have an interest in sex? I&amp;#039;m sure that women&amp;#039;s history is a contentious topic but objectivity needs to be maintained and we need to make sure that we don&amp;#039;t project our modern day assumptions into history.  -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, no one’s assuming that it was common practice for women to be interviewed about sex at that time, or really for anyone to be interviewed about it at that time. Nor do I see anyone projecting modern day assumptions. Frederick’s suggesting that “sexual desire is entirely absent in a much larger number of women than is generally supposed&amp;quot; (291) and that any woman who expresses real sexual desire is pretty much a nymphomaniac. I simply pointed out that, despite the impropriety of asking such questions at the time and in particular coming from a man, if he had done &amp;#039;&amp;#039;actual&amp;#039;&amp;#039; scientific research, such as the interviews conducted by Mosher (and from the samples we saw, all of the women often found sex agreeable), that he would have probably disregarded the answers and tried to explain them away because it didn’t jive with his and society’s beliefs about women. A lot of people probably would have done the same. Yet, clearly the Mosher survey shows that there were some women of the period who were more open to sex and recognized that they enjoyed it or even that it was necessary to their health. So, sure, maybe there were women like Jane Addams who preferred to see sex repressed, but there were also women who didn’t want to repress their sexual desires. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Taylor here. The Mosher survey is an example of dialogue beginning to open, but certainly not the norm.  The doctor was not going door to door asking all women these questions; this was just a small sample group. That being said a survey such as this not only reveals that women at this time did harbor sexual desire, it also illustrates that types of marriages that they had. Though some of the women believed that sex was primarily for the purpose of procreation and male sexual satisfaction, others felt that it was a key component to the marriage. This was not a popular conversation at the time so I do not see how any of the former posts were projecting modern ideals onto the study.   –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses Discuss the Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses stressed the importance of the sexual relationship between the husband and wife, in order to obtain a fulfilled and happy marriage.  Their goals were to make sex education more available to the “average” person and not limited to only professional classes and to show the importance of women’s own active participation in the physical relationship of marriage.  They acknowledged that women had recognized themselves as sexual beings in this modern era and needed to be educated to fulfill those roles in a marriage of mutual companionship.  I think they were writing for those who restricted this information from getting out.  They are showing that by restricting this information that they are impairing (what they called handicapping) women from obtaining that fulfilled happy marriage and encouraging personality conflicts by allowing ignorance on the subject of sex.  In general, I don’t think people knew how to react to this information.  They probably felt it was needed and wanted but some were afraid to openly acknowledge this but secretly may have wanted to obtain it.  There were religious reasons that encouraged people to reject this in fear of being immoral and inappropriate.  Some women may have been comfortable with the rigidity of women’s role whereas others felt that it allowed women a  more equal partner in the marriage.  Blanchard and Manasses were saying that by educating women, they would meet the needs of their own sexual desires and expectations and being more apt to satisfying her partner.  These women are liberal in their thoughts on pre-marital sex and emphasized that one should try their partners out sexually before marriage to see if they would be compatible.  I don’t think that this was generally accepted though it wouldn’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t being practiced.  In the eyes of these two Psychologists, the modern marriage required a larger emphasis on the physical side and this made the importance of educating women about sex and contraceptives even more important.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carlton C. Fredericks, M.D.’s assessment of what he calls “Nymphomania” was absurd. He even goes as far to propose that women who view sex or masturbation as gratifying automatically classify them as perverts. It seems that any sexual expression that he deemed as improper was in some way perverse. It was such a contrast to the Mosher study because Fredericks views a women’s sexual appetite as “insane or mildly insane”(291) where Mosher is finding that many women feel it is necessary to carry on a healthy marriage. It is interesting as well because the Mosher&amp;#039;s study took place at around the same time, the duality between these two school of thought are amazing! –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If there was one article I read out loud incredulously as I forced my roommate to listen, it was this one. Fredericks gets the Women&amp;#039;s History prize for Official Idiot, and I hope he was recognized as such during his time, although I doubt it. His accusations are not only wildly speculative and libelous, but also unfounded and unsupported by neutral documentation. Even if you took out the ridiculous subject material, his disturbing lack of evidence and wild examples would make for an extremely weak argument.  --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wonder if I am finding this thread to be a bit ridiculous because I am a male or if there is just a little hint of a bias in peoples&amp;#039; interpretations of this primary source. First, unless I am mistaken and if I am, then someone please correct me, but I had thought that masturbation by anyone, males or females, was considered a perversion of sorts during this time period. Second, did Mosher find anything contrary to what Frederick did? I don&amp;#039;t remember reading any of Mosher&amp;#039;s own interpretations of the interview results, the reading is just the interview questions and answers--none of Mosher&amp;#039;s own analysis there, unless I forgot something. Differences between results? Where was Frederick based out of? Were Californians more liberal back then as they are now? Even if they weren&amp;#039;t, geographical considerations have to be taken into account before a comparison can be made. Why is Frederick&amp;#039;s study less convincing? Does it not represent the popular AND professional understanding of femininity and sexuality at the time? And before we dismiss his claim that the numbers and variations of practices were too various to include and such, this was published in a journal, and therefore couldn&amp;#039;t include whatever raw data he might or might not have collected. Again, why was Frederick an idiot--for publishing something that was in line with the prevalent medical opinion concerning this issue? Same argument for the other complaints about Frederick. I&amp;#039;m not defending Frederick as a person, I am only arguing for trying to retain some semblance of objectivity when reading primary documents and trying to put them in the context of their time period rather than impose our own conceptions onto history. -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that the people finding Frederick’s report ridiculous do recognize that it would have been in line with traditional medical assumptions of the day. You’re right that the survey has none of Mosher’s own analysis, but I think the answers (at least the ones we were able to read and that’s key for anything we say regarding it) speak for themselves. All of the women found sex agreeable, except for one woman who found it agreeable “usually.” All of them said there were times when they desired sex, and some of them said the ideal would be to have sex when both the husband and wife wanted it. The idea of a woman actually &amp;#039;&amp;#039;wanting&amp;#039;&amp;#039; sex, and not being a nympho, is the complete opposite of Frederick’s report. So, to answer your question, yes, the survey contradicts Frederick, and that’s putting it lightly. Reading the Mosher survey right before Frederick’s report really highlights his lack of evidence for his claims, and maybe that’s why people were reacting so harshly towards him in their comments. Wanting scientific evidence isn’t even out of line with the time period either. Frankly, for all of your talk about looking at primary sources within their context, I think you’re ignoring the Mosher survey within its context. To me, the survey (in the parts we read) suggests that perhaps Frederick’s assumptions about women and their sexual desire, or lack thereof, weren’t as prevalent in actual society as believed. Perhaps public assumptions about sex didn’t completely match up with personal assumptions about sex, if that makes any sense. Unfortunately, we don’t have many surveys like Mosher’s. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, Taylor I agree. The Fredericks report seems quite frankly, his opinion of women. I understand that this was a popular notion held by many medical professionals at the time, but he shows no objectivity, nor does he express any scientific evidence to back up his claim. The Mosher study, though it does not provide and analysis of the subject matter at the end, still demonstrates how WOMEN viewed sex and sexual satisfaction at the time. The Mosher survey is a sociological study where as the Fredericks Report is an editorialized account. I think when comparing these two primary sources, we have to remember that fact. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
This was a speech given by Carrie Chapman Catt, to the League of Women&amp;#039;s Voters right after the ninteenth amendment was passed and women were given the right to vote.  Now that they have this right, they need to excercise it and become involved in politics and this speech is intended to do just that.  The context for this speech is very important because if it was made before women had the right to vote, it would not carry as much weight.  However, now that they have this right, they can take immediate action and get involved politically.  I think in this slight time of confusion of what exactly to do with this huge, new important right, this speech can help give women much needed direction.  -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  &amp;quot;You won&amp;#039;t be so welcome there, but that is the place to be,&amp;quot; (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says &amp;quot;this is the same old struggle but in a new field.&amp;quot; She new that just because women had the right to vote didn&amp;#039;t mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights.  The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process.  Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak.  EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I concur (big word) with EFritz with the acknowledgement that Catt was fully aware of the impending struggles of women. She recognizes the difficulties women will now face as voters. Though they have the right to vote, it does not inherently mean that everything else they desired, namely equality with men, will be achieved. Though suffrage was obtained it does not bring about total reconstruction in societal norms, which have been in place for centuries. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that at the bottom of this article there is a very simple goal for Carrie Chapman Catt, to get recognition from the world of the actual substantiality of women. Since that is a rather large, ambiguous, and (considering it still has not been a completed goal)impossible goal she had to first start aiming that goal toward the women she expected to lead the fight to accomplish it. Although it almost seems as though Catt is talking to women she had already convinced to join her in the fight towards suffrage, I personally believe she is attempting to persuade women who may not understand that they are being oppressed by the lack of societal recognition for their greatness. She is trying to inform them that they were born great women and should fight to be recognized for that, even if that fight means going against the crowd that would rather the women would just shut up and deal with their place in life. I think the people who she wasn&amp;#039;t trying to persuade with this message would take it the same way that people in today&amp;#039;s society react when they&amp;#039;re reminded with the continued inequality of Women in places like the workforce; They&amp;#039;d either not care, not understand why anyone would bother to care, care a lot, or justify the reasoning for the inequalities on arbitrary facts (like women being capable of getting pregnant meaning that they will use that capability to miss out on working and lose the company money, which is why they aren&amp;#039;t paid as much). On the other side, people hearing this argument from the other side might find an invigoration for the cause so great that they dedicate their life to changing and fighting for the rights of women. Men might read this article and realize that they have no justification within society for the woman to still be dealing with the same fight she&amp;#039;d been dealing with throughout the entirety of the existence of the United States. That reaction, however, I feel is entirely unlikely and considering the lack of women&amp;#039;s equality still existing today to a great extent, it probably was unlikely. Carrie Chapman Catt, however, probably felt that she had to write this article because she had to express to her followers, potential followers and dissenters that she wasn&amp;#039;t done fighting just because women finally got the right to vote. To her, that was just the first step. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Carrie Chapman Catt gave this cautionary speech to women as a way to remind them that they should not forget what they fought so hard for. She wants women to use their heads and think for themselves. She doesn&amp;#039;t want them to vote how their husbands vote just because. She doesn&amp;#039;t want them to only discuss politics within their homes and only influence their husbands. She wants women to realize that just voting is not enough, but they have to step into the political arena and voice their opinions. I think this probably did not go over well with many people at the time, especially conservative men. Just like in the first western states that gave women suffrage, men were probably expecting women to just follow their lead in political opinion. I&amp;#039;m sure they were surprised and a bit distraught to learn that Carrie Chapman Catt was directing women to learn about politics themselves, formulate their own opinions, and then fight to get their ideas and views out there. --Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All speeches have a purpose. In her speech, Catt is trying to convince the women in the audience to position themselves on the inside of politics. In this case, the audience is the League of Women Voters, whose stated goal was to prove that women could be effective, involved voters. Therefore, this audience would likely to agree with Catt’s opinion that the fight for suffrage was hard, but the potential revolutionary impact of women having the right to vote hadn’t yet been realized. Had Catt given this same speech to a different audience I doubt she would have had the excited reaction and applause as she did when speaking to the League of Women Voters. Some women were happy merely having the right to vote, and probably would have seen Catt’s opinions about women being in the most public of positions wrong because they were against the perceived gender roles of the time. It is important to keep in mind that the majority of women who supported women’s suffrage did so in order to support issues that they found important, for most of these women, women’s rights was not at the forefront of their priorities. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment.  Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society.  To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men.  Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion.  Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true.  She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women.  She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE&amp;#039;RE EQUAL!! Others didn&amp;#039;t quite that stance. It&amp;#039;s important to remember that many women approved of women&amp;#039;s suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different.  She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified.  ---jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the two arguments that Alice Hamilton and Doris Stevens gave I found Steven’s debate to be more influential than Hamilton’s. Steven’s was very straight forward about what she wanted, especially in listing what the Equal Rights Amendment would achieve for women. The list itself is eye-catching because it isn’t part of a paragraph, a radical move by a radical woman I suppose. I think that Doris is the epitome of what younger women didn’t want to be like, as Bromley further suggestes in her article. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously the debate that appeared in The Forum in 1924 would have been written for people who were able to obtain copies-mostly white, middle class, men and some women. Both sides were defending their positions of whether to have an Equal Rights Amendment or not. Doris Stevens basically believed that suffrage alone did not give women full rights as humans and needed more protection of the law and equality. She clearly defined the rights she thought women were due including &amp;quot;Equal Citizenship rights&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Equal pay for equal rights&amp;quot; (125). Like Morgan, I don&amp;#039;t find Hamilton&amp;#039;s argument nearly as convincing. I may also be biased, however, because I still find it very unusual for women to not desire the same amount of rights that men had or think that having more rights might even be harmful for women or cause more problems. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The goals of both authors, Doris Stevens and Alice Hamilton, were to appeal to their affiliations and to persuade readers that their certain cause was more just than the others.  Whether this was accomplished is debatable however. I can see why some women, either part of the National Women’s Party or the League of Women’s Voters, may have read this debate and changed side based upon it. Not being part of either I can see both side’s points and the validity behind them. The circumstances under which the debate was written was at a time of the 1920’s when women had achieved suffrage and were looking for something else that they could fight for, as well as bond together over. Most women after being given the right to vote, as well as Congress, didn’t see anything else that women needed. There was so much that could be gained by an Equal Rights Amendment, but the younger generation seemed unwilling to fight for it. Even the white, middle class women who had always had issues with something political or male oriented. I think that the arguments presented between both women were viewed as a good show, but nothing of great importance. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz, &amp;quot;Sexual Geography &amp;amp; Gender Economy&amp;quot; in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This essay discusses the growing sexual and emotional freedom that women were obtaining in the eartly 20th century.  They were able to choose how they wanted to carry themselves sexually in society.  However, to me, this essay was also a great paradox.  Although these women expressed themselves more feely than in the past, they were also severley tied down to men still.  Even in these so-called &amp;quot;furnished-room&amp;quot; districts, there was still sexual oppression and these women were subject to rape, poor conditions and economic dependence.  Although they could conceibably choose their different sex partners, they were also very dependent on these men for their business.  They need to break away from these districts in order to be truly sexually liberated.  Many downplayed these factors, but in order for women to liberated, these constraints must be lifted.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, &amp;quot;opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion&amp;quot; (US, 335). This &amp;quot;freedom of urban life&amp;quot; gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today the women described in this article would be a combination of a prostitute and a “sugar-baby” to a “sugar-daddy”.  Like others I found “dating,” “pick-ups,” “occasional prostitution,” and “temporary alliances” (329) as odd names to give to these casual sexual encounters, as if they were nothing at all. I doubt that these women thought anything of it and let it become a way of life though. Instead of going out and finding better jobs or more work, they fell back onto the notion of being a woman could get them what they wanted without the work. “If I did not have a man, I could not get along on my wages.” (330) -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What&amp;#039;s behind the three different versions of the sexual revolution? Flappers vs independent new women vs working-class rowdy girls. Is there one single interpretation that can explain the revolution or do all three have some merit? Also interesting, it seems as though some people now see prostitution as a good thing, if not a means to get by economically. I recall that most people were shocked and upset when reading about the Chinese prostitutes during the late nineteenth century...so what changed that makes people more comfortable with this idea? The seeming lack of organization insofar as the kind of bookkeeping that we saw with the bills of sales of Chinese prostitutes? Does the lack of that kind of documentation naturally imply that women were no longer coerced into prostitution, even if it was to just get by once in a while? Or were there pimps, perhaps some of the men living with them in these furnished districts that acted in such a capacity but without drawing up bills or contracts since prostitution was illegal now? And if this wasn&amp;#039;t the case, which I suspect might have been in at least some shape or form, perhaps societal pressures from their peers coerced them into prostitution, since apparently if a good looking girl didn&amp;#039;t sell herself she was considered a fool. What&amp;#039;s worse? That kind of social coercion or the kind of legal coercion that we saw in California? -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feminism.. &amp;quot;For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman&amp;#039;s place in the world...&amp;quot; I enjoyed this line... that&amp;#039;s how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I found it interesting how &amp;quot;Feminist-New Style&amp;quot; felt superior to the older women who had enabled them to lead the comfortable, sociable lifestyles they pursued. They felt no gratitude towards these former suffragettes, only contempt. Is this because they felt stronger than them because of their youth, felt more independent because of their economic independence, or just simply thought they were entitled to all of the rights they had? The answer baffles me. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Anna&amp;#039;s question, I think it might have a been a combination of the three. Even today, it is obvious in some cases where youths are ungrateful for what they have been given or the privileges they have been born with. For instance, many Americans view the opportunity to vote as a right, not the privilege it is. The same can be said for the women of this particular era. Simultaneously,  the economic independence that these women were able to benefit from would give them almost a false sense of self. They would not appreciate the labors their mothers had to endure. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I absolutely loved this article because I think it actually represents alot of the ideals that modern women have today. I think it was really progressive for Bromley to talk about women being able to have both a career AND a family, giving equal attention to both. That is the sort of equality that women have been fighting for, the right to be happy. Bromley is saying that women the new woman, if she balances everything correctly, can be very happy. She has the ability to be a professional and still has the ability to be a mom. She doesn&amp;#039;t need to constantly argue that she is as good as a man because she can just simply prove it in her actions. I think its really cool how she sort of brings all the different opinions of what women should be doing together and forms a type of super woman. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My favorite part of this article, other than the ambition of younger women to have a family and a career (as Angie points out) was the reference to war materials. “With a battle-cry still on their lips…still throwing hand grenades,” (128).  This article was written in 1927 and “The Great War” had only ended ten years earlier. I believe that tensions in the Us may have still been raw and that may be the reason for such a reference. Bromley effectively suggests that the 1st and 2nd generation women as battle-hardened veterans. As veterans I would expect them to cold and judgmental toward those that they had fought against, men. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I thought some of the points made by the New Style Feminists were good, I can&amp;#039;t help but feel that their mothers and even grandmothers would be sad to see the flippant way they discussed their struggles and triumphs. They seem to have forgotten that these women fought hard so that they their daughters would not have to. While their argument about creating your own identity instead of fighting to keep your maiden name was valid these new style feminists seemed to have overlooked what was at the core of the feminist movement. It was interesting to see how this article shows the differences between generations. Although the New Style idea of the stereotype of feminism has a cause for angry and embittered women has definitely persevered.--Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The goal of Dorothy Bromley’s “Feminist-New Style” article, of 1927, was to differentiate between the three generations of women that were part of the 1920’s era and to emphasize the younger generation. Obviously Bromley was a strong supporter, defender, of the younger generation and was writing to enhance her reasons for disliking the older generations of women. The young women would have received this article whole heartily as a defense against the older generations, as a response to the criticism they had already received.  The older generations probably saw this article as an attack against them and what they had stood for. Possibly an attack on what they had already accomplished insofar as the younger generation not being appreciative of what they had done for them and the freedoms they had created for them.  Bromley’s article was written at the end of the 1920’s and the beginning of the sexual revolution of the 1930’s just around the corner, the young generation of women were already showing rebellion towards the traditional behavior of women that was expected. This article may have helped instill in the younger generation that what they were doing was ok and more “modern” women, such as Bromley, understood and accepted them, even if the older generations did not. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, I agree with Morgan that perhaps Dorothy Bromley was trying to encourage younger women. I also think that this was a sort of defensive piece as well, though. At the time, men probably were not 100% comfortable with women having their own professional lives and this can be seen as her letting everyone know that the new feminist can balance a family as well as a career. She says things like &amp;quot;she will not, however, live for her job alone&amp;quot; (p. 128) and &amp;quot;nor has she become hostile to the other sex&amp;quot; (p. 129). These statements are comforting to those people that have some crazy idea of a cold-hearted feminist. Perhaps there were a few of them during the suffrage days, but Bromley is trying to convince women AND men that that really is not the case. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anxious mothers were certainly anxious, but who could blame them with a high “maternal and infant” (130) mortality rate.  Like the others who have posted I was quite intrigued by both mother number 2 and number 3. The second mother had, what seemed to me, laughable concerns. I have to remember that women were generally clueless about prenatal care at this point, so I could understand that if you crave something so intensely denying yourself would seem detrimental to the baby, but I was unclear as to why touching your face had anything to do with this. The third mother expressed the most valid concerns of the three. The shear idea of justice in a medical malpractice suit must have seemed so far-fetched at the time, considering that medical malpractices suits are hard to prove today! As the third mother recounted, many of the doctors who claimed to be experts, did not provide adequate care to these mothers in both the pre and post natal area.  The third mothers call for government regulation of hospital practices must have been quite revolutionary at the time, given the fact that many professionals such as doctors were trusted almost blindly. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after.  I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one.  I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program.  It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was &amp;#039;marking&amp;#039; the baby by her cravings.  I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to.  In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article shocking, even mildly sad. The desperation of these women to obtain information about their bodies and pregnancy is a stark contrast to today, when all you have to do is log onto the internet to answer any and every question. What is even worse is that I&amp;#039;m sure the postal system did not operate very quickly back then, leaving the women waiting weeks for an answer from the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau. However, I liked that the government finally took an interest in women&amp;#039;s concerns and created this branch. It clearly was of service to many women of very diverse backgrounds.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this article was really interesting and it was nice to see that the government was giving attention to an area that was obviously in need of federal aid or even just attention. I think sometimes we take for granted how the improvements in modern medicine and healthcare overall have made childbirth significantly safer for women. I was sad to see that the program ended in 1929. Judging by these letters the Bureau was important and helpful to a lot of women. --Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters remind us both that women in the 1920s faced very real threats to their lives during pregnancy and childbirth and that the lives of many women throughout the country continued to revolve around their children and families and not political issues like the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment. The authors of the letters want to do everything they can to be good mothers and protect the health of their children and themselves. But it sounds as though discussion of the matters relating to childbearing, despite the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau publications, were largely absent from public discourse and women found themselves very isolated. Perhaps, like birth control, pregnancy and childbirth was seen as too crude to be discussed openly or even among friends, as the author of the second letter indicates no one in her immediate circle cares about her questions. And women&amp;#039;s issues remained low on the list of priorities of doctors, causing many women to suffer health consequences. One would think that in an age that valued motherhood, especially white middle class motherhood, so extensively, that women like those who wrote the letters would have had more options to keep themselves and their children healthy. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mary Ann is right on point.  Women during this time had little access to health care, especially poor and working class women.  I think it is good to keep in mind that it was usually only the mid to upper class who had access to health care and doctors because they could afford for it.  Also, since this was the period of Comstock Laws, women were unable to access information about birth control which made pregnancy a very real, yet fearful thing because of the risks that were involved.  I believe that these women were writing simply out of need for information they could not access elsewhere.  These women display just a snapshot of the reality of pregnancy during this period, while also echoing the concerns of women who were now expected to be completely responsible for both the home and the children.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann as well. We do have also remove ourselves from the modern notions of child birth and child rearing and remember that it was quite life threatening.  It was not uncommon for women to have one child after another as well because of the lack of birth control. It must have been very comforting to these women to have a Federal agency such as the Children’s Bureau   to guide them.  In the aftermath of the Great War, I gather that many women turned to Children’s Bureau for help. I looked up some more information on the Bureau on our favorite Wikipedia and found out that it was created by President Taft In 1912 and that Julia Lathrop was the first head of the Bureau. I wonder if Taft appointed her because he thought that as a woman she was more qualified to run the Bureau or if she was simply THE person for the job.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Excerpt from &amp;quot;Passing&amp;quot; by Nella Larsen ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember reading this scene from &amp;quot;Passing&amp;quot; back when my high school class covered the novel, and I was very intrigued by the notion of passing and the possible reasons for it. The story Clare gives for her own experience in passing in this section seems to be one of convenience and opportunity (raised by white aunts that did not advertise her background), deception (she manipulates her husband to run away with her before her aunts could reveal she was black), and a lot of yearning (she seems to resent her aunt&amp;#039;s treatment of her and other white people, which makes her passing as a white person ironic).     --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Sarah about how intriguing this passage was. After reading this excerpt, I think that Nella Larsen&amp;#039;s topic was something that had crossed the minds of many African Americans at the time. The idea of &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; into another life, just to experience the other side, was something that I&amp;#039;m sure, African American men and women all had imagined at some point.  It was sad though, how Clare had to hide her race, at the request of her aunts. It was interesting to me that although she lived with her aunts, she was still expected to &amp;quot;doing all the housework, and most of the washing.&amp;quot; (P. 140) In the story, Clare even says that she had &amp;quot;Negro blood&amp;quot; and apparently that is why she did all the housework, and it was almost expected of her because of her race. The Harlem Renaissance gave Nella Larsen a way to voice this imaginative idea, to maybe give the rest of the world the idea that African Americans merely wanted to be like everyone else, and she portrayed this by showing how important &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; was for Clare. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The negative stereotypes associated with African Americans really stands out in this passage and I think they are important to emphasizing why an African American would consider &amp;quot;passing.&amp;quot;  They include African Americans being poor, domestic servants, charity cases, promiscuous, and inferior to whites.  Even if they were hard-working or good people, African Americans had to overcome some rather harsh stereotypes.  I can definitely see trying to &amp;quot;pass&amp;quot; as a white and living with less trials as tempting.  On another note, Clare having to hide her race, and being able to, made me think of the light skinned black models on the magazine covers we looked at in class.  While they were clearly appealing to African American audiences, I feel like the magazines were putting out a message that said &amp;quot;being white is where it is at!&amp;quot;  So, perhaps light skinned black women did try &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; as whites by downplaying their color and race?  I am sure make-up made that feat much easier.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women of the Ku Klux Klan==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that these women necessarily hated the races that the KKK targeted or necessarily wished them harm, but they probably felt threatened by the large waves of immigrants coming in to America in the early twentieth century.  These immigrants were coming in to America in large numbers and practically taking over the job market.  And like we learned in class, these women were most likely afraid of both their shrinking family size and the white race.  Of course, the race was not dying out, but it certainly seemed like it with all of the other races that either continued to have many children and or just seemed to be everywhere.  In reality, I believe that the KKK offered white women a place to come together and feel like a unified race in an American that was suddenly becoming filled with so many different races.  --  CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-16T02:01:46Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Excerpt from &amp;quot;Passing&amp;quot; by Nella Larsen */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;EXTRA CREDIT:  Focusing only on the primary source readings, discuss the context within which one or two of these documents were created: What were the goals of the people writing?  Who were they writing for?  Consider the circumstances of their creation.  How would people at the time have received those ideas or claims and why?   (Think broadly; some people would like some ideas that others would not.) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith==&lt;br /&gt;
Since we didn&amp;#039;t get a chance to spend time on them in class, you can listen to some of their music [http://kokoro.umwblogs.org/2010/03/13/ma-rainey-and-bessie-smith/ here]. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks Taylor! - christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching.  I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so.  I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal.  -Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the phrase “hope in a jar” (P.360) was interesting because it showed how women depended so much on make up to bring them more importance in the world. They also expected make-up to make life smoother for them, bringing them new opportunities. So many acts, like using make up that were previously looked down upon, were suddenly accepted when society saw that movie stars/high class people would use cosmetics. Society and culture was so easily influenced by outside factors such as movies. I think during this time, cosmetics created a false sense of “the self.&amp;quot; “A woman’s personal success relied on her appearance.” (P.355) What about her abilities, her work ethic, etc? -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wonder what the guys in the class think about makeup in this class. I personally don&amp;#039;t like makeup, but that might be more of a personal opinion reflecting my upbringing and interpretations of media. I suppose the question is--if makeup is not linked to prostitution anymore, then what is, because for some reason I think that makeup still represents that oldest of professions to some degree. I have no idea how looking &amp;quot;exotic&amp;quot; is supposed to be less offensive...I don&amp;#039;t really understand the WASP middle class fascination with all things different--is this a new development or something that arose around this time period? I like Mary Ann&amp;#039;s interpretation of the rise of makeup, highlighting feminine features when increasing numbers of women were entering the public sphere. So my question is whether or not the rising popularity of makeup indicative of a new level of freedom experienced by women or something that more firmly entrenched and highlighted their separateness from men? I suppose this goes back to the arguments between the feminists and social feminists insofar as making a truly equal society or preserving protective legislation... -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time.  The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well.  I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why would Dr. Frederick &amp;quot;of course...tried to explain it away?&amp;quot; Didn&amp;#039;t Jane Addams, Louise DeKoven Brown and other Chicago reformers blame overwork, commercialized recreation and alcohol for &amp;quot;bringing out natural yearnings and instincts that THEY preferred to see repressed&amp;quot;? Why would these women want to see these instincts repressed? Wouldn&amp;#039;t a prominent woman such as Addams OF COURSE have approved of open sexual practices? And why would Dr. Frederick have bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex? Mosher&amp;#039;s study wasn&amp;#039;t common nor was it published, so why are we assuming today that it was a common thing to ask women about their attitudes towards sex a century ago? And didn&amp;#039;t the Mosher survey find that some women didn&amp;#039;t have an interest in sex? I&amp;#039;m sure that women&amp;#039;s history is a contentious topic but objectivity needs to be maintained and we need to make sure that we don&amp;#039;t project our modern day assumptions into history.  -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, no one’s assuming that it was common practice for women to be interviewed about sex at that time, or really for anyone to be interviewed about it at that time. Nor do I see anyone projecting modern day assumptions. Frederick’s suggesting that “sexual desire is entirely absent in a much larger number of women than is generally supposed&amp;quot; (291) and that any woman who expresses real sexual desire is pretty much a nymphomaniac. I simply pointed out that, despite the impropriety of asking such questions at the time and in particular coming from a man, if he had done &amp;#039;&amp;#039;actual&amp;#039;&amp;#039; scientific research, such as the interviews conducted by Mosher (and from the samples we saw, all of the women often found sex agreeable), that he would have probably disregarded the answers and tried to explain them away because it didn’t jive with his and society’s beliefs about women. A lot of people probably would have done the same. Yet, clearly the Mosher survey shows that there were some women of the period who were more open to sex and recognized that they enjoyed it or even that it was necessary to their health. So, sure, maybe there were women like Jane Addams who preferred to see sex repressed, but there were also women who didn’t want to repress their sexual desires. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Taylor here. The Mosher survey is an example of dialogue beginning to open, but certainly not the norm.  The doctor was not going door to door asking all women these questions; this was just a small sample group. That being said a survey such as this not only reveals that women at this time did harbor sexual desire, it also illustrates that types of marriages that they had. Though some of the women believed that sex was primarily for the purpose of procreation and male sexual satisfaction, others felt that it was a key component to the marriage. This was not a popular conversation at the time so I do not see how any of the former posts were projecting modern ideals onto the study.   –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses Discuss the Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses stressed the importance of the sexual relationship between the husband and wife, in order to obtain a fulfilled and happy marriage.  Their goals were to make sex education more available to the “average” person and not limited to only professional classes and to show the importance of women’s own active participation in the physical relationship of marriage.  They acknowledged that women had recognized themselves as sexual beings in this modern era and needed to be educated to fulfill those roles in a marriage of mutual companionship.  I think they were writing for those who restricted this information from getting out.  They are showing that by restricting this information that they are impairing (what they called handicapping) women from obtaining that fulfilled happy marriage and encouraging personality conflicts by allowing ignorance on the subject of sex.  In general, I don’t think people knew how to react to this information.  They probably felt it was needed and wanted but some were afraid to openly acknowledge this but secretly may have wanted to obtain it.  There were religious reasons that encouraged people to reject this in fear of being immoral and inappropriate.  Some women may have been comfortable with the rigidity of women’s role whereas others felt that it allowed women a  more equal partner in the marriage.  Blanchard and Manasses were saying that by educating women, they would meet the needs of their own sexual desires and expectations and being more apt to satisfying her partner.  These women are liberal in their thoughts on pre-marital sex and emphasized that one should try their partners out sexually before marriage to see if they would be compatible.  I don’t think that this was generally accepted though it wouldn’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t being practiced.  In the eyes of these two Psychologists, the modern marriage required a larger emphasis on the physical side and this made the importance of educating women about sex and contraceptives even more important.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carlton C. Fredericks, M.D.’s assessment of what he calls “Nymphomania” was absurd. He even goes as far to propose that women who view sex or masturbation as gratifying automatically classify them as perverts. It seems that any sexual expression that he deemed as improper was in some way perverse. It was such a contrast to the Mosher study because Fredericks views a women’s sexual appetite as “insane or mildly insane”(291) where Mosher is finding that many women feel it is necessary to carry on a healthy marriage. It is interesting as well because the Mosher&amp;#039;s study took place at around the same time, the duality between these two school of thought are amazing! –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If there was one article I read out loud incredulously as I forced my roommate to listen, it was this one. Fredericks gets the Women&amp;#039;s History prize for Official Idiot, and I hope he was recognized as such during his time, although I doubt it. His accusations are not only wildly speculative and libelous, but also unfounded and unsupported by neutral documentation. Even if you took out the ridiculous subject material, his disturbing lack of evidence and wild examples would make for an extremely weak argument.  --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wonder if I am finding this thread to be a bit ridiculous because I am a male or if there is just a little hint of a bias in peoples&amp;#039; interpretations of this primary source. First, unless I am mistaken and if I am, then someone please correct me, but I had thought that masturbation by anyone, males or females, was considered a perversion of sorts during this time period. Second, did Mosher find anything contrary to what Frederick did? I don&amp;#039;t remember reading any of Mosher&amp;#039;s own interpretations of the interview results, the reading is just the interview questions and answers--none of Mosher&amp;#039;s own analysis there, unless I forgot something. Differences between results? Where was Frederick based out of? Were Californians more liberal back then as they are now? Even if they weren&amp;#039;t, geographical considerations have to be taken into account before a comparison can be made. Why is Frederick&amp;#039;s study less convincing? Does it not represent the popular AND professional understanding of femininity and sexuality at the time? And before we dismiss his claim that the numbers and variations of practices were too various to include and such, this was published in a journal, and therefore couldn&amp;#039;t include whatever raw data he might or might not have collected. Again, why was Frederick an idiot--for publishing something that was in line with the prevalent medical opinion concerning this issue? Same argument for the other complaints about Frederick. I&amp;#039;m not defending Frederick as a person, I am only arguing for trying to retain some semblance of objectivity when reading primary documents and trying to put them in the context of their time period rather than impose our own conceptions onto history. -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that the people finding Frederick’s report ridiculous do recognize that it would have been in line with traditional medical assumptions of the day. You’re right that the survey has none of Mosher’s own analysis, but I think the answers (at least the ones we were able to read and that’s key for anything we say regarding it) speak for themselves. All of the women found sex agreeable, except for one woman who found it agreeable “usually.” All of them said there were times when they desired sex, and some of them said the ideal would be to have sex when both the husband and wife wanted it. The idea of a woman actually &amp;#039;&amp;#039;wanting&amp;#039;&amp;#039; sex, and not being a nympho, is the complete opposite of Frederick’s report. So, to answer your question, yes, the survey contradicts Frederick, and that’s putting it lightly. Reading the Mosher survey right before Frederick’s report really highlights his lack of evidence for his claims, and maybe that’s why people were reacting so harshly towards him in their comments. Wanting scientific evidence isn’t even out of line with the time period either. Frankly, for all of your talk about looking at primary sources within their context, I think you’re ignoring the Mosher survey within its context. To me, the survey (in the parts we read) suggests that perhaps Frederick’s assumptions about women and their sexual desire, or lack thereof, weren’t as prevalent in actual society as believed. Perhaps public assumptions about sex didn’t completely match up with personal assumptions about sex, if that makes any sense. Unfortunately, we don’t have many surveys like Mosher’s. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, Taylor I agree. The Fredericks report seems quite frankly, his opinion of women. I understand that this was a popular notion held by many medical professionals at the time, but he shows no objectivity, nor does he express any scientific evidence to back up his claim. The Mosher study, though it does not provide and analysis of the subject matter at the end, still demonstrates how WOMEN viewed sex and sexual satisfaction at the time. The Mosher survey is a sociological study where as the Fredericks Report is an editorialized account. I think when comparing these two primary sources, we have to remember that fact. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
This was a speech given by Carrie Chapman Catt, to the League of Women&amp;#039;s Voters right after the ninteenth amendment was passed and women were given the right to vote.  Now that they have this right, they need to excercise it and become involved in politics and this speech is intended to do just that.  The context for this speech is very important because if it was made before women had the right to vote, it would not carry as much weight.  However, now that they have this right, they can take immediate action and get involved politically.  I think in this slight time of confusion of what exactly to do with this huge, new important right, this speech can help give women much needed direction.  -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  &amp;quot;You won&amp;#039;t be so welcome there, but that is the place to be,&amp;quot; (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says &amp;quot;this is the same old struggle but in a new field.&amp;quot; She new that just because women had the right to vote didn&amp;#039;t mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights.  The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process.  Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak.  EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I concur (big word) with EFritz with the acknowledgement that Catt was fully aware of the impending struggles of women. She recognizes the difficulties women will now face as voters. Though they have the right to vote, it does not inherently mean that everything else they desired, namely equality with men, will be achieved. Though suffrage was obtained it does not bring about total reconstruction in societal norms, which have been in place for centuries. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that at the bottom of this article there is a very simple goal for Carrie Chapman Catt, to get recognition from the world of the actual substantiality of women. Since that is a rather large, ambiguous, and (considering it still has not been a completed goal)impossible goal she had to first start aiming that goal toward the women she expected to lead the fight to accomplish it. Although it almost seems as though Catt is talking to women she had already convinced to join her in the fight towards suffrage, I personally believe she is attempting to persuade women who may not understand that they are being oppressed by the lack of societal recognition for their greatness. She is trying to inform them that they were born great women and should fight to be recognized for that, even if that fight means going against the crowd that would rather the women would just shut up and deal with their place in life. I think the people who she wasn&amp;#039;t trying to persuade with this message would take it the same way that people in today&amp;#039;s society react when they&amp;#039;re reminded with the continued inequality of Women in places like the workforce; They&amp;#039;d either not care, not understand why anyone would bother to care, care a lot, or justify the reasoning for the inequalities on arbitrary facts (like women being capable of getting pregnant meaning that they will use that capability to miss out on working and lose the company money, which is why they aren&amp;#039;t paid as much). On the other side, people hearing this argument from the other side might find an invigoration for the cause so great that they dedicate their life to changing and fighting for the rights of women. Men might read this article and realize that they have no justification within society for the woman to still be dealing with the same fight she&amp;#039;d been dealing with throughout the entirety of the existence of the United States. That reaction, however, I feel is entirely unlikely and considering the lack of women&amp;#039;s equality still existing today to a great extent, it probably was unlikely. Carrie Chapman Catt, however, probably felt that she had to write this article because she had to express to her followers, potential followers and dissenters that she wasn&amp;#039;t done fighting just because women finally got the right to vote. To her, that was just the first step. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Carrie Chapman Catt gave this cautionary speech to women as a way to remind them that they should not forget what they fought so hard for. She wants women to use their heads and think for themselves. She doesn&amp;#039;t want them to vote how their husbands vote just because. She doesn&amp;#039;t want them to only discuss politics within their homes and only influence their husbands. She wants women to realize that just voting is not enough, but they have to step into the political arena and voice their opinions. I think this probably did not go over well with many people at the time, especially conservative men. Just like in the first western states that gave women suffrage, men were probably expecting women to just follow their lead in political opinion. I&amp;#039;m sure they were surprised and a bit distraught to learn that Carrie Chapman Catt was directing women to learn about politics themselves, formulate their own opinions, and then fight to get their ideas and views out there. --Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All speeches have a purpose. In her speech, Catt is trying to convince the women in the audience to position themselves on the inside of politics. In this case, the audience is the League of Women Voters, whose stated goal was to prove that women could be effective, involved voters. Therefore, this audience would likely to agree with Catt’s opinion that the fight for suffrage was hard, but the potential revolutionary impact of women having the right to vote hadn’t yet been realized. Had Catt given this same speech to a different audience I doubt she would have had the excited reaction and applause as she did when speaking to the League of Women Voters. Some women were happy merely having the right to vote, and probably would have seen Catt’s opinions about women being in the most public of positions wrong because they were against the perceived gender roles of the time. It is important to keep in mind that the majority of women who supported women’s suffrage did so in order to support issues that they found important, for most of these women, women’s rights was not at the forefront of their priorities. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment.  Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society.  To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men.  Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion.  Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true.  She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women.  She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE&amp;#039;RE EQUAL!! Others didn&amp;#039;t quite that stance. It&amp;#039;s important to remember that many women approved of women&amp;#039;s suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different.  She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified.  ---jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the two arguments that Alice Hamilton and Doris Stevens gave I found Steven’s debate to be more influential than Hamilton’s. Steven’s was very straight forward about what she wanted, especially in listing what the Equal Rights Amendment would achieve for women. The list itself is eye-catching because it isn’t part of a paragraph, a radical move by a radical woman I suppose. I think that Doris is the epitome of what younger women didn’t want to be like, as Bromley further suggestes in her article. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously the debate that appeared in The Forum in 1924 would have been written for people who were able to obtain copies-mostly white, middle class, men and some women. Both sides were defending their positions of whether to have an Equal Rights Amendment or not. Doris Stevens basically believed that suffrage alone did not give women full rights as humans and needed more protection of the law and equality. She clearly defined the rights she thought women were due including &amp;quot;Equal Citizenship rights&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Equal pay for equal rights&amp;quot; (125). Like Morgan, I don&amp;#039;t find Hamilton&amp;#039;s argument nearly as convincing. I may also be biased, however, because I still find it very unusual for women to not desire the same amount of rights that men had or think that having more rights might even be harmful for women or cause more problems. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The goals of both authors, Doris Stevens and Alice Hamilton, were to appeal to their affiliations and to persuade readers that their certain cause was more just than the others.  Whether this was accomplished is debatable however. I can see why some women, either part of the National Women’s Party or the League of Women’s Voters, may have read this debate and changed side based upon it. Not being part of either I can see both side’s points and the validity behind them. The circumstances under which the debate was written was at a time of the 1920’s when women had achieved suffrage and were looking for something else that they could fight for, as well as bond together over. Most women after being given the right to vote, as well as Congress, didn’t see anything else that women needed. There was so much that could be gained by an Equal Rights Amendment, but the younger generation seemed unwilling to fight for it. Even the white, middle class women who had always had issues with something political or male oriented. I think that the arguments presented between both women were viewed as a good show, but nothing of great importance. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz, &amp;quot;Sexual Geography &amp;amp; Gender Economy&amp;quot; in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This essay discusses the growing sexual and emotional freedom that women were obtaining in the eartly 20th century.  They were able to choose how they wanted to carry themselves sexually in society.  However, to me, this essay was also a great paradox.  Although these women expressed themselves more feely than in the past, they were also severley tied down to men still.  Even in these so-called &amp;quot;furnished-room&amp;quot; districts, there was still sexual oppression and these women were subject to rape, poor conditions and economic dependence.  Although they could conceibably choose their different sex partners, they were also very dependent on these men for their business.  They need to break away from these districts in order to be truly sexually liberated.  Many downplayed these factors, but in order for women to liberated, these constraints must be lifted.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, &amp;quot;opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion&amp;quot; (US, 335). This &amp;quot;freedom of urban life&amp;quot; gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today the women described in this article would be a combination of a prostitute and a “sugar-baby” to a “sugar-daddy”.  Like others I found “dating,” “pick-ups,” “occasional prostitution,” and “temporary alliances” (329) as odd names to give to these casual sexual encounters, as if they were nothing at all. I doubt that these women thought anything of it and let it become a way of life though. Instead of going out and finding better jobs or more work, they fell back onto the notion of being a woman could get them what they wanted without the work. “If I did not have a man, I could not get along on my wages.” (330) -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What&amp;#039;s behind the three different versions of the sexual revolution? Flappers vs independent new women vs working-class rowdy girls. Is there one single interpretation that can explain the revolution or do all three have some merit? Also interesting, it seems as though some people now see prostitution as a good thing, if not a means to get by economically. I recall that most people were shocked and upset when reading about the Chinese prostitutes during the late nineteenth century...so what changed that makes people more comfortable with this idea? The seeming lack of organization insofar as the kind of bookkeeping that we saw with the bills of sales of Chinese prostitutes? Does the lack of that kind of documentation naturally imply that women were no longer coerced into prostitution, even if it was to just get by once in a while? Or were there pimps, perhaps some of the men living with them in these furnished districts that acted in such a capacity but without drawing up bills or contracts since prostitution was illegal now? And if this wasn&amp;#039;t the case, which I suspect might have been in at least some shape or form, perhaps societal pressures from their peers coerced them into prostitution, since apparently if a good looking girl didn&amp;#039;t sell herself she was considered a fool. What&amp;#039;s worse? That kind of social coercion or the kind of legal coercion that we saw in California? -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feminism.. &amp;quot;For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman&amp;#039;s place in the world...&amp;quot; I enjoyed this line... that&amp;#039;s how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I found it interesting how &amp;quot;Feminist-New Style&amp;quot; felt superior to the older women who had enabled them to lead the comfortable, sociable lifestyles they pursued. They felt no gratitude towards these former suffragettes, only contempt. Is this because they felt stronger than them because of their youth, felt more independent because of their economic independence, or just simply thought they were entitled to all of the rights they had? The answer baffles me. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Anna&amp;#039;s question, I think it might have a been a combination of the three. Even today, it is obvious in some cases where youths are ungrateful for what they have been given or the privileges they have been born with. For instance, many Americans view the opportunity to vote as a right, not the privilege it is. The same can be said for the women of this particular era. Simultaneously,  the economic independence that these women were able to benefit from would give them almost a false sense of self. They would not appreciate the labors their mothers had to endure. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I absolutely loved this article because I think it actually represents alot of the ideals that modern women have today. I think it was really progressive for Bromley to talk about women being able to have both a career AND a family, giving equal attention to both. That is the sort of equality that women have been fighting for, the right to be happy. Bromley is saying that women the new woman, if she balances everything correctly, can be very happy. She has the ability to be a professional and still has the ability to be a mom. She doesn&amp;#039;t need to constantly argue that she is as good as a man because she can just simply prove it in her actions. I think its really cool how she sort of brings all the different opinions of what women should be doing together and forms a type of super woman. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My favorite part of this article, other than the ambition of younger women to have a family and a career (as Angie points out) was the reference to war materials. “With a battle-cry still on their lips…still throwing hand grenades,” (128).  This article was written in 1927 and “The Great War” had only ended ten years earlier. I believe that tensions in the Us may have still been raw and that may be the reason for such a reference. Bromley effectively suggests that the 1st and 2nd generation women as battle-hardened veterans. As veterans I would expect them to cold and judgmental toward those that they had fought against, men. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I thought some of the points made by the New Style Feminists were good, I can&amp;#039;t help but feel that their mothers and even grandmothers would be sad to see the flippant way they discussed their struggles and triumphs. They seem to have forgotten that these women fought hard so that they their daughters would not have to. While their argument about creating your own identity instead of fighting to keep your maiden name was valid these new style feminists seemed to have overlooked what was at the core of the feminist movement. It was interesting to see how this article shows the differences between generations. Although the New Style idea of the stereotype of feminism has a cause for angry and embittered women has definitely persevered.--Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The goal of Dorothy Bromley’s “Feminist-New Style” article, of 1927, was to differentiate between the three generations of women that were part of the 1920’s era and to emphasize the younger generation. Obviously Bromley was a strong supporter, defender, of the younger generation and was writing to enhance her reasons for disliking the older generations of women. The young women would have received this article whole heartily as a defense against the older generations, as a response to the criticism they had already received.  The older generations probably saw this article as an attack against them and what they had stood for. Possibly an attack on what they had already accomplished insofar as the younger generation not being appreciative of what they had done for them and the freedoms they had created for them.  Bromley’s article was written at the end of the 1920’s and the beginning of the sexual revolution of the 1930’s just around the corner, the young generation of women were already showing rebellion towards the traditional behavior of women that was expected. This article may have helped instill in the younger generation that what they were doing was ok and more “modern” women, such as Bromley, understood and accepted them, even if the older generations did not. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, I agree with Morgan that perhaps Dorothy Bromley was trying to encourage younger women. I also think that this was a sort of defensive piece as well, though. At the time, men probably were not 100% comfortable with women having their own professional lives and this can be seen as her letting everyone know that the new feminist can balance a family as well as a career. She says things like &amp;quot;she will not, however, live for her job alone&amp;quot; (p. 128) and &amp;quot;nor has she become hostile to the other sex&amp;quot; (p. 129). These statements are comforting to those people that have some crazy idea of a cold-hearted feminist. Perhaps there were a few of them during the suffrage days, but Bromley is trying to convince women AND men that that really is not the case. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anxious mothers were certainly anxious, but who could blame them with a high “maternal and infant” (130) mortality rate.  Like the others who have posted I was quite intrigued by both mother number 2 and number 3. The second mother had, what seemed to me, laughable concerns. I have to remember that women were generally clueless about prenatal care at this point, so I could understand that if you crave something so intensely denying yourself would seem detrimental to the baby, but I was unclear as to why touching your face had anything to do with this. The third mother expressed the most valid concerns of the three. The shear idea of justice in a medical malpractice suit must have seemed so far-fetched at the time, considering that medical malpractices suits are hard to prove today! As the third mother recounted, many of the doctors who claimed to be experts, did not provide adequate care to these mothers in both the pre and post natal area.  The third mothers call for government regulation of hospital practices must have been quite revolutionary at the time, given the fact that many professionals such as doctors were trusted almost blindly. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after.  I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one.  I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program.  It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was &amp;#039;marking&amp;#039; the baby by her cravings.  I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to.  In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article shocking, even mildly sad. The desperation of these women to obtain information about their bodies and pregnancy is a stark contrast to today, when all you have to do is log onto the internet to answer any and every question. What is even worse is that I&amp;#039;m sure the postal system did not operate very quickly back then, leaving the women waiting weeks for an answer from the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau. However, I liked that the government finally took an interest in women&amp;#039;s concerns and created this branch. It clearly was of service to many women of very diverse backgrounds.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this article was really interesting and it was nice to see that the government was giving attention to an area that was obviously in need of federal aid or even just attention. I think sometimes we take for granted how the improvements in modern medicine and healthcare overall have made childbirth significantly safer for women. I was sad to see that the program ended in 1929. Judging by these letters the Bureau was important and helpful to a lot of women. --Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters remind us both that women in the 1920s faced very real threats to their lives during pregnancy and childbirth and that the lives of many women throughout the country continued to revolve around their children and families and not political issues like the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment. The authors of the letters want to do everything they can to be good mothers and protect the health of their children and themselves. But it sounds as though discussion of the matters relating to childbearing, despite the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau publications, were largely absent from public discourse and women found themselves very isolated. Perhaps, like birth control, pregnancy and childbirth was seen as too crude to be discussed openly or even among friends, as the author of the second letter indicates no one in her immediate circle cares about her questions. And women&amp;#039;s issues remained low on the list of priorities of doctors, causing many women to suffer health consequences. One would think that in an age that valued motherhood, especially white middle class motherhood, so extensively, that women like those who wrote the letters would have had more options to keep themselves and their children healthy. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mary Ann is right on point.  Women during this time had little access to health care, especially poor and working class women.  I think it is good to keep in mind that it was usually only the mid to upper class who had access to health care and doctors because they could afford for it.  Also, since this was the period of Comstock Laws, women were unable to access information about birth control which made pregnancy a very real, yet fearful thing because of the risks that were involved.  I believe that these women were writing simply out of need for information they could not access elsewhere.  These women display just a snapshot of the reality of pregnancy during this period, while also echoing the concerns of women who were now expected to be completely responsible for both the home and the children.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann as well. We do have also remove ourselves from the modern notions of child birth and child rearing and remember that it was quite life threatening.  It was not uncommon for women to have one child after another as well because of the lack of birth control. It must have been very comforting to these women to have a Federal agency such as the Children’s Bureau   to guide them.  In the aftermath of the Great War, I gather that many women turned to Children’s Bureau for help. I looked up some more information on the Bureau on our favorite Wikipedia and found out that it was created by President Taft In 1912 and that Julia Lathrop was the first head of the Bureau. I wonder if Taft appointed her because he thought that as a woman she was more qualified to run the Bureau or if she was simply THE person for the job.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Excerpt from &amp;quot;Passing&amp;quot; by Nella Larsen ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember reading this scene from &amp;quot;Passing&amp;quot; back when my high school class covered the novel, and I was very intrigued by the notion of passing and the possible reasons for it. The story Clare gives for her own experience in passing in this section seems to be one of convenience and opportunity (raised by white aunts that did not advertise her background), deception (she manipulates her husband to run away with her before her aunts could reveal she was black), and a lot of yearning (she seems to resent her aunt&amp;#039;s treatment of her and other white people, which makes her passing as a white person ironic).     --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Sarah about how intriguing this passage was. After reading this excerpt, I think that Nella Larsen&amp;#039;s topic was something that had crossed the minds of many African Americans at the time. The idea of &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; into another life, just to experience the other side, was something that I&amp;#039;m sure, African American men and women all had imagined at some point.  It was sad though, how Clare had to hide her race, at the request of her aunts. It was interesting to me that although she lived with her aunts, she was still expected to &amp;quot;doing all the housework, and most of the washing.&amp;quot; (P. 140) In the story, Clare even says that she had &amp;quot;Negro blood&amp;quot; and apparently that is why she did all the housework, and it was almost expected of her because of her race. The Harlem Renaissance gave Nella Larsen a way to voice this imaginative idea, to maybe give the rest of the world the idea that African Americans merely wanted to be like everyone else, and she portrayed this by showing how important &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; was for Clare. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The negative stereotypes associated with African Americans really stands out in this passage and I think they are important to emphasizing why an African American would consider &amp;quot;passing.&amp;quot;  They include African Americans being poor, domestic servants, charity cases, promiscuous, and inferior to whites.  Even if they were hard-working or good people, African Americans had to overcome some rather harsh stereotypes.  I can definitely see trying to &amp;quot;pass&amp;quot; as a white and living with less trials as tempting.  On another note, Clare having to hide her race, and being able to, made me think of the light skinned black models on the magazine covers we looked at in class.  While they were clearly appealing to African American audiences, I feel like the magazines were putting out a message that said &amp;quot;being white is where it is at!&amp;quot;  So, perhaps light skinned black women did try &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; as whites by downplaying their color and race?  I am sure make-up made that feat much easier.  --  CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-11T00:48:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-11T00:47:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-11T00:47:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-10T23:04:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-10T23:02:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  However, I do think that the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau gave women a place to finally publicly discuss those issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-10T23:02:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in such information she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  However, I do think that the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau gave women a place to finally publicly discuss those issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-10T22:14:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…&amp;quot; (p. 267).  Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us:  low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc…  But Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families.  Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home.  Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home.  Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere.  And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world effected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices&amp;quot; (p. 54).  I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long.  These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them.  So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy?  Or to complain about stereotypes of the race?  I don&amp;#039;t blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended.  I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-10T22:14:21Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…&amp;quot; (p. 267).  Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us:  low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc…  But Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families.  Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home.  Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home.  Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere.  And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world effected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices&amp;quot; (p. 54).  I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long.  These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them.  So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy?  Or to complain about stereotypes of the race?  I don&amp;#039;t blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended.  I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to domestic servants&amp;#039; jobs. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-10T22:13:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…&amp;quot; (p. 267).  Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us:  low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc…  But Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families.  Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home.  Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home.  Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere.  And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world effected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices&amp;quot; (p. 54).  I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long.  One would think that these jobs were difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them.  So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy?  Or to complain about stereotypes of the race?  I don&amp;#039;t blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended.  I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to domestic servants&amp;#039; jobs. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-10T22:11:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…&amp;quot; (p. 267).  Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us:  low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc…  But Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families.  Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home.  Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home.  Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere.  And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world effected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-10T22:11:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…&amp;quot; (p. 267).  Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us:  low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc…  But Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families.  Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home.  Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home.  Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere.  And I think that even today women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world effected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-03T21:57:50Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that &amp;quot;Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible&amp;quot; and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word &amp;quot;girls&amp;quot; which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers?   -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The welfare activism article notes that a fair amount of the black women involved in welfare were married, and it was more generally acceptable for black women to be involved in public life than white women, which I suppose is partly due to their positions as heads of families during slavery’s heyday and the fact that many black women had to work outside the home due to economic necessity (except these reform women who were pretty well off). However, Anna J. Cooper seemed to believe that black men were not supportive of women outside the home and didn’t recognize their value in politics and reform. What accounts for this disparity? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was cool how even though black women may not have had the advantages that white women had in the reform movement, they made the best out of it. White women raised money but they also were able to gain support or recognition from people in congress. Black women were not so fortunate but they did not let that stop them; they had bake sales, church dinners, and other such functions to raise money and awareness. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Amy, I noticed the differences between how black and white women raised money for their causes. It seems like white women relied far more on their status and privilege to gain access to (mostly white men) policy makers and other influential leaders who could help them. Black women, for the most part, did not have this option. So they turned to their communities for support, in much the same way as they had turned voting and politics into community activities. Black women already had a solid tradition of getting the community to rally around them for a cause, so when the need arose for schools and public health measures and other programs, women again banded to together for the good of the group as a whole. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the most intriguing part, and yet a short piece, of Linda Gordon’s article to be on the Lesbianism and homosexual escapades. Different from black women’s dependence on their community and occasionally their husbands, white women greatly relied on one-another rather than their husbands or families. “The great majority of white women were single-34 percent had ever been married, and only 18 percent remained married during their peak political activity,” (pg. 229). To this effect women Gordon gives the fact that “28 percent were in relationships with other women…called Boston marriages,” (pg. 229). I think that we as a generation think that Lesbianism is a new trend/ideal, and yet these women were practicing it in the 18th-19th century. This was probably not seen as a controversial idea to these women, so why is it such a big issue today when is a part of history? ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judy Yung, &amp;quot;The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chung Sai Yat Po&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1900-1911&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s ironic that in the early 20th century China was trying to emulate the Western world, including increasing women’s rights, to get out from under the hand of the West, and Chinese Americans emulated those reforms going on in China and not in their own country because they were so excluded from American life that they felt a closer kinship to China. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was interesting how the reasons why people decided it was a good idea for women to have an education in America paralleled the decision for Chinese women to become educated. On page 263 Yung writes, &amp;quot;Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China.&amp;quot; Even though I don&amp;#039;t think this should be a number one reason for a woman to be given an education, at the time I would have been happy that women&amp;#039;s education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chinese Americans were witnessing freedoms in America that were not offered to them as Chinese Americans in America or China.  Binding the feet was an example of their oppression to that of their husband.  It’s interesting that binding of the feet was compared to binding of an American woman corset.  They felt education was the key to stop the oppression.  Chinese American lineage was to their home where their families were so they naturally felt the need to change things back at home.  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CSYP was a very effective source to bringing light to the atrocities that Chinese American faced and the changes that needed to take place.  Chinese American women could speak out through these journals in order to reach out to others and make changes.  As Judy Yung noted though a lot did not read these articles, the news spread.  Women talk and share their thoughts with other woman evoking their spirit and that brings change for them. --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting reading, yes--new information, not really, at least to me. Why is it ironic that China saw the way out of Western domination as its emulation? That mentality has been repeated throughout history, from the Egyptians adopting chariots to overthrow the Hyksos to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents being found with US manuals on unconventional warfare. Also, it would seem only natural that the suppression of entry into the political sphere of an immigrant population would foster the desire to interact with the mother country. An aside--my own use of that term, &amp;quot;mother country&amp;quot; fascinates me in that nations have almost always been characterized as feminine and wonder what that kind of gendered language indicates about the pervasiveness of such gendered dichotomies in everyday life. Other things I found &amp;quot;interesting&amp;quot;--the actions of politicians and probably most likely liberal-minded reformers from the Progressive Era directly contributed to the high rate of prostitution among Chinese women as they barred further immigration in California and other western states. Also found significant the direction that these women&amp;#039;s reform actions were aimed at--the revitalization of China as a nation, rather than the individualistic aims of many female reformers in America--kind of reminiscent of the African American women from the previous reading and their focus on universal rights etc. than their white female counterparts. -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That&amp;#039;s not masculine, it&amp;#039;s disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least.                 -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first reading this article I initially thought, “How did Nellie think that she could actually do this in 1890? Was it even possible then?” Thinking more into it I can see why. She wanted to do something ambitious, that would make for a great story, but also make for a great experience, so why shouldn’t she as a woman be able to travel the world? Like Sarah, I feel bad that Nellie had to travel in one outfit for three months, but as she describes she is able to fit a good amount of clothing into her one hand-satchel, “two traveling caps…a pair of slippers, a dressing gown, tennis blazer…several changes of underwear,” (pg. 7). I would hope that priority number one would be the underwear. At the end of the article, I found that Nellie seems to indicate that she may have some sort of “baggage” in her life and I may be reading too much into it, but the way she speaks of the “the responsibilities and worries I escaped by not having a lot of trunks and boxes to look after,(pg. 7), seems to be a hidden meaning to her own emotional baggage.---Morgan M. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a woman ready to trek around the world, alone, with only the contents of a little bag. She has the gumption to convince her boss that she can make the trip, yet she still falls back on the idea that if she conducts herself &amp;#039;properly&amp;#039; she will &amp;quot;always find men ready to protect&amp;quot; (pg. 7) her. I don&amp;#039;t fault her for wanting this protection, travel always entails a certain degree of danger, but I do wonder at her assumptions as to what constitutes proper behavior. In making the trip, hasn&amp;#039;t she already broken several social norms concerning appropriate womanly conduct? And did she believe that men the world over would hold the same ideas about women and their behavior? What of her safety if her conduct was deemed improper? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was actually surprised that Bertha Palmer used her speech at the World Fair to both honor women and criticise men&amp;#039;s attitudes towards women.  Women had been allowed a space at the Fair to display their own creativity, but it was within a well defined and controlled &amp;quot;sphere&amp;quot; designated by men.  With Palmer&amp;#039;s speech, we are getting to see a woman recognize the inequality of the separate spheres doctrine and publicly push for the inclusion of women in more than restrictive &amp;quot;spheres&amp;quot; constructed by men.  After all, how can a woman truly be free when she is being oppressed by men in all that she does? -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ida B. Wells&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Frances Willard&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;–&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Anzia Yezierska&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immigrant women like Anzia and her fictional heroine Sara faced unique challenges at the turn of the century. They were caught between the growing American emphasis on education and more independence for women and their tradition bound fathers and husbands. Men like Sara&amp;#039;s father in the reading probably saw their daughters&amp;#039; rebellious streaks as not only a threat to their patriarchal authority but also to the culture and customs they brought from their countries of origin. When immigrant daughters went to school or moved out on their own they joined an &amp;#039;American&amp;#039; movement that their parents may not have understood or feared for its ability to remove their daughters from an acceptably ethnic upbringing. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Edith Eudora Ammons&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – A Woman Homesteader&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I have pictured manifest destiny, I have hardly pictured Edith Ammons and her sister, two women, moving in to the West alone to build up new lives together.  Of course, I would never think of the West in the 19th century as a place of freedom and new beginnings because I know how rough it was from studying history.  Ammons herself admits, &amp;quot;This was not the West as I had dreamed it... It was a desolate, forgotten land, without vegetation save for the dry, crackling grass, without visible tokens of fertility&amp;quot; (p. 26).  Yet, the sisters toughed it out, taking on hardship after hardship in exchange for their freedom to live where they wanted and do what they wanted.  I think that with our comforts of today, it is often hard to imagine women putting themselves through such trials to achieve the freedom they desired. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we spoke some of this issue that the “New Woman” faced about what to do after leaving college. Here I found what Jane Addams and Ellen Starr do very admirable, such as creating the famous Hall House. In today’s world you don’t see many women, especially white, moving into “bad” parts of cities to truly help the people there. But these women I found fearless of being in Chicago such as the incident with them leaving the side door left open and “were much pleased in the morning to find that we possessed a fine illustration of the honesty and kindliness of our new neighbors,” (pg. 36). I would have been so upset that I had risked my home and self, just being in a new place for the first night is nerve-racking, but leaving a door open would make me even more paranoid. These women were actually asked to “wash the newborn babies, and to prepare the dead for burial, to nurse the sick, and to ‘mind the children’,” (pg. 36). Where there no others to do these tasks, such as a mortician, hospital, or baby-sitters? I know to remember that these people were of the poorest of the city, but these women were asked to prepare the dead, really? Ew.---Morgan M.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first piece of this article I saw was that it parallels to the Jane Addams Article in that Alice Hamilton spent time at the Hull House. In her writing Alice actually mentions the Hull House, other than her biography at the beginning stating that she had spent time there and that she truly learned something from her time at the Hull House gives more evidence to the fact of Jane creating something great. “Life at Hull-House had accustomed me to going straight to the homes of people whom I wished to learn something and talking to them in their own surroundings, where they have courage to speak out what is in their minds,” (pg. 39). The Hull House taught Alice how to relate to people and I can see this consideration being very important, essential, to her profession of being a physician. In addition to her being a physician I think that a certain level of arrogance blossomed as well. Alice tends to look down on people at times, but at the same time being understanding; an example being her take on the reason for immigrants to take jobs to support their families after coming to American; “of course they took the first job they could find and if it proved to be one that weakened and crippled them---well, that was their bad luck!” (pg. 39). I found this a bit uncharacteristic of the women who spent time in the Hull House, but that is entirely my take. I’m sure being a women physician is something to be quite proud of, but to look down on immigrants who you are caring for because they are trying to make the best of the life they have been dealt, seems a bit harsh. ---Morgan M.    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman&amp;#039;s husband&amp;#039;s boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?&lt;br /&gt;
-Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article the most interesting out of all of them.  Josephine Conger-Koneko takes a very hard line on the position that women should be paid for their housework.  I also found it interesting how she equivocated a woman&amp;#039;s life in the home doing housework for her husband as the life of a slave.  She seems to be a bit radical in her discussion of women being paid for household duties.  I also found it striking that Koneko argues that a husband should go to his employer and ask for wages for his wife at home doing the housework and how men getting married is actually benefical more for the employer because then he will have a continuing work force. Did women during this time believe they should be paid for work, and if after reading this, did woman&amp;#039;s groups advocate paid labor for women working in the home?  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn&amp;#039;t just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the Sanger article was very interesting.  I like how Sanger is able to use the story of Mrs. Sachs to show the rising need and importance for birth control.  I think it presents birth control as more of a social issue, rather than just an issue of liberating woman&amp;#039;s sexuality.  She demonstrates that birth control is a necessity because of all the hurt, poverty and death that is occurring due to a lack  of birth control.  At this time, one had to have enough money for doctors who they could pay to tell them about birth control options/abortion due to the Comstock Laws, and I think this is important for why Sanger decides to advocate birth control, especially to the poorer classes.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-03T21:23:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that &amp;quot;Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible&amp;quot; and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word &amp;quot;girls&amp;quot; which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers?   -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The welfare activism article notes that a fair amount of the black women involved in welfare were married, and it was more generally acceptable for black women to be involved in public life than white women, which I suppose is partly due to their positions as heads of families during slavery’s heyday and the fact that many black women had to work outside the home due to economic necessity (except these reform women who were pretty well off). However, Anna J. Cooper seemed to believe that black men were not supportive of women outside the home and didn’t recognize their value in politics and reform. What accounts for this disparity? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was cool how even though black women may not have had the advantages that white women had in the reform movement, they made the best out of it. White women raised money but they also were able to gain support or recognition from people in congress. Black women were not so fortunate but they did not let that stop them; they had bake sales, church dinners, and other such functions to raise money and awareness. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Amy, I noticed the differences between how black and white women raised money for their causes. It seems like white women relied far more on their status and privilege to gain access to (mostly white men) policy makers and other influential leaders who could help them. Black women, for the most part, did not have this option. So they turned to their communities for support, in much the same way as they had turned voting and politics into community activities. Black women already had a solid tradition of getting the community to rally around them for a cause, so when the need arose for schools and public health measures and other programs, women again banded to together for the good of the group as a whole. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judy Yung, &amp;quot;The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chung Sai Yat Po&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1900-1911&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s ironic that in the early 20th century China was trying to emulate the Western world, including increasing women’s rights, to get out from under the hand of the West, and Chinese Americans emulated those reforms going on in China and not in their own country because they were so excluded from American life that they felt a closer kinship to China. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was interesting how the reasons why people decided it was a good idea for women to have an education in America paralleled the decision for Chinese women to become educated. On page 263 Yung writes, &amp;quot;Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China.&amp;quot; Even though I don&amp;#039;t think this should be a number one reason for a woman to be given an education, at the time I would have been happy that women&amp;#039;s education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chinese Americans were witnessing freedoms in America that were not offered to them as Chinese Americans in America or China.  Binding the feet was an example of their oppression to that of their husband.  It’s interesting that binding of the feet was compared to binding of an American woman corset.  They felt education was the key to stop the oppression.  Chinese American lineage was to their home where their families were so they naturally felt the need to change things back at home.  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CSYP was a very effective source to bringing light to the atrocities that Chinese American faced and the changes that needed to take place.  Chinese American women could speak out through these journals in order to reach out to others and make changes.  As Judy Yung noted though a lot did not read these articles, the news spread.  Women talk and share their thoughts with other woman evoking their spirit and that brings change for them. --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That&amp;#039;s not masculine, it&amp;#039;s disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least.                 -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first reading this article I initially thought, “How did Nellie think that she could actually do this in 1890? Was it even possible then?” Thinking more into it I can see why. She wanted to do something ambitious, that would make for a great story, but also make for a great experience, so why shouldn’t she as a woman be able to travel the world? Like Sarah, I feel bad that Nellie had to travel in one outfit for three months, but as she describes she is able to fit a good amount of clothing into her one hand-satchel, “two traveling caps…a pair of slippers, a dressing gown, tennis blazer…several changes of underwear,” (pg. 7). I would hope that priority number one would be the underwear. At the end of the article, I found that Nellie seems to indicate that she may have some sort of “baggage” in her life and I may be reading too much into it, but the way she speaks of the “the responsibilities and worries I escaped by not having a lot of trunks and boxes to look after,(pg. 7), seems to be a hidden meaning to her own emotional baggage.---Morgan M. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a woman ready to trek around the world, alone, with only the contents of a little bag. She has the gumption to convince her boss that she can make the trip, yet she still falls back on the idea that if she conducts herself &amp;#039;properly&amp;#039; she will &amp;quot;always find men ready to protect&amp;quot; (pg. 7) her. I don&amp;#039;t fault her for wanting this protection, travel always entails a certain degree of danger, but I do wonder at her assumptions as to what constitutes proper behavior. In making the trip, hasn&amp;#039;t she already broken several social norms concerning appropriate womanly conduct? And did she believe that men the world over would hold the same ideas about women and their behavior? What of her safety if her conduct was deemed improper? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was actually surprised that Bertha Palmer used her speech at the World Fair to both honor women and criticise men&amp;#039;s attitudes towards women.  Women had been allowed a space at the Fair to display their own creativity, but it was within a well defined and controlled &amp;quot;sphere&amp;quot; designated by men.  With Palmer&amp;#039;s speech, we are getting to see a woman recognize the inequality of the separate spheres doctrine and publicly push for the inclusion of women in more than restrictive &amp;quot;spheres&amp;quot; constructed by men.  After all, how can a woman truly be free when she is being oppressed by men in all that she does? -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ida B. Wells&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Frances Willard&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;–&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Anzia Yezierska&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immigrant women like Anzia and her fictional heroine Sara faced unique challenges at the turn of the century. They were caught between the growing American emphasis on education and more independence for women and their tradition bound fathers and husbands. Men like Sara&amp;#039;s father in the reading probably saw their daughters&amp;#039; rebellious streaks as not only a threat to their patriarchal authority but also to the culture and customs they brought from their countries of origin. When immigrant daughters went to school or moved out on their own they joined an &amp;#039;American&amp;#039; movement that their parents may not have understood or feared for its ability to remove their daughters from an acceptably ethnic upbringing. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Edith Eudora Ammons&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – A Woman Homesteader&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we spoke some of this issue that the “New Woman” faced about what to do after leaving college. Here I found what Jane Addams and Ellen Starr do very admirable, such as creating the famous Hall House. In today’s world you don’t see many women, especially white, moving into “bad” parts of cities to truly help the people there. But these women I found fearless of being in Chicago such as the incident with them leaving the side door left open and “were much pleased in the morning to find that we possessed a fine illustration of the honesty and kindliness of our new neighbors,” (pg. 36). I would have been so upset that I had risked my home and self, just being in a new place for the first night is nerve-racking, but leaving a door open would make me even more paranoid. These women were actually asked to “wash the newborn babies, and to prepare the dead for burial, to nurse the sick, and to ‘mind the children’,” (pg. 36). Where there no others to do these tasks, such as a mortician, hospital, or baby-sitters? I know to remember that these people were of the poorest of the city, but these women were asked to prepare the dead, really? Ew.---Morgan M.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first piece of this article I saw was that it parallels to the Jane Addams Article in that Alice Hamilton spent time at the Hull House. In her writing Alice actually mentions the Hull House, other than her biography at the beginning stating that she had spent time there and that she truly learned something from her time at the Hull House gives more evidence to the fact of Jane creating something great. “Life at Hull-House had accustomed me to going straight to the homes of people whom I wished to learn something and talking to them in their own surroundings, where they have courage to speak out what is in their minds,” (pg. 39). The Hull House taught Alice how to relate to people and I can see this consideration being very important, essential, to her profession of being a physician. In addition to her being a physician I think that a certain level of arrogance blossomed as well. Alice tends to look down on people at times, but at the same time being understanding; an example being her take on the reason for immigrants to take jobs to support their families after coming to American; “of course they took the first job they could find and if it proved to be one that weakened and crippled them---well, that was their bad luck!” (pg. 39). I found this a bit uncharacteristic of the women who spent time in the Hull House, but that is entirely my take. I’m sure being a women physician is something to be quite proud of, but to look down on immigrants who you are caring for because they are trying to make the best of the life they have been dealt, seems a bit harsh. ---Morgan M.    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman&amp;#039;s husband&amp;#039;s boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?&lt;br /&gt;
-Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article the most interesting out of all of them.  Josephine Conger-Koneko takes a very hard line on the position that women should be paid for their housework.  I also found it interesting how she equivocated a woman&amp;#039;s life in the home doing housework for her husband as the life of a slave.  She seems to be a bit radical in her discussion of women being paid for household duties.  I also found it striking that Koneko argues that a husband should go to his employer and ask for wages for his wife at home doing the housework and how men getting married is actually benefical more for the employer because then he will have a continuing work force. Did women during this time believe they should be paid for work, and if after reading this, did woman&amp;#039;s groups advocate paid labor for women working in the home?  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn&amp;#039;t just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the Sanger article was very interesting.  I like how Sanger is able to use the story of Mrs. Sachs to show the rising need and importance for birth control.  I think it presents birth control as more of a social issue, rather than just an issue of liberating woman&amp;#039;s sexuality.  She demonstrates that birth control is a necessity because of all the hurt, poverty and death that is occurring due to a lack  of birth control.  At this time, one had to have enough money for doctors who they could pay to tell them about birth control options/abortion due to the Comstock Laws, and I think this is important for why Sanger decides to advocate birth control, especially to the poorer classes.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-27T23:05:11Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things that stood out to me in this article was the paradoxes.  This was full of them regarding cherokee values as well as teachings.  There seems to be great confusion between  the pure bloods and mixed-bloods.  For example, there were many mixed-blood instructors, but no traditional cherokee teachers, yet the school was based on cherokee values.  Also, many of the teachers repressed Cherokee values, which seems to defeat the purpose of a cherokee boarding school.  Also, a girl named Na-Li defended her honor in claiming that both of her parents were full cherokee, but many of the teachers did not teach traditional values so it seems like a frivolous concern.  It appears to obtain a traditional cherokee eduaction when there were so many paradoxes between the people.-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans.  In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones.  Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.”  Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain.  I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included.  I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the &amp;quot;mixed-blood&amp;quot; families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It&amp;#039;s just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it&amp;#039;s just that, as the article states, &amp;quot;there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself.  Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more &amp;quot;white&amp;quot;, as Morgan points out.  I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on.  As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly &amp;quot;expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as &amp;quot;whiter&amp;quot; and therefore &amp;quot;more intellectual&amp;quot;.  I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society.  Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them.  The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary.  Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division.  I don’t think the teachers helped with that either.  These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society.  These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in.  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could &amp;quot;endure childbirth painlessly&amp;quot; (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199).  I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries.  The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203).  These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the &amp;#039;savages&amp;#039; to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered &amp;quot;traditional&amp;quot; activities, so wouldn&amp;#039;t that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in &amp;quot;traditional culture&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;modern labor?&amp;quot;  -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men&amp;#039;s dissolution&amp;quot; (p. 199).  These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere.  When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men&amp;#039;s laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families.  They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as &amp;quot;tourist attractions&amp;quot; (p. 201).  However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork.  I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality.  Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time.  I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples.  They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as &amp;quot;field hands,&amp;quot;vanishing Indians&amp;quot; (p.201), tourist attractions, &amp;quot;subjects&amp;quot; for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was really struck by the way the author said that indigenous women at this time were “dehumanized.” I had never really thought about it in that context, but it is true with the way white women thought about Indians. Because they were closely affiliated with nature and because of the belief that they didn’t feel pain during childbirth, they were no longer women or even really human. This is why it was so easy for white women to treat them as a sort of spectacle as opposed to real people. They acted the complete opposite from how women were supposed to act. -  Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading &amp;quot;The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe,&amp;quot; I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States.  He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it.  Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States.  The most interesting fact was that &amp;quot;women were expected to defer to men but did not.&amp;quot; This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict.  It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound.  I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met.  I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, &amp;quot;They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community&amp;#039;s values and habits through a single activity,  After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall...&amp;quot;(257)  Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman.  I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart.  She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles.  I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some  women did of what was expected of them.  Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money.  If she had been a man we would have never heard about her.   --MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn&amp;#039;t just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 &amp;quot;To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise&amp;quot; because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the &amp;quot;(White) Protestants&amp;quot; can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I&amp;#039;d be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists&amp;#039; animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money &amp;quot;eventually helped elevate her moral character&amp;quot; (253). -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Susan Shelby seems to find the positive in living in and travelling through New Mexico and the West, unlike Mrs. A. M. Green.  This is probably due to the fact that she keeps herself busy with housework, improving her Spanish, and getting to know the locals.  I enjoyed reading the prejudices Shelby believes of the Mexicans.  She is surprised to find that her Mexican servant, who she was quick to call &amp;quot;one of the numbskulls&amp;quot; (p. 234), is actually quite smart and picks up on things very quickly.  She also realizes the Mexicans&amp;#039; intelligence when they offer her useful help and advice with things that Shelby believes may be &amp;quot;the first of the kind they have ever seen&amp;quot; (p. 235).  Shelby also seems to imply that the Mexicans are gaudy and extravagant with their parties when she is describing the managerie.  It is important to note that she is surprised to discover that when rich Mexicans &amp;quot;attend a place of the kind to take a servant along and while sitting to use them as an article of furniture&amp;quot; (p. 236).  To me, this appears to be the point where Shelby is realizing that even the Mexicans have a hierarchal system; they are not all stupid servants.  Another highlight of Shelby&amp;#039;s diary is where she points out her place in society - well, more like her place in the home, really.  On Friday the 4th, she writes about putting all of her energy, and her servant&amp;#039;s energy in to cleaning the house.  She is determined to do her &amp;quot;duty so well so as to gain one bright smile and sweet kiss from [her] good, kind husband&amp;quot; (p. 234).  I think this is a great example of the separate spheres and the idea that these women had of making the homes perfect, romanticized places for their husbands to return.  Apparently it is so serious, she may not receive her husband&amp;#039;s acceptance and affection when he returns home!  Although, it seems like that would be due to her punishing herself rather than a punishment from her husband. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence.  And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren&amp;#039;t giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn&amp;#039;t get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading &amp;quot;Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes&amp;quot; is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan&amp;#039;s question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t speak to Chinese attitudes towards prostitution in the second half of the nineteenth century, but we talked about prostitution and courtesans in my Gender in Chinese History class during the eighteenth century, and they had a different view of it than we do.  Certainly, they felt that it was best to be a respectable wife and mother, but courtesans and prostitutes weren&amp;#039;t merely sex objects, most were educated and trained in the fine arts.  Sometimes they didn&amp;#039;t even sleep with their clients, but would just sit down and write poetry or play music with them.  Many of these women were famous for their beauty and learning, even their morality.  Of course, I&amp;#039;m not by any means trying to glorify prostitution, but still, these immigrant Chinese women may have come to the United States with a different idea of what being a prostitute meant, and that&amp;#039;s why they agreed to it, combined with the practical concern of getting themselves to America. - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to read this account after reading &amp;quot;Too Dark to be Angels.&amp;quot; To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It&amp;#039;s telling that the little girl compares herself to the &amp;quot;young of a wild creature&amp;quot; (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be &amp;quot;fewer real Dakotas&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;more palefaces&amp;quot; (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of frontier life is really touching because it is probably an example of what so many other women were going through. Although some probably had the sense of adventure to want to go exploring out west, I’m sure many were perfectly fine staying in the east with their families. Green’s sadness but resolve to put on a happy face for her husband is an example of how women were the rock of their families and despite severe emotional turmoil, they were forced to overcome it and remain the strong person that would hold the family together. - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse.  It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly.  It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn&amp;#039;t quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she&amp;#039;s also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-27T23:04:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things that stood out to me in this article was the paradoxes.  This was full of them regarding cherokee values as well as teachings.  There seems to be great confusion between  the pure bloods and mixed-bloods.  For example, there were many mixed-blood instructors, but no traditional cherokee teachers, yet the school was based on cherokee values.  Also, many of the teachers repressed Cherokee values, which seems to defeat the purpose of a cherokee boarding school.  Also, a girl named Na-Li defended her honor in claiming that both of her parents were full cherokee, but many of the teachers did not teach traditional values so it seems like a frivolous concern.  It appears to obtain a traditional cherokee eduaction when there were so many paradoxes between the people.-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans.  In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones.  Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.”  Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain.  I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included.  I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the &amp;quot;mixed-blood&amp;quot; families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It&amp;#039;s just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it&amp;#039;s just that, as the article states, &amp;quot;there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself.  Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more &amp;quot;white&amp;quot;, as Morgan points out.  I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on.  As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly &amp;quot;expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as &amp;quot;whiter&amp;quot; and therefore &amp;quot;more intellectual&amp;quot;.  I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society.  Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them.  The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary.  Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division.  I don’t think the teachers helped with that either.  These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society.  These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in.  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could &amp;quot;endure childbirth painlessly&amp;quot; (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199).  I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries.  The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203).  These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the &amp;#039;savages&amp;#039; to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered &amp;quot;traditional&amp;quot; activities, so wouldn&amp;#039;t that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in &amp;quot;traditional culture&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;modern labor?&amp;quot;  -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men&amp;#039;s dissolution&amp;quot; (p. 199).  These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere.  When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men&amp;#039;s laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families.  They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as &amp;quot;tourist attractions&amp;quot; (p. 201).  However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork.  I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality.  Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time.  I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples.  They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as &amp;quot;field hands,&amp;quot;vanishing Indians&amp;quot; (p.201), tourist attractions, &amp;quot;subjects&amp;quot; for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was really struck by the way the author said that indigenous women at this time were “dehumanized.” I had never really thought about it in that context, but it is true with the way white women thought about Indians. Because they were closely affiliated with nature and because of the belief that they didn’t feel pain during childbirth, they were no longer women or even really human. This is why it was so easy for white women to treat them as a sort of spectacle as opposed to real people. They acted the complete opposite from how women were supposed to act. -  Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading &amp;quot;The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe,&amp;quot; I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States.  He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it.  Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States.  The most interesting fact was that &amp;quot;women were expected to defer to men but did not.&amp;quot; This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict.  It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound.  I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met.  I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, &amp;quot;They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community&amp;#039;s values and habits through a single activity,  After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall...&amp;quot;(257)  Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman.  I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart.  She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles.  I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some  women did of what was expected of them.  Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money.  If she had been a man we would have never heard about her.   --MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn&amp;#039;t just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 &amp;quot;To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise&amp;quot; because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the &amp;quot;(White) Protestants&amp;quot; can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I&amp;#039;d be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists&amp;#039; animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money &amp;quot;eventually helped elevate her moral character&amp;quot; (253). -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Susan Shelby seems to find the positive in living in and travelling through New Mexico and the West, unlike Mrs. A. M. Green.  This is probably due to the fact that she keeps herself busy with housework, improving her Spanish, and getting to know the locals.  I enjoyed reading the prejudices Shelby believes of the Mexicans.  She is surprised to find that her Mexican servant, who she was quick to call &amp;quot;one of the numbskulls&amp;quot; (p. 234), is actually quite smart and picks up on things very quickly.  she also realizes the Mexican&amp;#039;s intelligence when they offer her useful help and advice with things that Shelby believes may be &amp;quot;the first of the kind they have ever seen&amp;quot; (p. 235).  Shelby also seems to imply that the Mexicans are gaudy and extravagant with their parties when she is describing the managerie.  It is important to note that she is surprised to discover that when rich Mexicans &amp;quot;attend a place of the kind to take a servant along and while sitting to use them as an article of furniture&amp;quot; (p. 236).  To me, this appears to be the point where Shelby is realizing that even the Mexicans have a hierarchal system; they are not all stupid servants.  Another highlight of Shelby&amp;#039;s diary is where she points out her place in society - well, more like her place in the home, really.  On Friday the 4th, she writes about putting all of her energy, and her servant&amp;#039;s energy in to cleaning the house.  She is determined to do her &amp;quot;duty so well so as to gain one bright smile and sweet kiss from [her] good, kind husband&amp;quot; (p. 234).  I think this is a great example of the separate spheres and the idea that these women had of making the homes perfect, romanticized places for their husbands to return.  Apparently it is so serious, she may not receive her husband&amp;#039;s acceptance and affection when he returns home!  Although, it seems like that would be due to her punishing herself rather than a punishment from her husband. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence.  And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren&amp;#039;t giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn&amp;#039;t get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading &amp;quot;Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes&amp;quot; is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan&amp;#039;s question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t speak to Chinese attitudes towards prostitution in the second half of the nineteenth century, but we talked about prostitution and courtesans in my Gender in Chinese History class during the eighteenth century, and they had a different view of it than we do.  Certainly, they felt that it was best to be a respectable wife and mother, but courtesans and prostitutes weren&amp;#039;t merely sex objects, most were educated and trained in the fine arts.  Sometimes they didn&amp;#039;t even sleep with their clients, but would just sit down and write poetry or play music with them.  Many of these women were famous for their beauty and learning, even their morality.  Of course, I&amp;#039;m not by any means trying to glorify prostitution, but still, these immigrant Chinese women may have come to the United States with a different idea of what being a prostitute meant, and that&amp;#039;s why they agreed to it, combined with the practical concern of getting themselves to America. - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to read this account after reading &amp;quot;Too Dark to be Angels.&amp;quot; To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It&amp;#039;s telling that the little girl compares herself to the &amp;quot;young of a wild creature&amp;quot; (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be &amp;quot;fewer real Dakotas&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;more palefaces&amp;quot; (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of frontier life is really touching because it is probably an example of what so many other women were going through. Although some probably had the sense of adventure to want to go exploring out west, I’m sure many were perfectly fine staying in the east with their families. Green’s sadness but resolve to put on a happy face for her husband is an example of how women were the rock of their families and despite severe emotional turmoil, they were forced to overcome it and remain the strong person that would hold the family together. - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse.  It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly.  It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn&amp;#039;t quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she&amp;#039;s also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-27T21:54:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things that stood out to me in this article was the paradoxes.  This was full of them regarding cherokee values as well as teachings.  There seems to be great confusion between  the pure bloods and mixed-bloods.  For example, there were many mixed-blood instructors, but no traditional cherokee teachers, yet the school was based on cherokee values.  Also, many of the teachers repressed Cherokee values, which seems to defeat the purpose of a cherokee boarding school.  Also, a girl named Na-Li defended her honor in claiming that both of her parents were full cherokee, but many of the teachers did not teach traditional values so it seems like a frivolous concern.  It appears to obtain a traditional cherokee eduaction when there were so many paradoxes between the people.-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans.  In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones.  Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.”  Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain.  I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included.  I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the &amp;quot;mixed-blood&amp;quot; families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It&amp;#039;s just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it&amp;#039;s just that, as the article states, &amp;quot;there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself.  Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more &amp;quot;white&amp;quot;, as Morgan points out.  I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on.  As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly &amp;quot;expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as &amp;quot;whiter&amp;quot; and therefore &amp;quot;more intellectual&amp;quot;.  I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society.  Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them.  The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary.  Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division.  I don’t think the teachers helped with that either.  These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society.  These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in.  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could &amp;quot;endure childbirth painlessly&amp;quot; (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199).  I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries.  The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203).  These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the &amp;#039;savages&amp;#039; to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered &amp;quot;traditional&amp;quot; activities, so wouldn&amp;#039;t that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in &amp;quot;traditional culture&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;modern labor?&amp;quot;  -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men&amp;#039;s dissolution&amp;quot; (p. 199).  These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere.  When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men&amp;#039;s laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families.  They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as &amp;quot;tourist attractions&amp;quot; (p. 201).  However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork.  I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality.  Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time.  I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples.  They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as &amp;quot;field hands,&amp;quot;vanishing Indians&amp;quot; (p.201), tourist attractions, &amp;quot;subjects&amp;quot; for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading &amp;quot;The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe,&amp;quot; I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States.  He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it.  Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States.  The most interesting fact was that &amp;quot;women were expected to defer to men but did not.&amp;quot; This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict.  It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound.  I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met.  I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, &amp;quot;They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community&amp;#039;s values and habits through a single activity,  After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall...&amp;quot;(257)  Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman.  I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart.  She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles.  I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some  women did of what was expected of them.  Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money.  If she had been a man we would have never heard about her.   --MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn&amp;#039;t just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 &amp;quot;To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise&amp;quot; because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the &amp;quot;(White) Protestants&amp;quot; can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I&amp;#039;d be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists&amp;#039; animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money &amp;quot;eventually helped elevate her moral character&amp;quot; (253). -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence.  And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren&amp;#039;t giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn&amp;#039;t get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading &amp;quot;Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes&amp;quot; is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan&amp;#039;s question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t speak to Chinese attitudes towards prostitution in the second half of the nineteenth century, but we talked about prostitution and courtesans in my Gender in Chinese History class during the eighteenth century, and they had a different view of it than we do.  Certainly, they felt that it was best to be a respectable wife and mother, but courtesans and prostitutes weren&amp;#039;t merely sex objects, most were educated and trained in the fine arts.  Sometimes they didn&amp;#039;t even sleep with their clients, but would just sit down and write poetry or play music with them.  Many of these women were famous for their beauty and learning, even their morality.  Of course, I&amp;#039;m not by any means trying to glorify prostitution, but still, these immigrant Chinese women may have come to the United States with a different idea of what being a prostitute meant, and that&amp;#039;s why they agreed to it, combined with the practical concern of getting themselves to America. - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to read this account after reading &amp;quot;Too Dark to be Angels.&amp;quot; To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It&amp;#039;s telling that the little girl compares herself to the &amp;quot;young of a wild creature&amp;quot; (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be &amp;quot;fewer real Dakotas&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;more palefaces&amp;quot; (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of frontier life is really touching because it is probably an example of what so many other women were going through. Although some probably had the sense of adventure to want to go exploring out west, I’m sure many were perfectly fine staying in the east with their families. Green’s sadness but resolve to put on a happy face for her husband is an example of how women were the rock of their families and despite severe emotional turmoil, they were forced to overcome it and remain the strong person that would hold the family together. - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse.  It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly.  It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn&amp;#039;t quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she&amp;#039;s also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-20T18:25:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Comments/questions comparing the articles ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on a paper I wrote on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, this was a very interesting essay to read.  Fahs mentions that the war still follows the &amp;quot;masculanized culture&amp;quot; that was in place at the time and through my research I discovered the same things.  Much of the standard literature was centered around the fighting and the man&amp;#039;s roles on the battlefield, yet women&amp;#039;s roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten.  It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as &amp;quot;feminist&amp;quot; literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men. -- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it very interesting how she discusses the different type of surrering that women endured.  Men endured the horrors of war and their suffering was very physical and visual.  Women, however, also suffered but they experienced strictly emotional suffering.  They were cut deeply by these emotional wounds of not knowing weather their loved-ones were safe on the battlefield and some argued that these wounds cut deeper than those of men.  Where men simply died on the battlefield, women had to endure the death of a loved one, while still remaining strong, and now being forced to provide for themselves. -- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how Civil War literature shifted from a focus on the tribulations of northern women to those of southern women.  And despite a strong emphasis on realistic literature, southern women and antebellum plantation life was highly romanticized.  This probably came in part from a desire to both remember a time when the nation was united (which can also be seen in the popularity of stories centered around the Revolution)and to try to create a new identity centered around northern and southern reconciliation and &amp;quot;white&amp;quot; ideals. - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t help but think about &amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; whenever they mentioned southern woman&amp;#039;s literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)&lt;br /&gt;
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman&amp;#039;s role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today&amp;#039;s non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is important to keep in mind that literature is largely written for an audience, and yet, this literature is what shapes the public memory of an event. The dominant forms of fiction at the outset of the war were women’s domestic novels. This impacts what type of literature was written during the war. It should come as no surprise that during the war, “the literary marketplace supported an outpouring of popular literature portraying women’s domestic participation in the war.” This domestic participation includes working, sacrifice, and loss, some even argue that the women sacrificed more than the men who were fighting. However, there was a shift in literature with the rise of Civil War veterans organizations. This led to a shift in who were the bearers of the war’s memory from women to veterans. It is amazing how the Civil War has become, “a white male conflict, rather than a cataclysmic event that rent and remade the fabric of life for all Americans.” – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the reading on the Feminized Civil War, I kept asking myself where the women had gone; it was as if their memory of the Civil War had disappeared entirely. I was pleased when I came across Mary Livermore who, in 1887, spoke out against where the literature about the civil war was going. She argued that the story of Northern women was missing.  Then, in 1889 Edward Bellamy, stated that, “many pictures of battles have been painted, but no true one yet, for the pictures contain only men. The women are unaccountably left out.” Finally, there was Elizabeth Stuart Phelps who actually “undermined stereotypes of veterans” and “challenged the veteran dominated culture of remembrance itself.” I was just happy to see that women were not entirely forgotten in the decades following the Civil War. I am curious as to how the majority of women felt when their impacts on the war became largely overlooked, especially after all of the pain and loss that they had experienced. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as time moved on after the Civil War it increasingly became to be defined as a &amp;quot;Man&amp;#039;s War&amp;quot;, specifically a &amp;quot;White Man&amp;#039;s War&amp;quot;. All of the domestic issues women faced, such as caring for children, the home, and earning a living, faded with the passage of time. It appears that a romanticized portrait of the war was painted in which much of the heart-ache and problems women faced on an everyday basis were pushed to the wayside in favor of remembering the great battles and generals of the day. This is yet another example of how women were forgotten in the shadow of their men. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna Holman&amp;#039;s approach that the Civil War had largely (and unfortunately) came to be defined as a &amp;quot;Man&amp;#039;s War.&amp;quot; I also found it interesting that they begin to recognize the importance of the woman in everyday life, thought the focus was only on the mother initially. On page 133, Fahs points out that, &amp;quot;women especially mothers, personalized the nation, that they link the private and public realms.&amp;quot; Not only does Fahs point out that women were in a sense the backbone of the nation, but they were also able to tie together the separate spheres. --MDvorak &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also completely agree with Erin Sanderson&amp;#039;s statement in which she discusses how after men returned from the war, the literature market increasingly became dominated by men&amp;#039;s war stories. The interests of women were again pushed away for those of men. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to find out that the Civil War was so feminized during the war and directly following it. The war has definitely become masculine in the public memory, and it makes me want to take a look at how the public images of other wars have changed. Why was there a focus on the Northern women’s war in Civil War literature in the first place? Was it because they were the only ones around that had the opportunity to read it? Many Northern men would have been fighting, and in the South, both men and women would have had larger concerns than publishing and reading literature. How come when the war once again entered popular memory in the 1880s, it became focused on the masculine aspects of the war? The article mentions a shift away from Victorian feminine literature towards realist literature. Was there some sort of demographic change in readership? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as though the media played a larger role during and after the civil war.  From the material read, it seemed to have expressed sadness, pride, and Patriotism of people’s experiences of the War.  Women&amp;#039;s writing was more prominent because the men were away in war.  But when the men came home their stories needed to be told.  I think this symbolizes men returning to the public sphere.  I think the type of stories told says something about men and women&amp;#039;s roles.  In these stories about women you see the emotional side and in men&amp;#039;s stories they were more about glory and valor. The change from fiction to more non-fiction stories is interesting.  Could this have been because people had just dealt with real emotions, those including pain and sorrow, were ready for something real?  Was it something they could better relate to?  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was initially a little surprised to find that stories about women dominated much of the media at the time, but it really makes sense considering women were the ones remaining home and actually buying and reading the publications of the day. These women understandably wanted stories that they could relate to and that emphasized the importance of their own contributions to the war effort. It also may have been a not so subtle nudge on behalf of the powers-that-be to encourage women, for purely practical reasons, to continue to support the men at war. After all, soldiers who had the support of their families, even if the women believed in the war effort for romanticized reasons, were less likely to desert or to not enlist at all. After the war was over, the pressing need to maintain that support base fell off, and so did the feminized literature. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the Tony Horwitz quote that Fahs included (and not just because he might be one of my favorite authors). She said that in the late nineteenth century Americans &amp;quot;reclaimed a past of their own creation.&amp;quot; It&amp;#039;s so important for us to remember that collective memory is constantly changing. Perceptions of the Civil War changed with the changing attitudes about war and women of the time. It makes some sense that, postwar, women&amp;#039;s stories might be pushed to the side in favor of more masculine stories about the front. Returning veterans were a very visible part of post-war life; women&amp;#039;s suffering, while obviously still with them, was no longer front and center. So, perceptions shifted, and they continued to change with the country, eventually colliding with the force-to-be-reckoned-with that was Gone with the Wind. I think it&amp;#039;s safe to say that many Americans hold certain ideas about the Civil War based on that novel alone, as well as ideas from all of the other Civil War books and movies produced over the past few decades. Not all of these memories are accurate, maybe most are not, but they represent something very real to the society that holds them as well as an interesting challenge to historians fighting to keep a semblance of reality, as experienced by women and men, both Northern and Southern, in the conversation. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed finally reading something about how women&amp;#039;s work and contributions were acknowledged and became part of a major event in US history. The essay said frequently that women&amp;#039;s role in the war effort was vital and influential. The literature at the time included feminized literature that &amp;quot;involved a distinctive, sentimentalized patriotism.&amp;quot; A good bit of the literature also centered on the woman&amp;#039;s responsibility to &amp;quot;sacrifice their men for their country.&amp;quot; The stories and articles seemed to focus on either persuading women to act patriotic to support their country or describe the emotions, struggles, and experiences of women or the &amp;quot;woman&amp;#039;s war.&amp;quot; It was sad to see that once the men came back from war the focus shifted more towards the masculinized war. Maybe it was to showcase the men for their bravery and patriotism for their country.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before reading this, I had never thought about how much late 19th century Civil War literature focuses on Southern women, and not Northern women.  Of course, this is probably mainly due to the fact that I had no idea just how important of a role Northern Women had played during the War.  I can understand why their role was overshadowed after the war.  After all, the war came to be redefined by the war stories of men and honoring great officers and soldiers.  As for literature on Southern Women, I think it was appealing because it was greatly idealized, versus the more realistic literature from the North.  However, I think that it is amazing that Historians have also been fooled in to this misconception in their analysis of the both the Civil War and the literature of the time.  We are not living in the 19th century, so we should have an objective point of view, right? -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beleive this is the most important question asked in this essay: After the war, should the enfranchisement of black women, or of all women take place?  This question is central to many of the political struggles in the late 19th century.  Black women almost seperated themselves into a community to bond, which made overall suffrage more difficult.&lt;br /&gt;
-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going with the question of the enfranchisement of women... I really was encouraged by the fact that although the book explicitly states that Black men also felt that women were inferior to men in their social positions it was later stated that &amp;quot;serious discussion&amp;quot; regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman&amp;#039;s suffrage movement. -SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought chapter 10 brought up a good question, which was how the transition from slavery to freedom was expected to function. If I remember correctly the majority of white Americans still viewed African Americans as inferior and it was mainly a small percentage of Northern Radicals that were trying to achieve equality for them in their meaning of freedom. As history shows it would still take a long time for freedom to mean anything for freed slaves. So my question is after the Civil War ended what kind of life could African Americans find without having any rights? ---David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
African American women saw the vote as a collective possession between men and women based on the belief within the African American community of collective responsibility. Republican black males supported this belief. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but the impression I got was that it wasn’t necessarily because they believed in any kind of “autonomy as one” thing but because the women could help keep black men from voting as Democrats, which helped keep the Republicans in power. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Taylor, would the men have voted Democratic if their wives hadn&amp;#039;t insisted on Republican? I&amp;#039;m not sure, but I feel like many would have continued to vote Republican because of the party&amp;#039;s strong ties to Lincoln. Perhaps the issue would have been whether they voted at all if their wives had not forced them to get to the polls. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of collective responsibility is very interesting.  That it takes a whole family sometimes including fictive kin to survive.  The idea that when one makes a decision it effects the whole family especially including political decisions.  Did the importance of community and family stem from the fact that they had been divided in slavery?   --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it really striking that African American women worked so hard to ensure that the men in their lives voted, and voted Republican. And that it was a family vote, not a man&amp;#039;s vote on behalf of his family says a lot about the system of community many seemed to operate under. In answer to Mhimes, I would say that yes, a lot of the importance of family probably stemmed from generations of families being torn apart. Now that these individuals could house their families under one roof a strong desire to do everything they could to protect that family meant weighing every decision, including of course the political ones, carefully. And slaves, out of necessity,  had long built families out of unrelated community members so I imagine that the same sense of self-preservation felt for blood relatives carried over for the community as a whole. The women did not want to see hard won freedom taken away by a lack of awareness and participation. And, as the author points out, some of the women&amp;#039;s involvement was even to ensure the physical safety of the voting men. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting when the essay talked about how even though black men had finally gained rights to vote they still were not completely supportive of women having the right to vote. Maybe it is a stupid assumption but I would think that since they knew how it felt to have less rights than others they would show more sympathy towards women. They didn&amp;#039;t think it was as absurd as white men did but why wouldn&amp;#039;t they fight for them harder, especially if that meant all African American people would finally have their rights and freedoms?  Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changing narratives following the war was not something that I was aware of.  The literature during and just following the war focused a great deal on women&amp;#039;s issues, yet changed in the 1880&amp;#039;s and 1890&amp;#039;s to a more masculinized story.  I wonder why the Southern women&amp;#039;s narrative has remained as the most compelling story of the Civil War to this day.-efritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author posits that women&amp;#039;s suffering was equal to or greater than that of men fighting in the war.  Although women suffered great emotional trauma with the loss of their spouses or children, I don&amp;#039;t think that you can compare this emotional suffering to what the men were exposed to in battle.  They all suffered in their individual way, but the emotional and physical toll the men faced daily cannot be compared to that of women&amp;#039;s suffering back home.-efritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to see African American women&amp;#039;s roles in voting before women&amp;#039;s suffrage. Before college, we are taught that women were not able to vote, therefore they did not. However, Brown clearly contradicts this in her article. African American women in Richmond were publicly participating in politics, even voting at the community/local level, while others took it upon themselves to view their husband&amp;#039;s right to vote as a collective, rather than individual, vote. These women were going to vote, whether or not they were legally able to do so. And yet, historians tend to look at this part of history as black and white; African American women were either able to physically vote in the polling booths, or they were not. Clearly, we need to look at the entire issue differently to understand the importance of African American women in 19th century politics. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-20T18:25:37Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Comments/questions comparing the articles ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on a paper I wrote on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, this was a very interesting essay to read.  Fahs mentions that the war still follows the &amp;quot;masculanized culture&amp;quot; that was in place at the time and through my research I discovered the same things.  Much of the standard literature was centered around the fighting and the man&amp;#039;s roles on the battlefield, yet women&amp;#039;s roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten.  It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as &amp;quot;feminist&amp;quot; literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men. -- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it very interesting how she discusses the different type of surrering that women endured.  Men endured the horrors of war and their suffering was very physical and visual.  Women, however, also suffered but they experienced strictly emotional suffering.  They were cut deeply by these emotional wounds of not knowing weather their loved-ones were safe on the battlefield and some argued that these wounds cut deeper than those of men.  Where men simply died on the battlefield, women had to endure the death of a loved one, while still remaining strong, and now being forced to provide for themselves. -- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how Civil War literature shifted from a focus on the tribulations of northern women to those of southern women.  And despite a strong emphasis on realistic literature, southern women and antebellum plantation life was highly romanticized.  This probably came in part from a desire to both remember a time when the nation was united (which can also be seen in the popularity of stories centered around the Revolution)and to try to create a new identity centered around northern and southern reconciliation and &amp;quot;white&amp;quot; ideals. - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t help but think about &amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; whenever they mentioned southern woman&amp;#039;s literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)&lt;br /&gt;
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman&amp;#039;s role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today&amp;#039;s non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is important to keep in mind that literature is largely written for an audience, and yet, this literature is what shapes the public memory of an event. The dominant forms of fiction at the outset of the war were women’s domestic novels. This impacts what type of literature was written during the war. It should come as no surprise that during the war, “the literary marketplace supported an outpouring of popular literature portraying women’s domestic participation in the war.” This domestic participation includes working, sacrifice, and loss, some even argue that the women sacrificed more than the men who were fighting. However, there was a shift in literature with the rise of Civil War veterans organizations. This led to a shift in who were the bearers of the war’s memory from women to veterans. It is amazing how the Civil War has become, “a white male conflict, rather than a cataclysmic event that rent and remade the fabric of life for all Americans.” – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the reading on the Feminized Civil War, I kept asking myself where the women had gone; it was as if their memory of the Civil War had disappeared entirely. I was pleased when I came across Mary Livermore who, in 1887, spoke out against where the literature about the civil war was going. She argued that the story of Northern women was missing.  Then, in 1889 Edward Bellamy, stated that, “many pictures of battles have been painted, but no true one yet, for the pictures contain only men. The women are unaccountably left out.” Finally, there was Elizabeth Stuart Phelps who actually “undermined stereotypes of veterans” and “challenged the veteran dominated culture of remembrance itself.” I was just happy to see that women were not entirely forgotten in the decades following the Civil War. I am curious as to how the majority of women felt when their impacts on the war became largely overlooked, especially after all of the pain and loss that they had experienced. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as time moved on after the Civil War it increasingly became to be defined as a &amp;quot;Man&amp;#039;s War&amp;quot;, specifically a &amp;quot;White Man&amp;#039;s War&amp;quot;. All of the domestic issues women faced, such as caring for children, the home, and earning a living, faded with the passage of time. It appears that a romanticized portrait of the war was painted in which much of the heart-ache and problems women faced on an everyday basis were pushed to the wayside in favor of remembering the great battles and generals of the day. This is yet another example of how women were forgotten in the shadow of their men. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna Holman&amp;#039;s approach that the Civil War had largely (and unfortunately) came to be defined as a &amp;quot;Man&amp;#039;s War.&amp;quot; I also found it interesting that they begin to recognize the importance of the woman in everyday life, thought the focus was only on the mother initially. On page 133, Fahs points out that, &amp;quot;women especially mothers, personalized the nation, that they link the private and public realms.&amp;quot; Not only does Fahs point out that women were in a sense the backbone of the nation, but they were also able to tie together the separate spheres. --MDvorak &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also completely agree with Erin Sanderson&amp;#039;s statement in which she discusses how after men returned from the war, the literature market increasingly became dominated by men&amp;#039;s war stories. The interests of women were again pushed away for those of men. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to find out that the Civil War was so feminized during the war and directly following it. The war has definitely become masculine in the public memory, and it makes me want to take a look at how the public images of other wars have changed. Why was there a focus on the Northern women’s war in Civil War literature in the first place? Was it because they were the only ones around that had the opportunity to read it? Many Northern men would have been fighting, and in the South, both men and women would have had larger concerns than publishing and reading literature. How come when the war once again entered popular memory in the 1880s, it became focused on the masculine aspects of the war? The article mentions a shift away from Victorian feminine literature towards realist literature. Was there some sort of demographic change in readership? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as though the media played a larger role during and after the civil war.  From the material read, it seemed to have expressed sadness, pride, and Patriotism of people’s experiences of the War.  Women&amp;#039;s writing was more prominent because the men were away in war.  But when the men came home their stories needed to be told.  I think this symbolizes men returning to the public sphere.  I think the type of stories told says something about men and women&amp;#039;s roles.  In these stories about women you see the emotional side and in men&amp;#039;s stories they were more about glory and valor. The change from fiction to more non-fiction stories is interesting.  Could this have been because people had just dealt with real emotions, those including pain and sorrow, were ready for something real?  Was it something they could better relate to?  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was initially a little surprised to find that stories about women dominated much of the media at the time, but it really makes sense considering women were the ones remaining home and actually buying and reading the publications of the day. These women understandably wanted stories that they could relate to and that emphasized the importance of their own contributions to the war effort. It also may have been a not so subtle nudge on behalf of the powers-that-be to encourage women, for purely practical reasons, to continue to support the men at war. After all, soldiers who had the support of their families, even if the women believed in the war effort for romanticized reasons, were less likely to desert or to not enlist at all. After the war was over, the pressing need to maintain that support base fell off, and so did the feminized literature. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the Tony Horwitz quote that Fahs included (and not just because he might be one of my favorite authors). She said that in the late nineteenth century Americans &amp;quot;reclaimed a past of their own creation.&amp;quot; It&amp;#039;s so important for us to remember that collective memory is constantly changing. Perceptions of the Civil War changed with the changing attitudes about war and women of the time. It makes some sense that, postwar, women&amp;#039;s stories might be pushed to the side in favor of more masculine stories about the front. Returning veterans were a very visible part of post-war life; women&amp;#039;s suffering, while obviously still with them, was no longer front and center. So, perceptions shifted, and they continued to change with the country, eventually colliding with the force-to-be-reckoned-with that was Gone with the Wind. I think it&amp;#039;s safe to say that many Americans hold certain ideas about the Civil War based on that novel alone, as well as ideas from all of the other Civil War books and movies produced over the past few decades. Not all of these memories are accurate, maybe most are not, but they represent something very real to the society that holds them as well as an interesting challenge to historians fighting to keep a semblance of reality, as experienced by women and men, both Northern and Southern, in the conversation. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed finally reading something about how women&amp;#039;s work and contributions were acknowledged and became part of a major event in US history. The essay said frequently that women&amp;#039;s role in the war effort was vital and influential. The literature at the time included feminized literature that &amp;quot;involved a distinctive, sentimentalized patriotism.&amp;quot; A good bit of the literature also centered on the woman&amp;#039;s responsibility to &amp;quot;sacrifice their men for their country.&amp;quot; The stories and articles seemed to focus on either persuading women to act patriotic to support their country or describe the emotions, struggles, and experiences of women or the &amp;quot;woman&amp;#039;s war.&amp;quot; It was sad to see that once the men came back from war the focus shifted more towards the masculinized war. Maybe it was to showcase the men for their bravery and patriotism for their country.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before reading this, I had never thought about how much late 19th century Civil War literature focuses on Southern women, and not Northern women.  Of course, this is probably mainly due to the fact that I had no idea just how important of a role Northern Women had played during the War.  I can understand why their role was overshadowed after the war.  After all, the war came to be redefined by the war stories of men and honoring great officers and soldiers.  As for literature on Southern Women, I think it was appealing because it was greatly idealized, versus the more realistic literature from the North.  However, I think that it is amazing that Historians have also been fooled in to this misconception in their analysis of the both the Civil War and the literature of the time.  We are not living in the 19th century, so we should have an objective point of view, right? -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also surprised to see African American women&amp;#039;s roles in voting before women&amp;#039;s suffrage.  Before college, we are taught that women were not able to vote, therefore they did not.  However, Brown clearly contradicts this in her article.  African American women in Richmond were publicly participating in politics, even voting at the community/local level, while others took it upon themselves to view their husband&amp;#039;s right to vote as a collective, rather than individual, vote.  These women were going to vote, whether or not they were legally able to do so.  And yet, historians tend to look at this part of history as black and white; African American women were either able to physically vote in the polling booths, or they were not.  Clearly, we need to look at the entire issue differently to understand the importance of African American women in 19th century politics. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beleive this is the most important question asked in this essay: After the war, should the enfranchisement of black women, or of all women take place?  This question is central to many of the political struggles in the late 19th century.  Black women almost seperated themselves into a community to bond, which made overall suffrage more difficult.&lt;br /&gt;
-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going with the question of the enfranchisement of women... I really was encouraged by the fact that although the book explicitly states that Black men also felt that women were inferior to men in their social positions it was later stated that &amp;quot;serious discussion&amp;quot; regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman&amp;#039;s suffrage movement. -SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought chapter 10 brought up a good question, which was how the transition from slavery to freedom was expected to function. If I remember correctly the majority of white Americans still viewed African Americans as inferior and it was mainly a small percentage of Northern Radicals that were trying to achieve equality for them in their meaning of freedom. As history shows it would still take a long time for freedom to mean anything for freed slaves. So my question is after the Civil War ended what kind of life could African Americans find without having any rights? ---David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
African American women saw the vote as a collective possession between men and women based on the belief within the African American community of collective responsibility. Republican black males supported this belief. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but the impression I got was that it wasn’t necessarily because they believed in any kind of “autonomy as one” thing but because the women could help keep black men from voting as Democrats, which helped keep the Republicans in power. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Taylor, would the men have voted Democratic if their wives hadn&amp;#039;t insisted on Republican? I&amp;#039;m not sure, but I feel like many would have continued to vote Republican because of the party&amp;#039;s strong ties to Lincoln. Perhaps the issue would have been whether they voted at all if their wives had not forced them to get to the polls. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of collective responsibility is very interesting.  That it takes a whole family sometimes including fictive kin to survive.  The idea that when one makes a decision it effects the whole family especially including political decisions.  Did the importance of community and family stem from the fact that they had been divided in slavery?   --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it really striking that African American women worked so hard to ensure that the men in their lives voted, and voted Republican. And that it was a family vote, not a man&amp;#039;s vote on behalf of his family says a lot about the system of community many seemed to operate under. In answer to Mhimes, I would say that yes, a lot of the importance of family probably stemmed from generations of families being torn apart. Now that these individuals could house their families under one roof a strong desire to do everything they could to protect that family meant weighing every decision, including of course the political ones, carefully. And slaves, out of necessity,  had long built families out of unrelated community members so I imagine that the same sense of self-preservation felt for blood relatives carried over for the community as a whole. The women did not want to see hard won freedom taken away by a lack of awareness and participation. And, as the author points out, some of the women&amp;#039;s involvement was even to ensure the physical safety of the voting men. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting when the essay talked about how even though black men had finally gained rights to vote they still were not completely supportive of women having the right to vote. Maybe it is a stupid assumption but I would think that since they knew how it felt to have less rights than others they would show more sympathy towards women. They didn&amp;#039;t think it was as absurd as white men did but why wouldn&amp;#039;t they fight for them harder, especially if that meant all African American people would finally have their rights and freedoms?  Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changing narratives following the war was not something that I was aware of.  The literature during and just following the war focused a great deal on women&amp;#039;s issues, yet changed in the 1880&amp;#039;s and 1890&amp;#039;s to a more masculinized story.  I wonder why the Southern women&amp;#039;s narrative has remained as the most compelling story of the Civil War to this day.-efritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author posits that women&amp;#039;s suffering was equal to or greater than that of men fighting in the war.  Although women suffered great emotional trauma with the loss of their spouses or children, I don&amp;#039;t think that you can compare this emotional suffering to what the men were exposed to in battle.  They all suffered in their individual way, but the emotional and physical toll the men faced daily cannot be compared to that of women&amp;#039;s suffering back home.-efritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to see African American women&amp;#039;s roles in voting before women&amp;#039;s suffrage. Before college, we are taught that women were not able to vote, therefore they did not. However, Brown clearly contradicts this in her article. African American women in Richmond were publicly participating in politics, even voting at the community/local level, while others took it upon themselves to view their husband&amp;#039;s right to vote as a collective, rather than individual, vote. These women were going to vote, whether or not they were legally able to do so. And yet, historians tend to look at this part of history as black and white; African American women were either able to physically vote in the polling booths, or they were not. Clearly, we need to look at the entire issue differently to understand the importance of African American women in 19th century politics. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-20T18:25:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: /* Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Comments/questions comparing the articles ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on a paper I wrote on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, this was a very interesting essay to read.  Fahs mentions that the war still follows the &amp;quot;masculanized culture&amp;quot; that was in place at the time and through my research I discovered the same things.  Much of the standard literature was centered around the fighting and the man&amp;#039;s roles on the battlefield, yet women&amp;#039;s roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten.  It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as &amp;quot;feminist&amp;quot; literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men. -- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it very interesting how she discusses the different type of surrering that women endured.  Men endured the horrors of war and their suffering was very physical and visual.  Women, however, also suffered but they experienced strictly emotional suffering.  They were cut deeply by these emotional wounds of not knowing weather their loved-ones were safe on the battlefield and some argued that these wounds cut deeper than those of men.  Where men simply died on the battlefield, women had to endure the death of a loved one, while still remaining strong, and now being forced to provide for themselves. -- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how Civil War literature shifted from a focus on the tribulations of northern women to those of southern women.  And despite a strong emphasis on realistic literature, southern women and antebellum plantation life was highly romanticized.  This probably came in part from a desire to both remember a time when the nation was united (which can also be seen in the popularity of stories centered around the Revolution)and to try to create a new identity centered around northern and southern reconciliation and &amp;quot;white&amp;quot; ideals. - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t help but think about &amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; whenever they mentioned southern woman&amp;#039;s literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)&lt;br /&gt;
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman&amp;#039;s role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today&amp;#039;s non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is important to keep in mind that literature is largely written for an audience, and yet, this literature is what shapes the public memory of an event. The dominant forms of fiction at the outset of the war were women’s domestic novels. This impacts what type of literature was written during the war. It should come as no surprise that during the war, “the literary marketplace supported an outpouring of popular literature portraying women’s domestic participation in the war.” This domestic participation includes working, sacrifice, and loss, some even argue that the women sacrificed more than the men who were fighting. However, there was a shift in literature with the rise of Civil War veterans organizations. This led to a shift in who were the bearers of the war’s memory from women to veterans. It is amazing how the Civil War has become, “a white male conflict, rather than a cataclysmic event that rent and remade the fabric of life for all Americans.” – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the reading on the Feminized Civil War, I kept asking myself where the women had gone; it was as if their memory of the Civil War had disappeared entirely. I was pleased when I came across Mary Livermore who, in 1887, spoke out against where the literature about the civil war was going. She argued that the story of Northern women was missing.  Then, in 1889 Edward Bellamy, stated that, “many pictures of battles have been painted, but no true one yet, for the pictures contain only men. The women are unaccountably left out.” Finally, there was Elizabeth Stuart Phelps who actually “undermined stereotypes of veterans” and “challenged the veteran dominated culture of remembrance itself.” I was just happy to see that women were not entirely forgotten in the decades following the Civil War. I am curious as to how the majority of women felt when their impacts on the war became largely overlooked, especially after all of the pain and loss that they had experienced. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as time moved on after the Civil War it increasingly became to be defined as a &amp;quot;Man&amp;#039;s War&amp;quot;, specifically a &amp;quot;White Man&amp;#039;s War&amp;quot;. All of the domestic issues women faced, such as caring for children, the home, and earning a living, faded with the passage of time. It appears that a romanticized portrait of the war was painted in which much of the heart-ache and problems women faced on an everyday basis were pushed to the wayside in favor of remembering the great battles and generals of the day. This is yet another example of how women were forgotten in the shadow of their men. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna Holman&amp;#039;s approach that the Civil War had largely (and unfortunately) came to be defined as a &amp;quot;Man&amp;#039;s War.&amp;quot; I also found it interesting that they begin to recognize the importance of the woman in everyday life, thought the focus was only on the mother initially. On page 133, Fahs points out that, &amp;quot;women especially mothers, personalized the nation, that they link the private and public realms.&amp;quot; Not only does Fahs point out that women were in a sense the backbone of the nation, but they were also able to tie together the separate spheres. --MDvorak &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also completely agree with Erin Sanderson&amp;#039;s statement in which she discusses how after men returned from the war, the literature market increasingly became dominated by men&amp;#039;s war stories. The interests of women were again pushed away for those of men. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to find out that the Civil War was so feminized during the war and directly following it. The war has definitely become masculine in the public memory, and it makes me want to take a look at how the public images of other wars have changed. Why was there a focus on the Northern women’s war in Civil War literature in the first place? Was it because they were the only ones around that had the opportunity to read it? Many Northern men would have been fighting, and in the South, both men and women would have had larger concerns than publishing and reading literature. How come when the war once again entered popular memory in the 1880s, it became focused on the masculine aspects of the war? The article mentions a shift away from Victorian feminine literature towards realist literature. Was there some sort of demographic change in readership? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as though the media played a larger role during and after the civil war.  From the material read, it seemed to have expressed sadness, pride, and Patriotism of people’s experiences of the War.  Women&amp;#039;s writing was more prominent because the men were away in war.  But when the men came home their stories needed to be told.  I think this symbolizes men returning to the public sphere.  I think the type of stories told says something about men and women&amp;#039;s roles.  In these stories about women you see the emotional side and in men&amp;#039;s stories they were more about glory and valor. The change from fiction to more non-fiction stories is interesting.  Could this have been because people had just dealt with real emotions, those including pain and sorrow, were ready for something real?  Was it something they could better relate to?  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was initially a little surprised to find that stories about women dominated much of the media at the time, but it really makes sense considering women were the ones remaining home and actually buying and reading the publications of the day. These women understandably wanted stories that they could relate to and that emphasized the importance of their own contributions to the war effort. It also may have been a not so subtle nudge on behalf of the powers-that-be to encourage women, for purely practical reasons, to continue to support the men at war. After all, soldiers who had the support of their families, even if the women believed in the war effort for romanticized reasons, were less likely to desert or to not enlist at all. After the war was over, the pressing need to maintain that support base fell off, and so did the feminized literature. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the Tony Horwitz quote that Fahs included (and not just because he might be one of my favorite authors). She said that in the late nineteenth century Americans &amp;quot;reclaimed a past of their own creation.&amp;quot; It&amp;#039;s so important for us to remember that collective memory is constantly changing. Perceptions of the Civil War changed with the changing attitudes about war and women of the time. It makes some sense that, postwar, women&amp;#039;s stories might be pushed to the side in favor of more masculine stories about the front. Returning veterans were a very visible part of post-war life; women&amp;#039;s suffering, while obviously still with them, was no longer front and center. So, perceptions shifted, and they continued to change with the country, eventually colliding with the force-to-be-reckoned-with that was Gone with the Wind. I think it&amp;#039;s safe to say that many Americans hold certain ideas about the Civil War based on that novel alone, as well as ideas from all of the other Civil War books and movies produced over the past few decades. Not all of these memories are accurate, maybe most are not, but they represent something very real to the society that holds them as well as an interesting challenge to historians fighting to keep a semblance of reality, as experienced by women and men, both Northern and Southern, in the conversation. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed finally reading something about how women&amp;#039;s work and contributions were acknowledged and became part of a major event in US history. The essay said frequently that women&amp;#039;s role in the war effort was vital and influential. The literature at the time included feminized literature that &amp;quot;involved a distinctive, sentimentalized patriotism.&amp;quot; A good bit of the literature also centered on the woman&amp;#039;s responsibility to &amp;quot;sacrifice their men for their country.&amp;quot; The stories and articles seemed to focus on either persuading women to act patriotic to support their country or describe the emotions, struggles, and experiences of women or the &amp;quot;woman&amp;#039;s war.&amp;quot; It was sad to see that once the men came back from war the focus shifted more towards the masculinized war. Maybe it was to showcase the men for their bravery and patriotism for their country.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before reading this, I had never thought about how much late 19th century Civil War literature focuses on Southern women, and not Northern women.  Of course, this is probably mainly due to the fact that I had no idea just how important of a role Northern Women had played during the War.  I can understand why their role was overshadowed after the war.  After all, the war came to be redefined by the war stories of men and honoring great officers and soldiers.  As for literature on Southern Women, I think it was appealing because it was greatly idealized, versus the more realistic literature from the North.  However, I think that it is amazing that Historians have also been fooled in to this misconception in their analysis of the both the Civil War and the literature of the time.  We are not living in the 19th century, so we should have an objective point of view, right? -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also surprised to see African American women&amp;#039;s roles in voting before women&amp;#039;s suffrage.  Before college, we are taught that women were not able to vote, therefore they did not.  However, Brown clearly contradicts this in her article.  African American women in Richmond were publicly participating in politics, even voting at the community/local level, while others took it upon themselves to view their husband&amp;#039;s right to vote as a collective, rather than individual, vote.  These women were going to vote, whether or not they were legally able to do so.  And yet, historians tend to look at this part of history as black and white; African American women were either able to physically vote in the polling booths, or they were not.  Clearly, we need to look at the entire issue differently to understand the importance of African American women in 19th century politics. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beleive this is the most important question asked in this essay: After the war, should the enfranchisement of black women, or of all women take place?  This question is central to many of the political struggles in the late 19th century.  Black women almost seperated themselves into a community to bond, which made overall suffrage more difficult.&lt;br /&gt;
-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going with the question of the enfranchisement of women... I really was encouraged by the fact that although the book explicitly states that Black men also felt that women were inferior to men in their social positions it was later stated that &amp;quot;serious discussion&amp;quot; regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman&amp;#039;s suffrage movement. -SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought chapter 10 brought up a good question, which was how the transition from slavery to freedom was expected to function. If I remember correctly the majority of white Americans still viewed African Americans as inferior and it was mainly a small percentage of Northern Radicals that were trying to achieve equality for them in their meaning of freedom. As history shows it would still take a long time for freedom to mean anything for freed slaves. So my question is after the Civil War ended what kind of life could African Americans find without having any rights? ---David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
African American women saw the vote as a collective possession between men and women based on the belief within the African American community of collective responsibility. Republican black males supported this belief. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but the impression I got was that it wasn’t necessarily because they believed in any kind of “autonomy as one” thing but because the women could help keep black men from voting as Democrats, which helped keep the Republicans in power. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Taylor, would the men have voted Democratic if their wives hadn&amp;#039;t insisted on Republican? I&amp;#039;m not sure, but I feel like many would have continued to vote Republican because of the party&amp;#039;s strong ties to Lincoln. Perhaps the issue would have been whether they voted at all if their wives had not forced them to get to the polls. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of collective responsibility is very interesting.  That it takes a whole family sometimes including fictive kin to survive.  The idea that when one makes a decision it effects the whole family especially including political decisions.  Did the importance of community and family stem from the fact that they had been divided in slavery?   --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it really striking that African American women worked so hard to ensure that the men in their lives voted, and voted Republican. And that it was a family vote, not a man&amp;#039;s vote on behalf of his family says a lot about the system of community many seemed to operate under. In answer to Mhimes, I would say that yes, a lot of the importance of family probably stemmed from generations of families being torn apart. Now that these individuals could house their families under one roof a strong desire to do everything they could to protect that family meant weighing every decision, including of course the political ones, carefully. And slaves, out of necessity,  had long built families out of unrelated community members so I imagine that the same sense of self-preservation felt for blood relatives carried over for the community as a whole. The women did not want to see hard won freedom taken away by a lack of awareness and participation. And, as the author points out, some of the women&amp;#039;s involvement was even to ensure the physical safety of the voting men. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting when the essay talked about how even though black men had finally gained rights to vote they still were not completely supportive of women having the right to vote. Maybe it is a stupid assumption but I would think that since they knew how it felt to have less rights than others they would show more sympathy towards women. They didn&amp;#039;t think it was as absurd as white men did but why wouldn&amp;#039;t they fight for them harder, especially if that meant all African American people would finally have their rights and freedoms?  Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changing narratives following the war was not something that I was aware of.  The literature during and just following the war focused a great deal on women&amp;#039;s issues, yet changed in the 1880&amp;#039;s and 1890&amp;#039;s to a more masculinized story.  I wonder why the Southern women&amp;#039;s narrative has remained as the most compelling story of the Civil War to this day.-efritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author posits that women&amp;#039;s suffering was equal to or greater than that of men fighting in the war.  Although women suffered great emotional trauma with the loss of their spouses or children, I don&amp;#039;t think that you can compare this emotional suffering to what the men were exposed to in battle.  They all suffered in their individual way, but the emotional and physical toll the men faced daily cannot be compared to that of women&amp;#039;s suffering back home.-efritz&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-14T02:27:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;So apparently I&amp;#039;m the first to comment, yay. In &amp;quot;Defining &amp;quot;American Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot; I really liked the concept on page 6 that &amp;quot;if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on.&amp;quot; I found it interesting to think about Women&amp;#039;s history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an &amp;quot;inferior&amp;quot; race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of going along with the first statement, it was interesting to see that some historians balk at including race, class, etc., in women&amp;#039;s history because they seem to feel that it will ultimately remove the gender aspect from the discipline in favor of a focus on race or another variable. Yet if you&amp;#039;re going to study women, don&amp;#039;t you have to study real women&amp;#039;s lives, as complex or as multifaceted as they may be? To claim that all women can be put into the same category risks losing the richness of understanding that comes with exploring the differences as well as the similarities among groups or individuals, as Leslie M. Alexander points out. And it would also turn many people away from studying the subject, just as women can feel excluded by traditional, male-focused history. -MMackey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women&amp;#039;s history separate from &amp;quot;men&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women&amp;#039;s history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men&amp;#039;s history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to SSellers, I think it is important to remember that up until recently, history has been dominated by men because men were the ones who were literate. Therefore, history came from the male&amp;#039;s perspective. I am not sure if that makes women&amp;#039;s history inferior, just harder because it takes deeper analysis to find where women fit into history and how they felt.  I mean, men and women share the same history. Their roles within it, however, were different and it takes a women&amp;#039;s studies course to discover where women fit into the world during any given time. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also commenting on SSellers and in agreement with Erin, just because women&amp;#039;s history is a somewhat new classification of history, doesn&amp;#039;t mean its &amp;quot;inferior.&amp;quot; Studied, accepted history is in the eyes and pens of white, European men.  What we study and learn starting in kindergarten is what they (those white men) wanted us to know about their lives and times.  Studying women&amp;#039;s history, or any other classification of history (black, native american, chinese, etc.) isn&amp;#039;t segregating any one group.  You can&amp;#039;t learn about anything by looking at it strictly in isolation.  You must take these primary sources and examine them for hidden meanings, context, perspectives, goals, etc. In this course we are not simply learning what women did, we are learning what they did in comparison to what was going on in the rest of the country and population, and what was expected previously and currently of them. (I don&amp;#039;t know if being in the first half of this class has made me biased, but there ya go!!) - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that these are very interesting comments on the issue of inferiority between men&amp;#039;s and women&amp;#039;s history.  Is men&amp;#039;s history be superior because there is more written information, because certain historical men had larger political influence than most women did, or because of how history is taught today?  I know we can&amp;#039;t really understand women&amp;#039;s history without looking at men&amp;#039;s history, but couldn&amp;#039;t the same be said for men&amp;#039;s history? - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The debate between &amp;quot;equality&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;difference&amp;quot; in terms of women in Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History&amp;#039;” by Kate Haulman, shows how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the changing dynamics of women&amp;#039;s history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only &amp;quot;notable women&amp;quot; were written about. Even being characterized as a &amp;quot;notable woman&amp;quot; was defined by male terms in a male dominated society. However, there was a great shift in the study of women from these notable women to the everyday woman. Even so, this study of the everyday woman was still dominated by male terms, as Gisela Bock notes. All of women&amp;#039;s activities were judged by the male standard, which was deemed valuable. The spheres that the study of women were divided into, suck as Public vs. Private, were still male dominated. It seems that males have dominated almost every aspect of women&amp;#039;s history. Males are the standard upon which women are judged, they decide which women are important enough to be studied, and they define all spheres of the women&amp;#039;s lives. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Anna Holman&amp;#039;s comment above. It was fascinating to read about the evolution of women&amp;#039;s history and made me wonder how it will continue to evolve in the future. Hopefully as we move forward, women&amp;#039;s history will be able to be studied without male domination and we can define ourselves. -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding onto Erin Sanderson&amp;#039;s statement, I found it interesting how Kate Haulman stated that gender was created and fluid. It is fascinating to understand how people identify with the term &amp;quot;woman&amp;quot;, and how it intersects the other aspects of their identity, such as their unique race and ethnicity. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading, I was intrigued by Kate Haulman&amp;#039;s statement about the definition of &amp;quot;American.&amp;quot; It did seem like the term would be uncomplicated, simply refering to residents of the United States. The fact that &amp;quot;American&amp;quot; could refer (maybe, should refer) to anyone in the Americas was something I had never considered before. --Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how Kate Haulman pointed out that women&amp;#039;s history started out focused on notable women, as if they suitably represented other women of their time.  Yet, these women were, and are, often notable because they either went against the norms of society to accomplish something great for women or society in general.  Obviously, that is not something most women do.  And then, fo course, one has to consider how much is being seen from a male&amp;#039;s point of view.  So, I definitely believe it is important to study all kinds of women, not just notable figures, in order to get a more realistic picture of women throughout history.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In accumulating the readings, I found that they similarly shared underlying factors.  Those factors being race and ethnicity, gender, class, and locality.  What I thought was interesting was that even though race and gender do not change, but perspectives towards race and gender do change over time.  Naturally writings reflect changes in one’s perspective.  --MHimes  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the same similarities of race, class, culture, community, and sexual orientation throughout the reading. All these factors seem to be the cornerstone for uncovering women&amp;#039;s history. I agree with MHimes that perspectives do change over time, as does history. After reading this first chapter I have realized that Women&amp;#039;s History is a completely different field of study told differently than other history subjects, both because we now live in a age where women have equality, and that scholars are coming to understand the history of women. ---David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American History, under the “gender first” policy, Alexander makes an valid point.  I thought it was interesting when she said that you cannot divorce Black Women from the community or you will not understand the Black Woman.  Black women had to hurdle racial inequality before they could focus on their own empowerment as a woman.  They did not have that same leisure as a white woman.  At the same time, you can’t explain women’s history without including black women.  Black women were an intricate part of white women’s lives as servants or field laborers.  Black Woman slaves relieved a lot of  White Women’s duties so they could focus on raising their children. --MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was interested in the statements made about black women and their roles in Women&amp;#039;s History. Most of the time, people tend to combine all women into one category and forget that it is still important to focus on individual groups separately also. Historians may want to homogenize all women together when studying or writing about women but the reality is that they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was particularly interested in Kate Haulman&amp;#039;s idea that identifying factors such as gender and race are created and fluid rather than having a sort of naturally fixed meaning.  This notion gives richer meaning to the larger social and cultural narrative of any nation or people.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The two most interesting articles to me were Kate Haulman&amp;#039;s article and Leslie Alexander&amp;#039;s. I agree with Erin about Haulman&amp;#039;s approach. I found Haulman&amp;#039;s article reminiscent of an article written by George Kennan. The article written by Kennan describes the difficulty in describing history because there is no specific beginning or end. I thought that theme was pertinent throughout Haulman&amp;#039;s reading. The last reading written by Alexander made some good arguments and had an interesting approach. At first I was surprised by her resistance to grouping both black and white women together as a &amp;quot;homogeneous womanhood,&amp;quot; but after pondering for a few minutes it makes sense. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think equality based on the sameness between men and women versus equality with a recognition of the differences between men and women is an interesting concept, one that was likely very important and dividing as women were defining their expectations of equality. We’ve come to expect that women be treated the same as men, but to what extend is appropriate? Under the equality of sameness sometimes women who are on maternity leave are listed as being on disabled leave. It’s a little insulting to infer that pregnancy is a disability (though I’m sure a few people would argue that it is). -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The focus on women&amp;#039;s history as opposed to studying men and women in history combined is an important distinction. Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s essay and dichotomies describe how distinct men really are from women. Men and women are different in many ways including &amp;quot;working&amp;quot; at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms &amp;quot;sex&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;gender&amp;quot; are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All women aren’t united under the cause of women’s rights because they have had different experiences that have resulted from race, class, socio-economic status, and more, which according to Leslie Alexander also extends into the study and interpretation of women’s history by historians. She focuses on the particular issues of race and argues that the feminist movement is only useful as a lens for studying the experiences of white women, not the experiences of black women. While her view certainly has merit, by dismissing feminism’s use to black women in the manner she does it almost seems like she’s suggesting that the feminist movement is useful for considering all white women in general, while I would argue that it is most useful in regards to only a certain group of white women, particularly of the middle-class. Similarly, there is no simple lens to study the experiences of black women, as they are also influenced by a variety of factors beyond that of race alone. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree completely with Taylor&amp;#039;s above comments.  It is easy to see where Alexander comes from in contrasting Black women&amp;#039;s history against those of what is generally thought of as Women&amp;#039;s history.  However, black women do fall under the umbrella of women&amp;#039;s history, just as african-americans and women fall under the umbrella of history.  There can always be subdivisions/classifications within different fields of study. There&amp;#039;s always going to be at least one (but probably more) group or culture that is overlooked and one that is the focus.  While women&amp;#039;s history is focused on generally the upper-middle class of white women, thats primarily because those were the people leaving primary sources behind. We can&amp;#039;t go back and teach slaves and later generations to write in diaries or send letters, so it is increasingly difficult to find sources from the time documenting their experiences.  - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s essay on dichotomies the most intriguing of all. By using these comparisons, I found that she fantastically described many of the social and political struggles that women face while describing different categories that scholars study women under. My favorite was the dichotomy of Integration vs. Autonomy because I had no idea that there was such argument going on about where Women&amp;#039;s History should be included in a course of study as well as what it should include in itself. This argument of whether Women&amp;#039;s History should be autonomous or integrated with such things as Gender History seemed like a parallel to feminist controversies in modern day social and work settings. I have often heard the argument that if women want to be integrated with men, then they should be treated the same, no special exceptions. But, if they want to keep things like maternity leave and not getting drafted, then they should remain autonomous with perhaps less benefits than men receive. I think that Bock definitely provided some interesting parallels between womens history controversies and modern social controversies. -- Angie W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leslie Alexander puts forth an interesting idea when she says that &amp;quot;the recognition that Black and White women are culturally different opens a Pandora&amp;#039;s box...&amp;quot; (p. 20) because it is something that many young feminists never consider, but when they do, they realize that is so very true. If historians and feminists were to recognize this, then their theory of one, strong womanhood would be attacked. Like Alexander said, Black women often name their race as their main identifying factor while most white women, especially feminists, put woman. If women&amp;#039;s history scholars were to recognize this, then they would have to take another look at women&amp;#039;s history and perhaps separate not just separate women from men, but also from each other based on their class, race, and even sexual orientation. This would put a whole new spin on feminism and women&amp;#039;s studies. -- Angie W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the key components in the study of women&amp;#039;s history is the recognition and understanding that different cultures expose women to different challenges.  Alexander notes in her essay that to acknowledge the black and white women have different histories because of cultural differences seems to be obvious.  We do not assume that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln have a bond simply because they were both of the same gender.  It would be ludicrous to assume that all women have experienced the same histories and lives. - efritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
efritz certainly makes some good points.  There are definitely similarities between white and black women, the simplest being they are both women.  However, I strongly disagree with having a universal image for women.  Even white women are different from each other, based on things like their environment, family upbringing, or culture.  So, of course white women and black women would vary from each other.  When Alexander talked about it being obvious for these women to have different histories, I agreed.  I had been surprised to find that historians had thought differently until it was strongly pointed out to them! -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Taylors interpretation of equality between the sexes.  The women&amp;#039;s movement of the 1970&amp;#039;s was a tremendous boost to elevating the status of women in society.  It assisted in raising wages of women to be closer to those of men, and allowed women to enter into occupations traditionally held by men.  But how far do we want to go with equality?  Men and women are different physically and physiologically for a reason.  Women should be valued the same as men but I think that to deny that there are differences is also incorrect. -efritz&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-14T02:24:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;So apparently I&amp;#039;m the first to comment, yay. In &amp;quot;Defining &amp;quot;American Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot; I really liked the concept on page 6 that &amp;quot;if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on.&amp;quot; I found it interesting to think about Women&amp;#039;s history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an &amp;quot;inferior&amp;quot; race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of going along with the first statement, it was interesting to see that some historians balk at including race, class, etc., in women&amp;#039;s history because they seem to feel that it will ultimately remove the gender aspect from the discipline in favor of a focus on race or another variable. Yet if you&amp;#039;re going to study women, don&amp;#039;t you have to study real women&amp;#039;s lives, as complex or as multifaceted as they may be? To claim that all women can be put into the same category risks losing the richness of understanding that comes with exploring the differences as well as the similarities among groups or individuals, as Leslie M. Alexander points out. And it would also turn many people away from studying the subject, just as women can feel excluded by traditional, male-focused history. -MMackey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women&amp;#039;s history separate from &amp;quot;men&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women&amp;#039;s history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men&amp;#039;s history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to SSellers, I think it is important to remember that up until recently, history has been dominated by men because men were the ones who were literate. Therefore, history came from the male&amp;#039;s perspective. I am not sure if that makes women&amp;#039;s history inferior, just harder because it takes deeper analysis to find where women fit into history and how they felt.  I mean, men and women share the same history. Their roles within it, however, were different and it takes a women&amp;#039;s studies course to discover where women fit into the world during any given time. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also commenting on SSellers and in agreement with Erin, just because women&amp;#039;s history is a somewhat new classification of history, doesn&amp;#039;t mean its &amp;quot;inferior.&amp;quot; Studied, accepted history is in the eyes and pens of white, European men.  What we study and learn starting in kindergarten is what they (those white men) wanted us to know about their lives and times.  Studying women&amp;#039;s history, or any other classification of history (black, native american, chinese, etc.) isn&amp;#039;t segregating any one group.  You can&amp;#039;t learn about anything by looking at it strictly in isolation.  You must take these primary sources and examine them for hidden meanings, context, perspectives, goals, etc. In this course we are not simply learning what women did, we are learning what they did in comparison to what was going on in the rest of the country and population, and what was expected previously and currently of them. (I don&amp;#039;t know if being in the first half of this class has made me biased, but there ya go!!) - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that these are very interesting comments on the issue of inferiority between men&amp;#039;s and women&amp;#039;s history.  Is men&amp;#039;s history be superior because there is more written information, because certain historical men had larger political influence than most women did, or because of how history is taught today?  I know we can&amp;#039;t really understand women&amp;#039;s history without looking at men&amp;#039;s history, but couldn&amp;#039;t the same be said for men&amp;#039;s history? - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The debate between &amp;quot;equality&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;difference&amp;quot; in terms of women in Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how Kate Haulman (the first essay) pointed out that women&amp;#039;s history started out focused on notable women, as if they suitably represented other women of their time.  Yet, these women were, and are, often notable because they either went against the norms of society to accomplish something great for women or society in general.  Obviously, that is not something most women do.  So, I definitely believe it is important to study all kinds of women, not just notable figures, in order to get a more realistic picture of women throughout history.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History&amp;#039;” by Kate Haulman, shows how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the changing dynamics of women&amp;#039;s history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only &amp;quot;notable women&amp;quot; were written about. Even being characterized as a &amp;quot;notable woman&amp;quot; was defined by male terms in a male dominated society. However, there was a great shift in the study of women from these notable women to the everyday woman. Even so, this study of the everyday woman was still dominated by male terms, as Gisela Bock notes. All of women&amp;#039;s activities were judged by the male standard, which was deemed valuable. The spheres that the study of women were divided into, suck as Public vs. Private, were still male dominated. It seems that males have dominated almost every aspect of women&amp;#039;s history. Males are the standard upon which women are judged, they decide which women are important enough to be studied, and they define all spheres of the women&amp;#039;s lives. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Anna Holman&amp;#039;s comment above. It was fascinating to read about the evolution of women&amp;#039;s history and made me wonder how it will continue to evolve in the future. Hopefully as we move forward, women&amp;#039;s history will be able to be studied without male domination and we can define ourselves. -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding onto Erin Sanderson&amp;#039;s statement, I found it interesting how Kate Haulman stated that gender was created and fluid. It is fascinating to understand how people identify with the term &amp;quot;woman&amp;quot;, and how it intersects the other aspects of their identity, such as their unique race and ethnicity. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading, I was intrigued by Kate Haulman&amp;#039;s statement about the definition of &amp;quot;American.&amp;quot; It did seem like the term would be uncomplicated, simply refering to residents of the United States. The fact that &amp;quot;American&amp;quot; could refer (maybe, should refer) to anyone in the Americas was something I had never considered before. --Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In accumulating the readings, I found that they similarly shared underlying factors.  Those factors being race and ethnicity, gender, class, and locality.  What I thought was interesting was that even though race and gender do not change, but perspectives towards race and gender do change over time.  Naturally writings reflect changes in one’s perspective.  --MHimes  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the same similarities of race, class, culture, community, and sexual orientation throughout the reading. All these factors seem to be the cornerstone for uncovering women&amp;#039;s history. I agree with MHimes that perspectives do change over time, as does history. After reading this first chapter I have realized that Women&amp;#039;s History is a completely different field of study told differently than other history subjects, both because we now live in a age where women have equality, and that scholars are coming to understand the history of women. ---David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American History, under the “gender first” policy, Alexander makes an valid point.  I thought it was interesting when she said that you cannot divorce Black Women from the community or you will not understand the Black Woman.  Black women had to hurdle racial inequality before they could focus on their own empowerment as a woman.  They did not have that same leisure as a white woman.  At the same time, you can’t explain women’s history without including black women.  Black women were an intricate part of white women’s lives as servants or field laborers.  Black Woman slaves relieved a lot of  White Women’s duties so they could focus on raising their children. --MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was interested in the statements made about black women and their roles in Women&amp;#039;s History. Most of the time, people tend to combine all women into one category and forget that it is still important to focus on individual groups separately also. Historians may want to homogenize all women together when studying or writing about women but the reality is that they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was particularly interested in Kate Haulman&amp;#039;s idea that identifying factors such as gender and race are created and fluid rather than having a sort of naturally fixed meaning.  This notion gives richer meaning to the larger social and cultural narrative of any nation or people.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The two most interesting articles to me were Kate Haulman&amp;#039;s article and Leslie Alexander&amp;#039;s. I agree with Erin about Haulman&amp;#039;s approach. I found Haulman&amp;#039;s article reminiscent of an article written by George Kennan. The article written by Kennan describes the difficulty in describing history because there is no specific beginning or end. I thought that theme was pertinent throughout Haulman&amp;#039;s reading. The last reading written by Alexander made some good arguments and had an interesting approach. At first I was surprised by her resistance to grouping both black and white women together as a &amp;quot;homogeneous womanhood,&amp;quot; but after pondering for a few minutes it makes sense. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think equality based on the sameness between men and women versus equality with a recognition of the differences between men and women is an interesting concept, one that was likely very important and dividing as women were defining their expectations of equality. We’ve come to expect that women be treated the same as men, but to what extend is appropriate? Under the equality of sameness sometimes women who are on maternity leave are listed as being on disabled leave. It’s a little insulting to infer that pregnancy is a disability (though I’m sure a few people would argue that it is). -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The focus on women&amp;#039;s history as opposed to studying men and women in history combined is an important distinction. Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s essay and dichotomies describe how distinct men really are from women. Men and women are different in many ways including &amp;quot;working&amp;quot; at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms &amp;quot;sex&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;gender&amp;quot; are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All women aren’t united under the cause of women’s rights because they have had different experiences that have resulted from race, class, socio-economic status, and more, which according to Leslie Alexander also extends into the study and interpretation of women’s history by historians. She focuses on the particular issues of race and argues that the feminist movement is only useful as a lens for studying the experiences of white women, not the experiences of black women. While her view certainly has merit, by dismissing feminism’s use to black women in the manner she does it almost seems like she’s suggesting that the feminist movement is useful for considering all white women in general, while I would argue that it is most useful in regards to only a certain group of white women, particularly of the middle-class. Similarly, there is no simple lens to study the experiences of black women, as they are also influenced by a variety of factors beyond that of race alone. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree completely with Taylor&amp;#039;s above comments.  It is easy to see where Alexander comes from in contrasting Black women&amp;#039;s history against those of what is generally thought of as Women&amp;#039;s history.  However, black women do fall under the umbrella of women&amp;#039;s history, just as african-americans and women fall under the umbrella of history.  There can always be subdivisions/classifications within different fields of study. There&amp;#039;s always going to be at least one (but probably more) group or culture that is overlooked and one that is the focus.  While women&amp;#039;s history is focused on generally the upper-middle class of white women, thats primarily because those were the people leaving primary sources behind. We can&amp;#039;t go back and teach slaves and later generations to write in diaries or send letters, so it is increasingly difficult to find sources from the time documenting their experiences.  - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s essay on dichotomies the most intriguing of all. By using these comparisons, I found that she fantastically described many of the social and political struggles that women face while describing different categories that scholars study women under. My favorite was the dichotomy of Integration vs. Autonomy because I had no idea that there was such argument going on about where Women&amp;#039;s History should be included in a course of study as well as what it should include in itself. This argument of whether Women&amp;#039;s History should be autonomous or integrated with such things as Gender History seemed like a parallel to feminist controversies in modern day social and work settings. I have often heard the argument that if women want to be integrated with men, then they should be treated the same, no special exceptions. But, if they want to keep things like maternity leave and not getting drafted, then they should remain autonomous with perhaps less benefits than men receive. I think that Bock definitely provided some interesting parallels between womens history controversies and modern social controversies. -- Angie W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leslie Alexander puts forth an interesting idea when she says that &amp;quot;the recognition that Black and White women are culturally different opens a Pandora&amp;#039;s box...&amp;quot; (p. 20) because it is something that many young feminists never consider, but when they do, they realize that is so very true. If historians and feminists were to recognize this, then their theory of one, strong womanhood would be attacked. Like Alexander said, Black women often name their race as their main identifying factor while most white women, especially feminists, put woman. If women&amp;#039;s history scholars were to recognize this, then they would have to take another look at women&amp;#039;s history and perhaps separate not just separate women from men, but also from each other based on their class, race, and even sexual orientation. This would put a whole new spin on feminism and women&amp;#039;s studies. -- Angie W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the key components in the study of women&amp;#039;s history is the recognition and understanding that different cultures expose women to different challenges.  Alexander notes in her essay that to acknowledge the black and white women have different histories because of cultural differences seems to be obvious.  We do not assume that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln have a bond simply because they were both of the same gender.  It would be ludicrous to assume that all women have experienced the same histories and lives. - efritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
efritz certainly makes some good points.  There are definitely similarities between white and black women, the simplest being they are both women.  However, I strongly disagree with having a universal image for women.  Even white women are different from each other, based on things like their environment, family upbringing, or culture.  So, of course white women and black women would vary from each other.  When Alexander talked about it being obvious for these women to have different histories, I agreed.  I had been surprised to find that historians had thought differently until it was strongly pointed out to them! -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Taylors interpretation of equality between the sexes.  The women&amp;#039;s movement of the 1970&amp;#039;s was a tremendous boost to elevating the status of women in society.  It assisted in raising wages of women to be closer to those of men, and allowed women to enter into occupations traditionally held by men.  But how far do we want to go with equality?  Men and women are different physically and physiologically for a reason.  Women should be valued the same as men but I think that to deny that there are differences is also incorrect. -efritz&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-14T02:13:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cbrau: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;So apparently I&amp;#039;m the first to comment, yay. In &amp;quot;Defining &amp;quot;American Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot; I really liked the concept on page 6 that &amp;quot;if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on.&amp;quot; I found it interesting to think about Women&amp;#039;s history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an &amp;quot;inferior&amp;quot; race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of going along with the first statement, it was interesting to see that some historians balk at including race, class, etc., in women&amp;#039;s history because they seem to feel that it will ultimately remove the gender aspect from the discipline in favor of a focus on race or another variable. Yet if you&amp;#039;re going to study women, don&amp;#039;t you have to study real women&amp;#039;s lives, as complex or as multifaceted as they may be? To claim that all women can be put into the same category risks losing the richness of understanding that comes with exploring the differences as well as the similarities among groups or individuals, as Leslie M. Alexander points out. And it would also turn many people away from studying the subject, just as women can feel excluded by traditional, male-focused history. -MMackey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women&amp;#039;s history separate from &amp;quot;men&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women&amp;#039;s history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men&amp;#039;s history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to SSellers, I think it is important to remember that up until recently, history has been dominated by men because men were the ones who were literate. Therefore, history came from the male&amp;#039;s perspective. I am not sure if that makes women&amp;#039;s history inferior, just harder because it takes deeper analysis to find where women fit into history and how they felt.  I mean, men and women share the same history. Their roles within it, however, were different and it takes a women&amp;#039;s studies course to discover where women fit into the world during any given time. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also commenting on SSellers and in agreement with Erin, just because women&amp;#039;s history is a somewhat new classification of history, doesn&amp;#039;t mean its &amp;quot;inferior.&amp;quot; Studied, accepted history is in the eyes and pens of white, European men.  What we study and learn starting in kindergarten is what they (those white men) wanted us to know about their lives and times.  Studying women&amp;#039;s history, or any other classification of history (black, native american, chinese, etc.) isn&amp;#039;t segregating any one group.  You can&amp;#039;t learn about anything by looking at it strictly in isolation.  You must take these primary sources and examine them for hidden meanings, context, perspectives, goals, etc. In this course we are not simply learning what women did, we are learning what they did in comparison to what was going on in the rest of the country and population, and what was expected previously and currently of them. (I don&amp;#039;t know if being in the first half of this class has made me biased, but there ya go!!) - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that these are very interesting comments on the issue of inferiority between men&amp;#039;s and women&amp;#039;s history.  Is men&amp;#039;s history be superior because there is more written information, because certain historical men had larger political influence than most women did, or because of how history is taught today?  I know we can&amp;#039;t really understand women&amp;#039;s history without looking at men&amp;#039;s history, but couldn&amp;#039;t the same be said for men&amp;#039;s history? - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The debate between &amp;quot;equality&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;difference&amp;quot; in terms of women in Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how Kate Haulman (the first essay) pointed out that women&amp;#039;s history started out focused on notable women, as if they suitably represented other women of their time.  Yet, these women were, and are, often notable because they either went against the norms of society to accomplish something great for women or society in general.  Obviously, that is not something most women do.  So, I definitely believe it is important to study all kinds of women, not just notable figures, in order to get a more realistic picture of women throughout history.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History&amp;#039;” by Kate Haulman, shows how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the changing dynamics of women&amp;#039;s history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only &amp;quot;notable women&amp;quot; were written about. Even being characterized as a &amp;quot;notable woman&amp;quot; was defined by male terms in a male dominated society. However, there was a great shift in the study of women from these notable women to the everyday woman. Even so, this study of the everyday woman was still dominated by male terms, as Gisela Bock notes. All of women&amp;#039;s activities were judged by the male standard, which was deemed valuable. The spheres that the study of women were divided into, suck as Public vs. Private, were still male dominated. It seems that males have dominated almost every aspect of women&amp;#039;s history. Males are the standard upon which women are judged, they decide which women are important enough to be studied, and they define all spheres of the women&amp;#039;s lives. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Anna Holman&amp;#039;s comment above. It was fascinating to read about the evolution of women&amp;#039;s history and made me wonder how it will continue to evolve in the future. Hopefully as we move forward, women&amp;#039;s history will be able to be studied without male domination and we can define ourselves. -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding onto Erin Sanderson&amp;#039;s statement, I found it interesting how Kate Haulman stated that gender was created and fluid. It is fascinating to understand how people identify with the term &amp;quot;woman&amp;quot;, and how it intersects the other aspects of their identity, such as their unique race and ethnicity. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading, I was intrigued by Kate Haulman&amp;#039;s statement about the definition of &amp;quot;American.&amp;quot; It did seem like the term would be uncomplicated, simply refering to residents of the United States. The fact that &amp;quot;American&amp;quot; could refer (maybe, should refer) to anyone in the Americas was something I had never considered before. --Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In accumulating the readings, I found that they similarly shared underlying factors.  Those factors being race and ethnicity, gender, class, and locality.  What I thought was interesting was that even though race and gender do not change, but perspectives towards race and gender do change over time.  Naturally writings reflect changes in one’s perspective.  --MHimes  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the same similarities of race, class, culture, community, and sexual orientation throughout the reading. All these factors seem to be the cornerstone for uncovering women&amp;#039;s history. I agree with MHimes that perspectives do change over time, as does history. After reading this first chapter I have realized that Women&amp;#039;s History is a completely different field of study told differently than other history subjects, both because we now live in a age where women have equality, and that scholars are coming to understand the history of women. ---David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American History, under the “gender first” policy, Alexander makes an valid point.  I thought it was interesting when she said that you cannot divorce Black Women from the community or you will not understand the Black Woman.  Black women had to hurdle racial inequality before they could focus on their own empowerment as a woman.  They did not have that same leisure as a white woman.  At the same time, you can’t explain women’s history without including black women.  Black women were an intricate part of white women’s lives as servants or field laborers.  Black Woman slaves relieved a lot of  White Women’s duties so they could focus on raising their children. --MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was interested in the statements made about black women and their roles in Women&amp;#039;s History. Most of the time, people tend to combine all women into one category and forget that it is still important to focus on individual groups separately also. Historians may want to homogenize all women together when studying or writing about women but the reality is that they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was particularly interested in Kate Haulman&amp;#039;s idea that identifying factors such as gender and race are created and fluid rather than having a sort of naturally fixed meaning.  This notion gives richer meaning to the larger social and cultural narrative of any nation or people.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The two most interesting articles to me were Kate Haulman&amp;#039;s article and Leslie Alexander&amp;#039;s. I agree with Erin about Haulman&amp;#039;s approach. I found Haulman&amp;#039;s article reminiscent of an article written by George Kennan. The article written by Kennan describes the difficulty in describing history because there is no specific beginning or end. I thought that theme was pertinent throughout Haulman&amp;#039;s reading. The last reading written by Alexander made some good arguments and had an interesting approach. At first I was surprised by her resistance to grouping both black and white women together as a &amp;quot;homogeneous womanhood,&amp;quot; but after pondering for a few minutes it makes sense. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think equality based on the sameness between men and women versus equality with a recognition of the differences between men and women is an interesting concept, one that was likely very important and dividing as women were defining their expectations of equality. We’ve come to expect that women be treated the same as men, but to what extend is appropriate? Under the equality of sameness sometimes women who are on maternity leave are listed as being on disabled leave. It’s a little insulting to infer that pregnancy is a disability (though I’m sure a few people would argue that it is). -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The focus on women&amp;#039;s history as opposed to studying men and women in history combined is an important distinction. Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s essay and dichotomies describe how distinct men really are from women. Men and women are different in many ways including &amp;quot;working&amp;quot; at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms &amp;quot;sex&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;gender&amp;quot; are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All women aren’t united under the cause of women’s rights because they have had different experiences that have resulted from race, class, socio-economic status, and more, which according to Leslie Alexander also extends into the study and interpretation of women’s history by historians. She focuses on the particular issues of race and argues that the feminist movement is only useful as a lens for studying the experiences of white women, not the experiences of black women. While her view certainly has merit, by dismissing feminism’s use to black women in the manner she does it almost seems like she’s suggesting that the feminist movement is useful for considering all white women in general, while I would argue that it is most useful in regards to only a certain group of white women, particularly of the middle-class. Similarly, there is no simple lens to study the experiences of black women, as they are also influenced by a variety of factors beyond that of race alone. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree completely with Taylor&amp;#039;s above comments.  It is easy to see where Alexander comes from in contrasting Black women&amp;#039;s history against those of what is generally thought of as Women&amp;#039;s history.  However, black women do fall under the umbrella of women&amp;#039;s history, just as african-americans and women fall under the umbrella of history.  There can always be subdivisions/classifications within different fields of study. There&amp;#039;s always going to be at least one (but probably more) group or culture that is overlooked and one that is the focus.  While women&amp;#039;s history is focused on generally the upper-middle class of white women, thats primarily because those were the people leaving primary sources behind. We can&amp;#039;t go back and teach slaves and later generations to write in diaries or send letters, so it is increasingly difficult to find sources from the time documenting their experiences.  - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s essay on dichotomies the most intriguing of all. By using these comparisons, I found that she fantastically described many of the social and political struggles that women face while describing different categories that scholars study women under. My favorite was the dichotomy of Integration vs. Autonomy because I had no idea that there was such argument going on about where Women&amp;#039;s History should be included in a course of study as well as what it should include in itself. This argument of whether Women&amp;#039;s History should be autonomous or integrated with such things as Gender History seemed like a parallel to feminist controversies in modern day social and work settings. I have often heard the argument that if women want to be integrated with men, then they should be treated the same, no special exceptions. But, if they want to keep things like maternity leave and not getting drafted, then they should remain autonomous with perhaps less benefits than men receive. I think that Bock definitely provided some interesting parallels between womens history controversies and modern social controversies. -- Angie W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leslie Alexander puts forth an interesting idea when she says that &amp;quot;the recognition that Black and White women are culturally different opens a Pandora&amp;#039;s box...&amp;quot; (p. 20) because it is something that many young feminists never consider, but when they do, they realize that is so very true. If historians and feminists were to recognize this, then their theory of one, strong womanhood would be attacked. Like Alexander said, Black women often name their race as their main identifying factor while most white women, especially feminists, put woman. If women&amp;#039;s history scholars were to recognize this, then they would have to take another look at women&amp;#039;s history and perhaps separate not just separate women from men, but also from each other based on their class, race, and even sexual orientation. This would put a whole new spin on feminism and women&amp;#039;s studies. -- Angie W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the key components in the study of women&amp;#039;s history is the recognition and understanding that different cultures expose women to different challenges.  Alexander notes in her essay that to acknowledge the black and white women have different histories because of cultural differences seems to be obvious.  We do not assume that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln have a bond simply because they were both of the same gender.  It would be ludicrous to assume that all women have experienced the same histories and lives. - efritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Taylors interpretation of equality between the sexes.  The women&amp;#039;s movement of the 1970&amp;#039;s was a tremendous boost to elevating the status of women in society.  It assisted in raising wages of women to be closer to those of men, and allowed women to enter into occupations traditionally held by men.  But how far do we want to go with equality?  Men and women are different physically and physiologically for a reason.  Women should be valued the same as men but I think that to deny that there are differences is also incorrect. -efritz&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cbrau</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed><br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />