Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=EfritzMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:20:52ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-22T02:49:06Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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't just get support from other "hard hatted" 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 "sisterhood" aspect of the women'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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, "Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two" (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'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<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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 "owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other" (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<br />
<br />
I always pay vague attention when I pass by construction work. The reading said that before the 1970s construction related work was dominated almost one hundred percent by white males. And that number is still high if the sites I see are anything to go by, though I think there are many non-white men entering the field, particularly Hispanics. Last week, when I went by the Eagle Village construction, I actually saw a woman walking amongst the men. One woman. I actually looked for more because I was so surprised (and almost confused a long haired man in a ponytail with woman but that’s another story). I almost did want to cheer her like some women did for Eisenberg. The field seems to be becoming more ethnically diverse, but it’s nowhere near becoming more sexually diverse. I can only recall seeing about two or three women doing construction in most of my lifetime. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I liked this piece, although I was a little surprised by the level of vulgarity the male construction workers displayed. I know the stereotypical image of the male construction worker is a sex crazed pig with low levels of manners, but I was actually shocked by the comment the one man made about raping all of the old women in the nursing home. That was beyond the pale, but I wondered if it was said more for shock value than for anything else. EFritz<br />
<br />
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
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<br />
<br />
==Jamala McFadden Tells Her Story of Welfare Assistance in the 1990s, 2002==<br />
Jamala McFadden's story was very inspiring to me. She was pregnant at 15, which probably made it seem like her life was over. Instead, Jamala made the best out of the situation and worked extremely hard to prove everyone wrong. Many times, I think people assume that other people on welfare don't deserve it or use it for the wrong reasons. Jamala was not one of those people. She attended college and was almost a 4.0 student, took care of her son, and had a job all at the same time. I can only imagine how rewarding it was when she finished law school. It was interesting that there was not any type of childcare service for the university. I'm not sure if that was something that was normal at large universities, but I feel like childcare should have been offered. I think it is admirable of those single parents who have children to go out and get an education. By not having childcare services, I feel like that is a disservice to women, and it is also discouraging them from reaching their full potential. Lack of childcare, whether it be in the workplace or at universities, is wrong because it inhibits women from being successful. Why restrict someone who is trying to better their own life? In my opinion, the welfare money Jamala McFadden used throughout her life was paid back to society through her amazing successes. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
<br />
The show 16 & Pregnant , which runs on MTV, follows the lives of teen moms who all initially come to the conclusion that their lives are over (at least as they know it.) I think if those girls were able to read about Jamala they would have a role model to look to because of her ambition and her desire to achieve despite the obstacles. She is the type of person, not just the type of woman, who demonstrates that people are sometimes the victim of their circumstances, and not passive bystanders. She worked so hard to attain her education and took care of her son by working as well as caring for him. Had she had childcare available, it may have been a slight relief for her and a small decrease in her daily pressure. Even today there are places of employment where childcare is not openly available, however I have heard of some community colleges providing childcare so that single mothers can get their education which I feel is an important service to offer and a true benefit that will allow more single parents to gain the education needed to support their child (children). –jmarshal<br />
<br />
== The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==<br />
<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper. My interviewee'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. "[They] didn't think I ought to go" (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<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
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, "Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter."(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.<br />
<br />
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
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's distinction between ''a'' man and ''the'' man. She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare. Her line, "The truth is that A.F.D.C is like a supersexist marriage. You trade in ''a'' man for ''the'' man" (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, "There'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't make it. If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything" (289). If this doesn't read like empowerment, I'm not sure what else does. -abratchi<br />
<br />
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan's and Abratchi's comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn't say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like "In this country if you're any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you're all those things you don't count at all except as a statistic." ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today'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't read a testimonial of today's Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I too thought there were similarities between 1972 and today when reading this article. When Johnnie Tillmon points out that "the truth is a job doesn't necessarily mean an adequate income" (pg. 288) she could be talking about today, especially for women. We talked about the wage gap in class a bit yesterday, but it was fitting because yesterday was actually Equal Pay Day. With the current wage gap, women who worked for all of 2009 had to work until April 20, 2010 to earn the same amount that men made in 2009 alone. That illustrates how significant a problem pay differences are today, and they were worse for women like Tillmon trying to support their families. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
==Sex and Sports, Mariah Burton Nelson, 1994==<br />
<br />
This article highlights the transition Nelson was forced to make from the community she found as a young woman where she felt free and empowered to celebrate herself and express herself as a lesbian, to the "real world" where she was forced to choose between being open about her homosexuality or continue playing professional basketball. I couldn't believe they sent the women on the California team to charm school in order to "portray a feminine (that is, heterosexual) image." [311] The focus on this transition effectively illustrates the societal stifling of those perceived to be different, particularly those who challenge socially-encouraged gender roles. This transition is reflected in a sort of reverse in the following account "La Mujer," where the writer finds her individuality and strength when she is finally able to explore her identity after a stifling adolescence. -Erin B. <br />
<br />
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn't had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it'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 "size" 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' true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement "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" (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don't understand how a male who isn't exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it's hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won'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's okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It'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's standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn't an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it? --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
This was a ridiculously moving account of an extremely common issue. The help that she got was exceptional as well and, sadly, most girls don't get this kind of treatment. I worked in emotional and behavioral facilities for close to two years and saw girls like this all the time. A couple of the women i met didn't make it. Chernik articulates a lot of the pathology behind this disease powerfully. "I had reduced my world to a plate of steamed carrots, and over this tiny kingdom I proudly crowned myself queen." [322] This passage illustrated her desire to shrink (and ultimately disappear) not just in size, but in character, in personality and strength. The writer uses the word "impotence" to describe the effects of the disease, which struck me as a powerful characterization. The social significance of the prevalence of this disorder can't be understated. I'm sure I can't speak for all women, but I'd guess that a lot of the females who read this can identify (or could in the past) with some of the mentality associated with an unhealthy body image. The praise that she received was the scariest part. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==<br />
<br />
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, "It doesn't take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,..."(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.<br />
<br />
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==<br />
<br />
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 "date rape" actually produces a negative view on women is interesting. She believes that "date rape" 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<br />
<br />
<br />
I am still unsure how I feel about this article. I have known people who have come extremely close to being date raped (luckily they had a friend or two that recognized what had happened and came to their aide) and to think that at any point it could be swept away as “hysteria” is hard to understand. From other classes I have taken, it is more common for women to be characterized as “hysterical” (a long time ago women were called hysterical when they menstruated or had severe mood swings due to PMS, now it is more understood and while the term hysterical is still used today, it still almost always refers to women. Just a random tid-bit of information) than men and the actions taken against women falls the same way. I think there is a difference between being sexual and consenting to sex, saying that a girl does not take responsibility for “date-rape” is almost saying the same thing as “she was asking for it” by wearing a certain outfit. I do agree with CBrau that today the term “rape” is used much too loosely and has as a result made the idea of rape less common (the shock value is not as high as it was when the term first came into use).—jmarshal <br />
<br />
<br />
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's a commonly used internet and gaming term) and many people still don't realize just how traumatizing rape can be (not to mention, some people don'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<br />
<br />
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==<br />
<br />
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, "cripple" and said, "[people]-wince at the word ''cripple'', as they do not at handicapped or disabled."(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.<br />
<br />
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the "World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits," 1978==<br />
<br />
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't believe the disparity between men and women's pay, such as this woman: "whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the ''Times''' Washington bureau." (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, "sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper." (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a "genteel form" that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn't understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, "If she weren't a woman, she'd be in the bullpen right now!" (P. 465) Why didn'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.<br />
<br />
== A Day in the Kitchen (photograph) ==<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
==Target Women, Critiquing Depictions of Women in the Media==<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken discussed on Tuesday the continually questionable depiction of women in the media and the criticisms of it. I can’t say the number of times my mother has seen a commercial and made a derisive comment about why it has to be mom cleaning up after her incompetent husband and kids, or why around Mother’s Day there are commercials about getting appliances and jewelry while during Father’s Day it’s electronics or actually cool things, or how only women seem to have digestive or plumbing problems. I wanted to share with you all [http://current.com/shows/infomania/target-women/ Target Women with Sarah Haskins], which is basically a humorous and sarcastic challenge to all those ridiculous, shallow commercials. How to be a [http://current.com/shows/infomania/89771812_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-super-special.htm lady] according to commercials: yogurt! looking cute while exercising! cleaning the house! cooking! heart to hearts with girlfriends! jewelry face! marriage! -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Yes! I was so sad when she stopped making new episodes of Target Women. -Mary Ann</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-04-16T00:56:27Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>THIS WEEK'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.<br />
<br />
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).<br />
<br />
Class discussion: We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What patterns do you see? What experiences stand out? Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we've talked about in class?'''<br />
<br />
== ==<br />
<br />
I definitely see that "typical housewife and mother" 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't been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn'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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting and amusing that in Alices' 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<br />
<br />
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'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'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'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<br />
<br />
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'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'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 "male dominated roles" 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.<br />
<br />
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'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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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's, Catherine Brau's, and Ellen Fritz'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's liberation. In Braun and Fritz's papers the women felt that they wanted to focus on raising their children and maintaining a healthy family. In Brau's paper, her interviewee had very little time to devote to the women'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'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<br />
<br />
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'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'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'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's rights movement did a lot, but it'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<br />
<br />
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's for their family. Working women were certainly becoming more prominent. -afrisk<br />
<br />
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's or early 30'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'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</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-04-08T00:18:07Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==<br />
<br />
"Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie" (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'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'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<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so. To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two. My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it. Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized. The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well. I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret. The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott. -- Mhimes<br />
<br />
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I'm sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on "suspicion," and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. "The white people really believed that. They didn't see through it all."(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan<br />
<br />
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie. I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change. The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case? The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen? Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was. It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear. Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed. It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I don't believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the "roar of indignation" over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery's white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of "respectable women" themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that "the black women needed those jobs" (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers<br />
<br />
The line that struck me in this piece was from Mary, "Well, I tell you, Mr. Cliff, I tell you, I learned one thing in my life and that is, when your hand's in the lion's mouth, it's just better to pat it on the head." (226). The black women knew, like ssellers said, they needed the meager paying jobs in order to survive and it was better to appease the whites than fight them. This also made me relate to Martin Luther King Jr.'s teachings he preached non-violence so in a way the women were acting on his words by not fighting the whites and doing what they needed to in order to get by. This piece made me wonder if without Rosa Parks defiance would MLK Jr. have been as prominent without his speeches on the bus boycott? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
As everyone else has stated, this article was really informative on many levels. I guess the first thing that struck me was the fact that even though I had heard many times the story of Rosa Parks, it had always been presented that Rosa was just an unsuspecting black woman in the South who was pushed around just one too many times. I cheered for Rosa standing up to the bigotry. What I didn’t know was Rosa Parks was no ordinary “typical” black woman. Instead, she was a Civil Rights activist who stood her ground when her civil liberties were being threatened. It makes no difference to the circumstances surrounding her arrest and I still cheer her strength, but the facts were never presented completely. I always wondered how they got that famous picture of the white cop fingerprinting Rosa Parks; now I have some idea. Second, when learning of the bus boycott, I was never aware of the camaraderie between the black working women and their white employers. It seems to me that this was due to a combination of things; first the close relationship a number of these women must have had within the household and second the high level of reliability white women had for their help. EFritz<br />
<br />
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==<br />
<br />
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: "forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies." 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<br />
<br />
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455). I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking. Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I've only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan<br />
<br />
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin. The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression. They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable. The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from multiplying. I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane. When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing. The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women. Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace. Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk<br />
<br />
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies. I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities? I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior. I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing. If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality. I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult. How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight? In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455). Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too. The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against. – Alice W<br />
<br />
== "More Than a Lady" Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women's Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==<br />
<br />
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan<br />
<br />
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn't completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike & proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn't truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn't have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson's voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man's voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it ''must'' belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it's sad that she didn't live to see all the progress that's been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson's actions "fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness" (pg 557), a trait we've seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more "feminine" when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women. I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how "Ebony" tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman. The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job. An interesting example she used was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work. An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities. These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility. With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in? As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory. What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white. But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together. If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were. To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was interested by the experience of the black model who was too light skinned to represent the African Americans, but too dark to represent the whites. That is just ridiculous to me in today's terms, especially since in black and white print you probably wouldn't be able to differentiate between whether she was white or light skinned black or a subtle shade of orange. It's not often that you think about the hardships of the models in the modeling industry, but it was enlighening to read about this experience of exclusion solely because you happened to be too light skinned, but not light skinned enough. -ssellers<br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds," Laila Haidarali ==<br />
<br />
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig ==<br />
<br />
The last line of this article struck me the most, "I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to." If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans. His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
This article was really inspiring to me and also showed me the true difference between the North and South, it was not something we just read about, it was a reality. Naomi Craig was scared for her son and daughter's welfare but never stopped them from growing into the people they wanted to be, amongst all the racial differences she let them attend school in the South and travel to a place that appeared to be on a different continent, not states inside the United States. I also wanted to note on the line she stated, "I had never been around so many Blacks before; I thought it was wonderful. I felt they were all so pretty, all different colors." That was the most inspiring line for me, Mrs. Craig saw beyond first appearances she believed color was beautiful why could America not do the same? -Megan W.</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-04-01T01:48:33Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
== "Balancing Work and Family," Betty Jeanne Boggs ==<br />
"Always this-- 'because you're a woman'" (page 208). I was really moved by this article and felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. I can't believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn't pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. I still felt strong emotions towards her statement "For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn't know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby" (page 210) because it's something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can't imagine it's ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don't allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it's nice to imagine. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but I also noticed her husband's willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war. I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she "wanted to be in two places at one time." I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker, and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today's working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs' story, and I feel that it's a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs' case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs' did want to eventually continue her career she didn't do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, "...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go," (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn't think it was possible to juggle both or weren't sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn't think it was possible otherwise the "problem that has no name" would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Betty Bogs said, "I worked in a war plant and it was one of the things you did when your country was at war." (P. 208) Just the way she said it made it sound like it was normal, and I think she is right in a sense. It was normal for women to go out and work; it was a way to help with the war effort. Her experience of loving her job seemed quite similar to the other Rosie the Riveters we have read about. I was surprised though, to see that she was going to school for a math degree, and even considered becoming a lab technician. At the time, I think it was frowned upon for women to be anything other than a housewife or a teacher. Even when I did my interview for our paper, my interviewee said the only jobs you went to school for were to be a teacher or a secretary. Betty enjoyed working; I'm sure it was liberating to her because she was doing something many people frowned upon. It was also interesting how there was a prominent role reversal between Betty and her husband Josh. She was the one working, and her husband was the one who was with their baby more often and seemed to have a closer relationship with the child. Bogs said, "Josh had a good relationship built up, because he'd have Tad to himself." (P. 210). And, her husband was completely okay with staying at home with the children while she worked! The surprising part was, though, that although Betty loved her job and enjoyed working, she encouraged women to stay home with their children because it was important to their development. I guess that was the most surprising part to me. She worked so hard and had come so far, but realized that in the end, her family came first. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article. I find it rather ironic that today’s woman still struggles with the choice between staying home and raising her children and going out into the workplace. Being an older student, I notice a number of my friends who have college degrees, including post-graduate degrees and have made the decision to forego a career or postpone their career to stay home with their children. I think that it is difficult to say what decision you will make regarding your kids until you are in the position of having to make the decision of leaving your child with someone else or working. Betty Jeanne Boggs was fortunate to be married to someone willing to sacrifice his time to give her the opportunity to further her career and her husband was lucky to have a woman willing to support him while he finished school. - EFritz<br />
<br />
Boggs obviously believed that a woman should be able to do anything a man could do, such as go to school and work in certain jobs. However for raising a kid she thinks that "a mother should be there the first couple of years of a child's life," (30) Does this mean that she did not think it was a man's place to raise a kid? Obviously she felt that a man should help, as Josh helped plenty with Tad but their was never any mention of him giving up his education or his job. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
== Rachel Carson ==<br />
<br />
I am not the world's biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. Ridiculous that her response "No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now" (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that "A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world" (page 228). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
I know that earlier in this class we had talked about how women were often linked to the environmentalist cause so I tried to keep that in mind when I was reading this piece. I am not sure if I could picture a man writing this with the same effect. Most of the points she makes are very strong and she even seems to go against the point that she is saving nature only to save the beauty of it. However, if women were still connected to the environmentalist cause would she have an easier time winning them over because she was a woman? Would she have a tougher time gaining support from men? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==<br />
<br />
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when ''he'' has achieved complete control over ''himself'' and his environment. Only then can ''he'' meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future? Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Erin, I noticed that Church uses 'he' throughout the piece, but I don't necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just a quirk of grammar. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women "will be taking their rightful place in world affairs," and so girls should be "provided with the same opportunities" (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of 'parents' rather than simply the role of 'mother. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann's statement above. One of Church's main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that "neither the father nor mother should reign supreme" (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that "girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys" (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don't believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. I also found the wording of Church's essay interesting when she states "women will be taking their ''rightful'' places in society" (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs. --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==<br />
<br />
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Regardless of one's moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn't mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn't fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)in today's world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said "Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual" (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman's right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I'm happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, I'm also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??) because if she hadn't had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson's decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn't a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It's amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation. Why was that? Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure? And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure? – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I like Alice found interesting that the doctor described other procedures he performed but would not dare mention abortion. I do not think he really cared about women's health, I think he was worried that if women came to him who were pregnant and wanted abortions one he would know they were pregnant outside of marriage and two he did not want people (government) to find out he was performing them, at the time I feel like he could of lost his license if it was found out. Maybe he did care about women but with all the precautions he took and the way he spoke to Joyce I have to say I do not think he did, he may of just been a doctor who did not believe in having children outside of marriage. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
=="An Unplanned Pregnancy", by Joanna Rubin==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, "When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics" (217). Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, "Although I didn't for a minute think I didn't want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn't 'Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.'"(217) She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn't "taking the easy way out," it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece. I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women. Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury, and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so. It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control. I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50's and 60's and what would lead to the landmark courtcase ''Roe v Wade''. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Did women even think about an abortion possibly killing them? Such as the woman in Margaret Sanger’s Epiphany over Birth Control article who died from a self induced abortion because she couldn’t handle another child. Of course there is always the possibility that child birth could also kill them. Abortion seems a lot more risky though, especially being illegal like it was. Abortion clinics surely couldn’t be regulated and keep safe because there weren’t any governmental policies or standards to be enforced. I would much rather have the child and give it up for an abortion, quietly, than risk dying from a painful abortion that could lead to a deadly infection. That’s just my opinion though; maybe they were too afraid of being pregnant in the first place to think straight and logically. Even though Ms. Rubin thinks that this is a “real clinic” and it “alleviated a tremendous amount of anxiety and fear,” (216) obviously it wasn’t much of facility because she did get “a low-grade infection,” (217). I know that she was in hast to rid herself of being pregnant, but you would think that she would be smarter about her decisions. She obviously wasn’t going to tell her family, as Rubin describes, “I didn’t have any support from my parents,” (216), possibly because being a sexual women was taboo? Even if that was so, the least they could do was help her or were families that unsupportive of their daughters? I really can’t see a father and, partially, a mother abandoning their child in such a desperate situation. -Morgan<br />
<br />
=="The Problem That Has No Name," Betty Friedan, 1963==<br />
<br />
I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife. This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women's lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they'd still feel isolated in that they couldn't share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It's telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry "just to know they are not alone." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home. Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties. If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them? In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife? It became a moral dilemma. Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles. I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.) Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts. -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Farnham and Lundberg==<br />
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they ''have jobs themselves''? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting. It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities. But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences. I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home. Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations. Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family? I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements. I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated. They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children. They seem to really find danger to a woman's feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men. They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==<br />
I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around. Just imagine being in that courtroom. Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace. Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how "women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making" (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can't handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I saw WSP as more sly and manipulative. They knew that the most effective way to get a woman's voice heard was to play up those female stereotypes, especially in court. No judge would throw out a bunch of sweet women who weren't doing anything wrong! And they couldn't go militant or get too forceful with their protests. That kind of thing tends to irritate and annoy people rather than make them agreeable to the cause. I just think that if you're going to go with that method, you can't complain about being treated like a stereotype afterwards. So, Taylor complaining about wanting to be treated equally while manipulating the female stereotypes is definitely hypocritical. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with CBrau. I love the women of the WSP! I found them hilarious and very manipulative. These women obviously knew exactly how to get attention and to use there femininity against political figures to buy for attention. But did these women really think that just because they were women nothing would happen to them? “They’re not going to electrocute me, They’re not going to shoot me,” (218) said Taylor while she was deciding to cross the street or not. Did she think this because she was a woman and surely men wouldn’t hurt her? I guess the stereotypes of that generation weren’t to hurt women, even if they were criminals? They were so outspoken though, even when in the presence of court, “we would present her with a bouquet, and we would applaud,” (220) but they weren’t thrown out of court. I wonder if in the decades before if they were even allowed in court, much less speak out. It appears to me that they were mainly a spectacle looking for attention towards their cause, even if it endangered them. -Morgan<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was charming. I absolutely love the visual of these women in their pretty little dresses with matching shoes and handbag, white gloves, hats and perfectly coiffed hair being brought in to testify before Congress. I am no anti-war activist but I think these women had the backbone to petition their government to change the course of history, all before they had to get home and prepare dinner for their families and help their children with their homework. And they still wanted to be treated as ladies, even while they were being hauled off to jail. What irony. - EFritz<br />
<br />
=="Star Struck," Vicki L. Ruiz ==<br />
<br />
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920's to 1950's written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today. All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.” -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
I found this article could easily be related to today and how women are percieved or told how they should be percieved in the media. While I feel that many immigrant groups wanted to promote their culture, especially the Mexican Americans through language and traditions, the children of immigrant parents wanted to assimilate into American culture, and the leading way in California was through "the public fascination with Hollywood."(367). Today, things have still not changed infact I believe we as a society have become more fascinated with Hollywood and how it defines America, I cannot even count how many times I have heard the story about Sandra Bullock and her husband and very little on world affairs or even the healthcare bill. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==<br />
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts. This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking. This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212). This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially. It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives. Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well. This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==A Letter to the Editor of The Ladder from an African American Lesbian, 1957==<br />
<br />
The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here. Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society. On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.” The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422). It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of. - Alice W<br />
<br />
This line really caught my attention: "He (Wilma's father) must have honestly believed that in a distant city he could provide a better life for his children, with all the modern amenities" (p. 212). Interesting, considering Wilma and her family were very poor and I'm assuming isolated from modern civilization at Mankiller Flats. So how did Wilma's father know about modern civilization and the chances it offered? From talking to the BIA? From going to Boarding School? From working? Or perhaps it really was their poverty that convinced him they needed to move and try for a new life (despite the risks and separation from home). -- CBrau<br />
<br />
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==<br />
<br />
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416). A man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating. Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-04-01T01:30:52Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
== "Balancing Work and Family," Betty Jeanne Boggs ==<br />
"Always this-- 'because you're a woman'" (page 208). I was really moved by this article and felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. I can't believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn't pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. I still felt strong emotions towards her statement "For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn't know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby" (page 210) because it's something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can't imagine it's ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don't allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it's nice to imagine. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but I also noticed her husband's willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war. I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she "wanted to be in two places at one time." I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker, and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today's working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs' story, and I feel that it's a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs' case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs' did want to eventually continue her career she didn't do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, "...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go," (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn't think it was possible to juggle both or weren't sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn't think it was possible otherwise the "problem that has no name" would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article. I find it rather ironic that today’s woman still struggles with the choice between staying home and raising her children and going out into the workplace. Being an older student, I notice a number of my friends who have college degrees, including post-graduate degrees and have made the decision to forego a career or postpone their career to stay home with their children. I think that it is difficult to say what decision you will make regarding your kids until you are in the position of having to make the decision of leaving your child with someone else or working. Betty Jeanne Boggs was fortunate to be married to someone willing to sacrifice his time to give her the opportunity to further her career and her husband was lucky to have a woman willing to support him while he finished school. - EFritz<br />
<br />
== Rachel Carson ==<br />
<br />
I am not the world's biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. Ridiculous that her response "No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now" (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that "A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world" (page 228). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
I know that earlier in this class we had talked about how women were often linked to the environmentalist cause so I tried to keep that in mind when I was reading this piece. I am not sure if I could picture a man writing this with the same effect. Most of the points she makes are very strong and she even seems to go against the point that she is saving nature only to save the beauty of it. However, if women were still connected to the environmentalist cause would she have an easier time winning them over because she was a woman? Would she have a tougher time gaining support from men? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==<br />
<br />
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when ''he'' has achieved complete control over ''himself'' and his environment. Only then can ''he'' meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future? Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Erin, I noticed that Church uses 'he' throughout the piece, but I don't necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just a quirk of grammar. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women "will be taking their rightful place in world affairs," and so girls should be "provided with the same opportunities" (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of 'parents' rather than simply the role of 'mother. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann's statement above. One of Church's main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that "neither the father nor mother should reign supreme" (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that "girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys" (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don't believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. I also found the wording of Church's essay interesting when she states "women will be taking their ''rightful'' places in society" (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs. --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==<br />
<br />
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Regardless of one's moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn't mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn't fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)in today's world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said "Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual" (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman's right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I'm happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, I'm also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??) because if she hadn't had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson's decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn't a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It's amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation. Why was that? Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure? And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure? – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I like Alice found interesting that the doctor described other procedures he performed but would not dare mention abortion. I do not think he really cared about women's health, I think he was worried that if women came to him who were pregnant and wanted abortions one he would know they were pregnant outside of marriage and two he did not want people (government) to find out he was performing them, at the time I feel like he could of lost his license if it was found out. Maybe he did care about women but with all the precautions he took and the way he spoke to Joyce I have to say I do not think he did, he may of just been a doctor who did not believe in having children outside of marriage. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
=="An Unplanned Pregnancy", by Joanna Rubin==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, "When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics" (217). Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, "Although I didn't for a minute think I didn't want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn't 'Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.'"(217) She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn't "taking the easy way out," it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece. I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women. Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury, and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so. It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control. I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50's and 60's and what would lead to the landmark courtcase ''Roe v Wade''. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Did women even think about an abortion possibly killing them? Such as the woman in Margaret Sanger’s Epiphany over Birth Control article who died from a self induced abortion because she couldn’t handle another child. Of course there is always the possibility that child birth could also kill them. Abortion seems a lot more risky though, especially being illegal like it was. Abortion clinics surely couldn’t be regulated and keep safe because there weren’t any governmental policies or standards to be enforced. I would much rather have the child and give it up for an abortion, quietly, than risk dying from a painful abortion that could lead to a deadly infection. That’s just my opinion though; maybe they were too afraid of being pregnant in the first place to think straight and logically. Even though Ms. Rubin thinks that this is a “real clinic” and it “alleviated a tremendous amount of anxiety and fear,” (216) obviously it wasn’t much of facility because she did get “a low-grade infection,” (217). I know that she was in hast to rid herself of being pregnant, but you would think that she would be smarter about her decisions. She obviously wasn’t going to tell her family, as Rubin describes, “I didn’t have any support from my parents,” (216), possibly because being a sexual women was taboo? Even if that was so, the least they could do was help her or were families that unsupportive of their daughters? I really can’t see a father and, partially, a mother abandoning their child in such a desperate situation. -Morgan<br />
<br />
=="The Problem That Has No Name," Betty Friedan, 1963==<br />
<br />
I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife. This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women's lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they'd still feel isolated in that they couldn't share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It's telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry "just to know they are not alone." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home. Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties. If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them? In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife? It became a moral dilemma. Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles. I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.) Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts. -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Farnham and Lundberg==<br />
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they ''have jobs themselves''? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting. It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities. But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences. I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home. Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations. Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family? I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements. I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated. They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children. They seem to really find danger to a woman's feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men. They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==<br />
I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around. Just imagine being in that courtroom. Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace. Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how "women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making" (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can't handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I saw WSP as more sly and manipulative. They knew that the most effective way to get a woman's voice heard was to play up those female stereotypes, especially in court. No judge would throw out a bunch of sweet women who weren't doing anything wrong! And they couldn't go militant or get too forceful with their protests. That kind of thing tends to irritate and annoy people rather than make them agreeable to the cause. I just think that if you're going to go with that method, you can't complain about being treated like a stereotype afterwards. So, Taylor complaining about wanting to be treated equally while manipulating the female stereotypes is definitely hypocritical. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
=="Star Struck," Vicki L. Ruiz ==<br />
<br />
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920's to 1950's written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today. All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.” -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
I found this article could easily be related to today and how women are percieved or told how they should be percieved in the media. While I feel that many immigrant groups wanted to promote their culture, especially the Mexican Americans through language and traditions, the children of immigrant parents wanted to assimilate into American culture, and the leading way in California was through "the public fascination with Hollywood."(367). Today, things have still not changed infact I believe we as a society have become more fascinated with Hollywood and how it defines America, I cannot even count how many times I have heard the story about Sandra Bullock and her husband and very little on world affairs or even the healthcare bill. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==<br />
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts. This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking. This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212). This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially. It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives. Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well. This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==A Letter to the Editor of The Ladder from an African American Lesbian, 1957==<br />
<br />
The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here. Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society. On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.” The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422). It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of. - Alice W<br />
<br />
This line really caught my attention: "He (Wilma's father) must have honestly believed that in a distant city he could provide a better life for his children, with all the modern amenities" (p. 212). Interesting, considering Wilma and her family were very poor and I'm assuming isolated from modern civilization at Mankiller Flats. So how did Wilma's father know about modern civilization and the chances it offered? From talking to the BIA? From going to Boarding School? From working? Or perhaps it really was their poverty that convinced him they needed to move and try for a new life (despite the risks and separation from home). -- CBrau<br />
<br />
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==<br />
<br />
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416). A man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating. Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-18T01:29:20Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn't find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression. I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help. I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat. She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them. That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily. The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says "if she's proud then she starves silently" (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today's societal norms.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating. It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was absolutely heart breaking to read. The images popped from the pages and really made these women become real and human. It is hard to understand the devestating effects the Depression had, and I think too often people look at the statistics (which are staggering and upsetting) but dont always stop and think about what really was going on. People were not sitting around passively going through the Depressio, they were lining up in hords to sit and wait hour after hour for, sometimes, months in hopes of any job opening up at all. LeSueur did an excellent job of being able to capture this feeling off deflated hope considering she was living it too, there was insight that can only be gained by seeing someone day in and day out desperate and needing that she was able to record in a manner that is heartbreaking. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters "were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action" (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn't know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I can't imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann brings up an important point in regards to women's resistance to accept charity. While I agree with everyone who has posted that these letters were heartbreaking, I also felt a sharp sense of pride reflected in these letters. Some women were willing to give collateral, like the woman with the wedding rings, just to ensure that any aid they were given was not viewed as charity, rather a loan. I think this reflects a lot of women's sentiments at the time and I am curious to see what other objects or possessions women were willing to part with to receive things they needed. -abratchi<br />
<br />
The letters to Mrs. Roosevelt were indeed upsetting, although I was most impressed with the woman seeking assistance for a new baby and offering to provide collateral. My question is why didn’t she take Mrs. Roosevelt’s advice and seek assistance from the Welfare Association? I understand pride and it’s commendable that she didn’t want to be seen as a charity case, but I think that the welfare of your children is always paramount. I think that she should have sucked it up, gone to the Welfare Association and asked for assistance. Social programs are put in place to help those in need for a specific period of time, I know I would have done anything and gone anywhere to help my kids. In addition, I found it kind of amusing that in all of this tragic poverty, one child writes and asks for roller skates of all things. I wonder if the Roosevelt’s or the White House had asked the citizens to send them letters of concern or if these are just individuals just too overburdened and looking for hope. EFritz <br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I feel that in times of crisis the government looks more for the ideal (which was never realized by most people anyway) and then makes it a national campaign. I liked her point about "who is to say when a man earns enough to suppor his family" (348) because it brings attention to the fact that during this time men really had an even harder time making enough t provide food for his family, and if he could do that, did that mean he earned enough? What standard are they basing "enough" on, because it may be different fro every person. So who really can judge a married woman as "needing a job" or "frivolous"? From the letters read earlier about the plight of most women workers (and a huge number of male workers as well), no job during the Depression was frivolous, every little bit counted for the family to survive.--jmarshal<br />
<br />
I agree with all of statements made so far on this post. It is pretty unbelievable that congress would even pass a law like this to begin with especially when women are now gaining more rights as well as opportunities in the workplace. Women should not always be allowed to work, even if their husband is making money because it just provides more income and support. Elanor makes some solid points, and all revolve around the basic question that if women want to work, why shouldn't they. Congress was right to repeal this act, especially during a dire economic crisis, but it should of never existed in the first place. Women working also just creates mor jobs and opportunities for everyone else and it was about time congress did something about it. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change. Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home. She was knowledgeable of how the system worked. It was no surprise that they took on this role. -MHimes<br />
<br />
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money. I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm. It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm. She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit. -MHimes<br />
<br />
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting. In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities. I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm sincerely impressed by the efforts of the housewives that were described in this section. My personal favorite is when "Black mothers in cleveland, unable to convince a local power company to delay shutting off electricity in the homes of families who had not paid their bills won resotration of power after they hung wet laundry over every utility line in the neighborhood." (page 402)That is crafty AND it got what they wanted to get accomplished accomplished. Although I don't support the logic that a woman's place is in the home, I have to give the housewives their credit for being as politically active as was described. -ssellers<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman's domestic service would be labeled a "slave market." Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==<br />
Obviously this is an issue that is still debated about today, and it is tough to say if it will ever be totally solved. Bromley is adamant on the use of birth control, especially during the great depression, when many families cannot really afford a child in their lives. It is, however, very difficult to force people to use birth control, especially when the methods at this time were so rudamentary. It is impossible to force all families to use birth control, but during a time like this, I beleive the use of it should be taken much more seriously because many children born during this time, will have a very difficult life right from the start. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338). Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control. However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression. How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control? Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books. It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies. It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics. It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition. Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex. It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you're already struggling to survive. It's stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes "it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility" it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn't afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn't allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn't allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn't refrain from having them. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==<br />
<br />
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt's. Mollie's life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this. Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south. While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161). I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn<br />
<br />
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==<br />
<br />
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength. I found Carlotta's family's generosity amazing during such a rough time. Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money. They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate. The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays. Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community. While I'm sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
<br />
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==<br />
<br />
This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them. And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity. And they didn't oppose to having a picture taken of them! Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn't actually the case? Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it? Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women. Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I think that perhaps the women photographed were of a different mentality than those read in other primary sources we read. These women were Mexican American women, who were probably accustomed to not having the best that society can offer, they were not part of the prototypical white middle class ideal before the Depression. Also, they eithe had to go, or volunteered to go, around the back of the soup kitchen, so maybe they did face the same struggle with accepting cherity as other women we have read (or they were not allowed to go in because they didn't qualify for aide), but after weighing the option of going hungry or being able to feed their family for the nigt, it cmes down to you do what you have to do to survive. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
Like CBrau I found this photograph very odd. From reading Meridel LeSueur’s “Women in Breadlines” I also thought that women were too proud to wait in a soup line. I got the notion that women would feed all of their family before themselves and if they did not have a family that they would starve because they were too timid to wait in line for food. These women don’t seem to timid or scared to be standing waiting for food at all, they’re smiling in fact. Maybe it is because these women are Mexican-American? Like jmarshal states that they are used to not having the best of society and probably have no problem asking for help. I think that we’ve been focusing on the white middle-class women much, who were shaped by their lifestyle before the depression. Before the depression these women were independent and shied away from receiving any help at all, especially from a man (such as pictured here). Mexican –American’s always have had large families, retaining the structure as man being head of the household, surely did not feel this pressure to uphold ideals that she never had and gladly accepted help. -Morgan</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-11T03:26:03Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
<br />
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference? How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching. I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so. I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal. -Alice W<br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time. The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l<br />
<br />
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well. I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be "one vast brothel." The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written. It's amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality. Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the 'slippery slope' argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece. As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves. This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
<br />
I love your comparison, Erin! It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted. Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women. I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a "proper" lady that wasn't particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible. And yet, Dr. Frederick's claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence. I wonder if more readers believed or didn't believe what this man wrote. I laughed at the last line, "the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them" (p. 4). This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I disagree with the implication of Catt's undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it's still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states "Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn't follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men". I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal <br />
<br />
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women. "You won't be so welcome there, but that is the place to be," (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside. I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says "this is the same old struggle but in a new field." She new that just because women had the right to vote didn't mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie<br />
<br />
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights. The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process. Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak. EFritz<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE'RE EQUAL!! Others didn't quite that stance. It's important to remember that many women approved of women's suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different. She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified. ---jmarshal<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
<br />
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn't just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz's article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, "opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion" (US, 335). This "freedom of urban life" gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal <br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
Feminism.. "For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman's place in the world..." I enjoyed this line... that's how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys. I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children. Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau's pamphlets. Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women. This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E. is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on. Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women. Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today. Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after. I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one. I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program. It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was 'marking' the baby by her cravings. I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to. In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-11T03:01:07Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
<br />
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference? How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal <br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time. The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l<br />
<br />
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be "one vast brothel." The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written. It's amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality. Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the 'slippery slope' argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece. As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves. This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
<br />
I love your comparison, Erin! It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted. Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women. I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a "proper" lady that wasn't particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible. And yet, Dr. Frederick's claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence. I wonder if more readers believed or didn't believe what this man wrote. I laughed at the last line, "the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them" (p. 4). This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I disagree with the implication of Catt's undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it's still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states "Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn't follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men". I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal <br />
<br />
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women. "You won't be so welcome there, but that is the place to be," (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside. I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says "this is the same old struggle but in a new field." She new that just because women had the right to vote didn't mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie<br />
<br />
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights. The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process. Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak. EFritz<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE'RE EQUAL!! Others didn't quite that stance. It's important to remember that many women approved of women's suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different. She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified. ---jmarshal<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
<br />
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn't just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz's article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, "opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion" (US, 335). This "freedom of urban life" gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal <br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
Feminism.. "For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman's place in the world..." I enjoyed this line... that's how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys. I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children. Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau's pamphlets. Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women. This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E. is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on. Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women. Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today. Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-23T12:17:05Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
==Working Women Write the Jewish Daily Forward==<br />
While this essay was not too long in length I found interesting the early day versions of advice columns in newspapers. Women, specifically Jewish women were able to write about their struggles and stories in search of advice instead of just relying on a diary to record their thoughts. It reminded me of reading American Girl magazine when I was younger and learning about different girls stories and how they expressed any concern with their lives. I found it great that the advice given back to girls, much like today, was for the betterment of women. The advice encouraged women to step forward and have a voice in the workplace and home. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Like Megan, these also just struck as modern-day advice columns. I found it amusing (for me not the girls writing) that the girl wrote so much and they were given very small snippets of a response. Its good to see that there was an outlet/ a way for the girl to get advice without possibly embarrassing herself or worse. - Christine<br />
<br />
The Jewish Daily Forward contained some interesting submissions. The first one written by the teenager who was being sexually harassed struck me because this is something that many women endured (and still endure) during the early part of the 20th century. The advice, though correct, causes me to wonder: would anyone do anything about the foreman? It seems like the circumstances surrounding women, especially immigrant women working in shops/factories at this time were pretty bleak. I wish it weren’t so, but I wonder if any action would have been taken against the foreman at all, she explains that this is a small town so maybe that would have any effect but so many of these cases, if they were even reported, went unresolved. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I liked the essays about''' the Jewish Daily forward and the Chicago Defender both newspapers seemed to be doing as much as they could for the immigrant and black communities. While in some situations they might not have had the power to do anything it seems like they were a comforting presence in both communities.''' The arrival of the Chicago Defender especially seemed to be looked forward to by many families. However like Caryn I also wondered if it was likely that any action would be taken against the foreman who harassed the young worker. What were the chances that a young girl without any money would be able to make a successful case against a male employer? Also this is not really a post but the letter from the girl who had lost her fiance? husband? in the shirtwaist factory fire was really depressing. Especially her ending line of " I think everything can be all right for me only in the grave".....I hope she listened to the editor and remarried!--Emma<br />
<br />
These letters to the editor were interesting to read. One of the letters, the shopgirl who writes to the editor saying, "He [the foreman] often allows himself to "have fun" with some of the working girls. It was my bad luck to be one of the girls that he tried to make advances to. And woe to any girl who doesn't willingly accept them." (P. 63 MAW) It was sad to read that these girls were put into these helpless positions and if they objected, they risked losing their jobs, which would have been even worse. They had to choose between the lesser of two evils, with neither one being desirable. -- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I thought that the Jewish Daily Forward was enlightening in giving insight into the lives of working Jewish women. These struggles, such as sexual harassment weren't just strictly limited to the Jewish female, but provides the issues that many working women faced, although I had not read anywhere else the advice columns to other societies, which I think is unique. efritz<br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. '''The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity.''' Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These women's lives totally interest me. As plainly as she tells her life story, as pertaining to work, you get a real sense of the pride that she felt in being so industrious and in being so good at what she did. She even mentions the books she read while she used to churn butter. She was constantly occupied and never (except when she taught before she was married, presumably) for a wage. '''But by most measures, she and her husband led very successful lives.''' They provided for their five kids and sent them to school, one even to Cornell. And at 58, it sounds like she even gets to "retire". The values of rural living seem very different than those of urban living. As more and more people moved into urban areas, i wonder how this affected the lifestyles of farm families. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Nothing really stands out in this piece too much, except for how matter-of-factly she tells her story. She lists out her life, her work, everything she's done. She doesn't seem to be boasting or complaining; it's just life to her. I do wonder if she is aware of life outside the farm, if she ever wondered about not being there. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The past couple of class periods we have discussed how women's work on the farm went unaccounted for in census and other data. This really brings that point home. I never truly recognized or grasped the difficulty of women working on the farm. The last paragraph stresses that point: "My husband says, 'You helped earn and save more than I did.' The boys many times say, 'If it had not been for your pushing and helping us to school, we never could have done so well." This encompasses the woman's role on the farm. Not only did she work insanely hard as a farmhand, but a mother still managed to fulfill the role of moral and matriarchal support.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I found this piece fascinating and humbling. '''Maybe it’s because I am the child of a New York City suburb, and yet only two generations back, this woman’s life was my grandmother’s life.''' Not seeing the struggles of farmers anywhere close to me, I could not imagine how much work, strength and faith even it took and takes to lead such a life. Farmers, but especially farm women, are completely under appreciated. However, while I was taken aback by the never ending work load of a farm woman, it was pleasing to see her husband’s and sons’ acknowledgment and gratitude. <br />
On another note, the line “work never kills” (p. 50) jumped out at me immediately and made me ponder the differences between factory workers and farmers at the turn of the century. It is now a well known fact that factory workers toiled in horrendous conditions, like in the NYC Shirtwaist factory fire. However, the introduction reminded me that the hours were longer for a farmer and the conditions more tumultuous. Our nation needed the industry factory workers provided, but even the factory workers needed the sustenance farmers provided. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
I found this article extremely interesting. I understood the fact that rural life was a different form of difficult for women, but I had never thought hard about what types of obstacles they faced and just how tough they had to be. Typical domestic work was not easy, there was a lot that needed to be done-especially if the mistress of the house did not have any domestic help, but rural women were without electricity which meant that everyday tasks that were hard in urban households were significantly more difficult in the country. I can not imagine having to haul water in order to perform everyday tasks-and sometimes that could total 200 gallons! (49) That is insane. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
Never again will I complain about the amount of housework I have to do. These women were such an integral part of the farm and its community, and I thought that her sacrifices, although underappreciated by society, were well worth it to see her children succeed. efritz<br />
<br />
<br />
== Buffalobird Woman's Story ==<br />
After reading this excerpt, I found myself extremely frustrated with the government. Why did the government feel the need to tell the Indians how to do things when the Indians had already succeeded before the government came along to tell them what to do? The Indian women of course were open to the new changes, but they still wondered why they could not cultivate as they had in the past. It was probably a lifestyle change for them, because now, they were to grow what they were told, and it was probably disconcerting to the Indian women and men because they had lost control of a part of their lives. -- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
This is another example of how the U.S. government attempted to assimilate the Native Americans, and in the process took away their land and changed their lifestyles. Buffalobird is a strong personality, and remains that way throughout the excerpt. It is a refreshing piece to read because the spirit of so many Native Americans was crushed. Even though many Native American women lost their independence and sense of strength, she seems to have maintained it.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
'''''Where did the impetus for government intervention come from? Perhaps it came as a result of the kind of Progressive-minded reform that was sweeping the country during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. And if that is the case, then wasn't much of that drive for reform brought to bear by women'''''--we discussed how women entered into the political sphere in order to help ameliorate peoples' lives, and the Native American was considered to be backward almost universally during this time period. Wouldn't it make sense that women at some point encourage the government to interfere with the lives of Native Americans? The push for the Americanization of Native Americans came as a result of the Progressive reform movement and many arguments have been made about the influence women had on governmental reforms from this period, so would it be such a stretch to say that women had a hand in some of those "reforms" that in retrospect turned out to be fairly disastrous? -schang<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
'''After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind.''' Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on a lot of the points she made. This piece captured my attention because of the harsh conditions that these women were forced to work in. I found in particularly difficult to not feel bad for the girls because stress they had to endure by working in industrial places like a glove factory. Nestor references how the girls tried to find ways to produce more gloves in an hour and would sometimes even work during their breaks just to get more done. She also revealed how the women were afraid of the machine breaking because it meant they could not make more gloves, which meant they would not get their payment. Nestor shows the effect of industry on the working woman and it's effects. ''' I wonder how women at this time dealt with professions like this without getting extremely frustrated.''' -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
'''As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way.''' Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
'''On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say.''' First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and '''''decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals?''''' - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). ''' Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families.''' Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this article really interesting because '''it exemplifies one of the main problems for women entering the work force in the early 20th century. This problem was that society, as well as individual families, was not ready to let go of common values for women. These values held that women should work inside the home, so when young girls went outside to work during the day, their family still expected them to perform womanly duties at home when they returned, like they had never been gone at all.''' Even though these families needed their daughters to work, they still tried to hang on to the idea that women were meant to be inside the home. In the end, this value put even more pressure on women because they were then forced to work hard outside and then just as hard inside when they returned. I really liked the one example of a mother on page 267 that actually understood how important it was for her daughter to work and then rest when she got home so she could work again the next day. It seems like that mother placed more importance on her daughter's well-being than on the societal pressures around her. --Angie<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
'''This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution?''' Apparently, there were a few causes. '''Poor sanitary conditions in the working world''' affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, '''fast paced modern life''' lead to eroticism, and '''poor pay''' meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but '''the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls'''. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. '''Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women'''. Finally, I have to ask, '''''what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue?''''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. '''The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it.''' It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant '''I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY??''' I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. '''I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!).''' The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. '''This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation?''' -MHimes<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I can't imagine the physical and mental exhaustion these African American woman faced in domestic service jobs. The woman whose story is told was a nurse, among many other things, yet she was still considered "servant class." '''Were white women who worked in the same type of jobs as nurses or household servants considered to be in the "servant class?" She goes on to say, "I am allowed to go home to my own children, the oldest of whom is a girl of 18 years, only one in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon - even then I'm not permitted to stay all night." (P. 54 MAW) Wasn't there some type of law against keeping this lady at her job all the time?''' She was not a slave, so shouldn't she have been allowed to go home after work? Or did the rules of her job make her stay there? In my opinion, this free African American woman's job didn't seem that much different from slavery. -- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
What I found interesting--"In my early years I was at first what might be called a 'house-girl,' or better, a 'house-boy.'" (53) Why was "house-boy" a better descriptor (in her own words) of what she did? Also, maybe something about the interplay of racial hierarchies between herself and her mistress who ordered her around. -schang<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
One of the most important questions I think women were most concerned with while trying to obtain suffrage is asked by DuBois on page. 276. '''She claims that women were worried whether or not they could balance their work in the home with that of gaining suffrage.''' It seems many women were concerned that they could not acheive a balance between the two and that there work towards suffrage would take away their focus from the home front. I beleive that this question was not incredibly worrisome and that a balance was possible. Even if they were in the work force, responsibilities on the home front could still be upheld. Even today, women work and I still beleive they are a central figure at home. Granted it was more difficult back then because women were attempting to accomplish more, but a balance was still possible. -afrisk<br />
<br />
'''So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status.''' Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how, on page 273, DuBois talks about how wealthy women first entered the suffragist field in the 1890s because they wanted to make the wealthy class stronger. I previously was under the misconception that women entered into the movement solely on the value that women should have the right to vote, but this was obviously not the case. Wealthy women wanted the vote because they thought they would vote the same way as their wealthy husbands, therefore solidifying the political power of the wealthy. I think this is really important because it shows that '''many women associated themselves more with their class than with the fact that they were women.''' -- Angie<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. '''Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages.''' -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the ''Defender'' was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there. Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South. I'd sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the Chicago Defender really emphasizes the deplorable living situations in the South. The letter from a woman who had previously worked in a rural school and was looking for a job in domestic service really stood out to me. '''The idea that a housekeeping position in the North would pay better then a school teachers pay in the south really shows the desperate situation of black families in the south.''' Some of the people who wrote in to the newspaper claimed to have good references its sad to think that whatever experience they had previously the only job they would most likely be able to find was one as a domestic servant. --Emma<br />
<br />
These letters to the Chicago Defender are quite desperate as Mary Ann and Erin have both mentioned. But I thought that I would approach this from two different directions: one the difference in the letters themselves. Two of the letters are written by teachers whose school is either closing or wages are too low. These particular letters showcase the difference in education from the other letters. I also found it realistic that the teachers were looking for domestic work, though this work was quite hard, I am sure that the prospect of a room and further opportunities in a bustling city were the motivating factors among the poor wages and general conditions in the south. Second, '''the letters seem to note a trust that these women had in the Chicago Defender, implying that these women believed that the Defender would help them find these jobs.''' The reality of this was that thousands upon thousands of black men and women were migrating to Chicago leaving them, as Mary Ann said to compete for positions in domestic service. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
What I found interesting--'''all these letters were written by women, and are all addressed, variously, to men. "Gentlemen:" or "Kind Sir:" or "Sir:" what does this indicate about contemporary (then) concepts of where help and assistance was supposed to come from'''...something along those lines. -schang<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
It was almost impossible to keep a straight face while reading this particular article and I had to read a passage to my roomate and he was also laughing hysterically. This is the first intense anti-suffrage argument that I have come accross with this much candor and I found it incredibly interesting. Marie Jenny Howe essentially gives her gender no credit and claims they hardly posses any intellectual capacity and are even incapable of doing something as simple as placing a ballot in a box. She wants to continue with the established order and keep women down in the domestic sphere because "some one must wash the dishes." She continues to take a very conservative approach to women's roles and even mentions the Bible as reason to keep women suppressed. Myself, and others I am sure do not agree with Howe's view of women as an imcompetent gender and beleive women should have never been suppressed like they were. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. '''Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire''', and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. '''Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly.''' When phrased this way,'' '''it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting,''''' but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. '''However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause.''' – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. '''One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse?''' --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
'''''This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement.''''' "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
Just like all the other posts stated, I found this article more comical than persuasive. Howe tries to argue that women do not need the right to vote using by a lot of (in my opinion) ridiculous points. I particularly liked how she stated "I don't care about facts. I ask for proof." I think that suffragists at this time were trying hard to push for rights for women, and that should be Howe's proof. She seems to really embody the idea that women are passive creatures which is almost, in a sense, degrading to women, especially when she states "I am a creature of impulse, instinct and intuition- and I glory in it." -abratchi<br />
<br />
Erin, I love the comparison to the Colbert Report. That is exactly how I felt about this article and I too was laughing by the end of it. This article would have been a great comedic performance if that needed to advertise the ridiculous arguments of the anti-suffrage movements. My favorite expression was that of a “womanly women.” Howe states that “facts and statistics are things which no truly womanly women would ever use,” (103) and appears to be pointing to the fact that women were not meant to be smart or understand anything of the “men’s world”. Howe then depicts this anti-suffragist woman to think that with the ability to vote, and all the other public ideals that come with it, will put “pressure on the brain, effect of this mental strain on women’s delicate nervous organization,” (104). As if we as women are not made to handle the simple task of checking a ballot and dropping a piece of paper into a box. I wonder if these were real anti’s arguments of the time or if Howe is exaggerating a few lines. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely amusing. When Howe states that “men should remain men” and that “women should remain women” (102) she points out that if the roles were reversed, how would you explain that to the children? On a serious note, I would like to ponder how she would respond to same sex marriage and family life? Obviously that question cannot be answered but I think watching her pick apart that aspect of life would be very interesting and possibly ridiculous. Also her claim that the ballot is the only thing that makes a husband faithful (104); otherwise he becomes a drunk and a disgrace to society. Apparently she had never met a guy who fit these characteristics if her only reason for explaining their existences is the ballot (which he was entitled t already and which women were not) was already in his domain of influence….--jmarshal<br />
<br />
Hilarity of the satire aside--I found the editor's preface to the essay the most interesting, something made me think of an earlier reading where a female activist decried suffrage as the hobby of elite women--what changed since then or is this just a case of two different opinions in a contentious debate? -schang<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
'''I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike.''' The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Right of the bat this article caught my attention with the seeming contradiction of the “militant suffragists led by the charismatic Quaker leader Alice Paul” (111) and the harshness of the sentence Paul and her followers received. I cannot help but wonder if these women received such a severe sentence because of their radical behavior and how horribly inappropriate and alarming this behavior was on women. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
First I believe that Alice Paul had to have been one tough women to have gone through all that she did while being in jail; dealing with the disgusting conditions and then the scrutinizing men guards and doctor. '''The one protest she did come up with, the hunger strike, I didn’t exactly understand. She complained of having little to eat and it being “not a diet destined to sustain a rebellion for long,” (112) but then she starts a hunger strike. This must have only made her and the women weaker, and I don’t understand the logic behind that.''' At least with the food they were given they had something in them, but nothing after three days? It’s no wonder the doctor thought she was crazy, I know that I wouldn’t be able to think right if I was that deprived of food. Once the doctor had come in and Alice only rambled on about her cause and Woodrow Wilson. Of course she didn’t know that this ‘doctor’ was examining her for her mental health, but Alice hadn’t had anything to eat in three days and must not have been in her right mind either. I probably would have thought that she was crazy too. It’s no wonder she was sent to the psychopathic ward. Whatever happened to her? -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
'''My understanding is that all prisons during this time period operated under similar conditions.''' Also, I don't find it appalling at all that Paul was suspected of mental illness nor believe the continued questioning concerning President Wilson to be "convenient," '''nor do I agree with the conclusion that contemporary (then) men were frightened by suffragists.''' Firstly, perhaps my timeline is off, but my understanding is that the very presence of a prison psychiatrist was an indication of prison reform. And like Morgan mentioned, if it doesn't seem logical for someone to go on a hunger strike then it wouldn't have been too much of a stretch for a psychiatrist, confronted with a prison inmate, to come to the conclusion that she might not have all of her mental faculties. Not because she was a woman, but because she was in prison in the first place. '''Aren't we, so enlightened in our society now, susceptible to presumptions about the mental state of those who have been incarcerated?''' Just because Paul felt as though the prison warden and psychiatrist had "forged" her insanity doesn't mean much when we, AS HISTORIANS, trying to approach at subject objectively, that this is true without recourse to those prison documents and with a fuller understanding of the historical concepts of mental illness and if we want to get a more unbiased conclusion--what specific attitudes towards hunger strikes were during this time period. '''Additionally, I think that after the fairly recent assassination of President McKinley that such lines of questioning were fairly common.''' -schang<br />
<br />
==Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic, Florence Luscomb==<br />
<br />
The one sentence that stood out to me in this essay, "We even reveled in dog-fights; for, as our chief remarked while we were enjoying one such experience, 'After all, there is nothing to draw a crowd like a dog-fight,'...(100). My first thought was Michael Vick and how much the media paid attention to his role in dog-fights yet women suffragists were right at home among dogs and thought of them as admirers. How society has changed over the years...-Megan W.<br />
<br />
'''A few moments struck me in this passage. The opening “…an American woman can stand in a hall and address American men with dignity and earnestness on her part ….yet presto, remove the roof and the same women is a ranting fanatic” (98) It made me think about an ideal of keeping women inside even though speaking at an indoor engagement is not the domestic sphere, it is certainly less public than speaking in park, hence the male apprehension towards this.''' Furthermore, it was a radical move that these women were traveling around the country holding these outdoor meetings. It must have rocked the entire foundation of proprietary that had been established during this time. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Though many men and bystanders would see these women as "ranting fanatic[s]" Florence Luscomb still describes as the crusade as a success. That in itself is something to be proud of. The momentum the women's suffrage movement had picked up is reflected in this excerpt. Though they were met with much adversity, they were able to adapt and overcome. Even though men initially viewed their outdoor speeches as too assertive, they were still successful. I was also mildly amused that Luscomb took the time to calculate the averages of all the meetings. It was rather beneficial to her argument.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
==4. The ''New York Times'' Reports on the Tragedy of the Triangle Factory Fire, 1911== <br />
<br />
The death of these 141 women and few men could have been preventable had the owners taken into account that a building cannot be fully "fire-proof" with hundreds of cotton shirts lying around. One fire escape is clearly not enough for 600 employees especially when many were not familiar with the layout of the building. I found it heartbreaking that had it just been a matter of minutes these employees would not of burned nor lept to their death and even more appalling that for hours the bodies were ignored. I understand that firefighters need to do their job and stop the fire but could they not of split the work and tried to move bodies so they could aid workers instead of watching them jump 100 feet to their death? The workers were helpless victims and the fire showed the ignorance of employers to the safety needs of their workers. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Leonora O'Reilly, "A Labor Organizer Speaks Out for Suffrage", 1912==<br />
'''Leonora O'Reilly's speech made it clear that women working outside the home needed suffrage the most'''. Women needed it for protection from unsafe working conditions, unfair wages, and child labor. According to her, industry claimed one out of every five women. She also pointed out how easily business men took advantage of women to "go up the ladder" (MAW, 107). She represented the 8 million working women who wanted suffrage not as a privilege, but as a right. -David Fitch<br />
<br />
==Maud Wood Park, "Front Door Lobbying" for Suffrage, 1917==<br />
I found this section to be extremely interesting because it illustrates how organized suffrage lobbyists were. Maud Wood Park's directions for lobbyists were structured, extensive, and specific. Among the instructions for interviewing, Park states it is most important to "take every possible means to prevent a member from committing himself definitely against the federal Amendment" (MAW, 109). She also made a list of "don'ts" that included, "don't threaten...don't nag...[and] don't do anything to close the door to the next advocate of suffrage" (MAW, 109). What I found most interesting in the article was the examples of actual reports taken by the lobbyists. In one report where a Texas man declared that men represent woman and there was no need for women to vote, the lobbyist wrote in her report "When I suggested my being a widow and not having representation, he gallantly offered to represent me" (MAW, 110). This report made me laugh because it seems like this man from Texas was pretty conceited. It also represented the viewpoint of a large majority of men who felt it was their responsibility to vote and not woman's. - David Fitch<br />
<br />
'''Editor's preface to the reading--"They also show NAWSA's determination to be firm but above all LADYLIKE, a sharp contrast to the militants who risked arrest for their public protests and picketing..." (108). What does this even mean?''' -schang</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-02-04T02:48:58Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” ==<br />
<br />
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that "Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible" and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word "girls" which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
The welfare activism article notes that a fair amount of the black women involved in welfare were married, and it was more generally acceptable for black women to be involved in public life than white women, which I suppose is partly due to their positions as heads of families during slavery’s heyday and the fact that many black women had to work outside the home due to economic necessity (except these reform women who were pretty well off). However, Anna J. Cooper seemed to believe that black men were not supportive of women outside the home and didn’t recognize their value in politics and reform. What accounts for this disparity? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool how even though black women may not have had the advantages that white women had in the reform movement, they made the best out of it. White women raised money but they also were able to gain support or recognition from people in congress. Black women were not so fortunate but they did not let that stop them; they had bake sales, church dinners, and other such functions to raise money and awareness. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Like Amy, I noticed the differences between how black and white women raised money for their causes. It seems like white women relied far more on their status and privilege to gain access to (mostly white men) policy makers and other influential leaders who could help them. Black women, for the most part, did not have this option. So they turned to their communities for support, in much the same way as they had turned voting and politics into community activities. Black women already had a solid tradition of getting the community to rally around them for a cause, so when the need arose for schools and public health measures and other programs, women again banded to together for the good of the group as a whole. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the most intriguing part, and yet a short piece, of Linda Gordon’s article to be on the Lesbianism and homosexual escapades. Different from black women’s dependence on their community and occasionally their husbands, white women greatly relied on one-another rather than their husbands or families. “The great majority of white women were single-34 percent had ever been married, and only 18 percent remained married during their peak political activity,” (pg. 229). To this effect women Gordon gives the fact that “28 percent were in relationships with other women…called Boston marriages,” (pg. 229). I think that we as a generation think that Lesbianism is a new trend/ideal, and yet these women were practicing it in the 18th-19th century. This was probably not seen as a controversial idea to these women, so why is it such a big issue today when is a part of history? ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that rape was ever "justified" by anyone, and it has always been seen as a barbarism, even when it was performed ritualistically by warring states. Just because a society's dialogue doesn't include rape doesn't mean that it was accepted, by any means. Also, to encapsulate human nature as such is not a dismissal, as is evident even in our so-enlightened society when we "dismiss" the actions of men that is at times chauvinistic or derogatory as "boys will be boys"--does that mean that such behavior, speaking in broad terms, justified? I would think no. Also, while it seems as though black women did not have the kind of access to politicized power as white women did, Gordon points out, perhaps in contradiction to some of her conclusions, that half of the African American women who were married (85%) had influential husbands. I don't really see much difference between what the African American women did in comparison to WASP women, despite Gordon's attempts to highlight them. To me, it seems as though the only thing that really differed, notwithstanding the race issue (which I'm not dismissing), was the time that had elapsed between emancipation and what was then contemporary times. Like WASP women's groups, black women's societies were exclusionary, and it seems that if a few more generations had elapsed then the black women would be just as focused on maintaining social hierarchies as white women were. Perhaps they're concentration in the rural South maintained this as immigrants seldom ventured South and therefore black women would not have a class of "others" to perform activism on. But then again the entire African American community was persecuted against so I'm sure it's not as simplistic as that. I found the "white view" as a class issue, which I agree with and that the WASP women who were single and had a great deal of autonomy assumed that this was a class privilege and something that would not be desirable for poorer women. -schang <br />
<br />
While I agree with the comments above noticing the differences between black and white women's approaches to fundraising I found interesting how they worked together as well. According to the article women seemed to be the ringleaders not only for rights for themselves but for equality by working together against race riots, ie. Chicago 1919 p. 224. Even more interesting were women in the South working together, where they suffered racial violence constantly. It was not common to see women of both races working together for a cause but both races had common interests, each was under the domestic sphere and both had to fight for not only themselves but generations to come. I did think the way black women worked together was more effective, even without government support they were able to come together without the support of men and build a bond through sisterhood and charity. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought the information presented in this article regarding the priorities of black women and their focus on education was revealing. On page 225, Gordon points out that “education was the single most important area of activism for black women”. It makes sense that this would be the case, but I would have guessed that issues of equality would have outranked education as the primary concern. –E Fritz<br />
<br />
== Judy Yung, "The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in ''Chung Sai Yat Po'', 1900-1911" ==<br />
<br />
It’s ironic that in the early 20th century China was trying to emulate the Western world, including increasing women’s rights, to get out from under the hand of the West, and Chinese Americans emulated those reforms going on in China and not in their own country because they were so excluded from American life that they felt a closer kinship to China. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it was interesting how the reasons why people decided it was a good idea for women to have an education in America paralleled the decision for Chinese women to become educated. On page 263 Yung writes, "Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China." Even though I don't think this should be a number one reason for a woman to be given an education, at the time I would have been happy that women's education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Chinese Americans were witnessing freedoms in America that were not offered to them as Chinese Americans in America or China. Binding the feet was an example of their oppression to that of their husband. It’s interesting that binding of the feet was compared to binding of an American woman corset. They felt education was the key to stop the oppression. Chinese American lineage was to their home where their families were so they naturally felt the need to change things back at home. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
The CSYP was a very effective source to bringing light to the atrocities that Chinese American faced and the changes that needed to take place. Chinese American women could speak out through these journals in order to reach out to others and make changes. As Judy Yung noted though a lot did not read these articles, the news spread. Women talk and share their thoughts with other woman evoking their spirit and that brings change for them. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
Interesting reading, yes--new information, not really, at least to me. Why is it ironic that China saw the way out of Western domination as its emulation? That mentality has been repeated throughout history, from the Egyptians adopting chariots to overthrow the Hyksos to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents being found with US manuals on unconventional warfare. Also, it would seem only natural that the suppression of entry into the political sphere of an immigrant population would foster the desire to interact with the mother country. An aside--my own use of that term, "mother country" fascinates me in that nations have almost always been characterized as feminine and wonder what that kind of gendered language indicates about the pervasiveness of such gendered dichotomies in everyday life. Other things I found "interesting"--the actions of politicians and probably most likely liberal-minded reformers from the Progressive Era directly contributed to the high rate of prostitution among Chinese women as they barred further immigration in California and other western states. Also found significant the direction that these women's reform actions were aimed at--the revitalization of China as a nation, rather than the individualistic aims of many female reformers in America--kind of reminiscent of the African American women from the previous reading and their focus on universal rights etc. than their white female counterparts. -schang<br />
<br />
The comparison between bound feet and corsets was very important. Westerners are quick to judge bound feet for the horrible physical impact they had on women, but really, corsets were not any better. They bent ribcages, moved organs around, etc. My great grandmother still had to wear a corset long after they were out of fashion because her body was incapable of supporting itself anymore. And in both the case of foot binding and corsets, while it's true that men perpetuated the situation because of their ideas of what a beautiful woman should look like, women themselves were the ones to support the practices and get their daughters to do so as a sign of their femininity. I think the author took too much of a black-and-white stance on the subject of foot binding, which as painful as it was, it was not simply a sign of the oppression of Chinese women by Chinese men. That being said, it was important for Chinese women, both in China and America, to reject that tradition in order to begin to step out of their traditional roles. - Alice W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==<br />
'''Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890'''<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That's not masculine, it's disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
At first reading this article I initially thought, “How did Nellie think that she could actually do this in 1890? Was it even possible then?” Thinking more into it I can see why. She wanted to do something ambitious, that would make for a great story, but also make for a great experience, so why shouldn’t she as a woman be able to travel the world? Like Sarah, I feel bad that Nellie had to travel in one outfit for three months, but as she describes she is able to fit a good amount of clothing into her one hand-satchel, “two traveling caps…a pair of slippers, a dressing gown, tennis blazer…several changes of underwear,” (pg. 7). I would hope that priority number one would be the underwear. At the end of the article, I found that Nellie seems to indicate that she may have some sort of “baggage” in her life and I may be reading too much into it, but the way she speaks of the “the responsibilities and worries I escaped by not having a lot of trunks and boxes to look after,(pg. 7), seems to be a hidden meaning to her own emotional baggage.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
Here is a woman ready to trek around the world, alone, with only the contents of a little bag. She has the gumption to convince her boss that she can make the trip, yet she still falls back on the idea that if she conducts herself 'properly' she will "always find men ready to protect" (pg. 7) her. I don't fault her for wanting this protection, travel always entails a certain degree of danger, but I do wonder at her assumptions as to what constitutes proper behavior. In making the trip, hasn't she already broken several social norms concerning appropriate womanly conduct? And did she believe that men the world over would hold the same ideas about women and their behavior? What of her safety if her conduct was deemed improper? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found this article really interesting because Nellie seems like a very independent and confident woman. That is why it was such a surprise to me that she quit journalism to marry a 72 year old man!! Perhaps she loved him, or maybe she thought that her job couldn't last forever and she needed someone to support her? It did also say that she shed a few years off her age to make herself seem more youthful. Maybe there was a common thought in society that once a woman got too old, she wasn't useful anymore. If that is true, then it must have been quite a strong societal expectation in order to get Nellie to stop what she loved doing. I think its also important to notice that Nellie had to stop her job when she got married. She obviously loved doing because she wanted to go back to it when her husband died, so there must have been some pressure on her to quit and spend her time being a wife. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I was also shocked at ther marriage to the rather old man, thats old today, so I'm sure back then that had to be quite an old guy. I feel that Nellie is a perfect example of this New Woman, out embracing the world without a care or fear in the world, ready to tackle any man's job. Good for her. - Christine L<br />
<br />
Here are the things that I found interesting in this primary document--for such a daring New Woman she seems awfully dependent on the chivalry of men. Example, "I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me." (7) So whether she had the outward trappings of the New Woman, she still thought in the same old traditional way that men are meant to protect women. Geez, we don't see that today at all...outward trappings of independence and the concurrent maintenance of a traditional outlook on the behavior of men...double standard much? -schang<br />
<br />
'''Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893'''<br />
<br />
I was actually surprised that Bertha Palmer used her speech at the World Fair to both honor women and criticise men's attitudes towards women. Women had been allowed a space at the Fair to display their own creativity, but it was within a well defined and controlled "sphere" designated by men. With Palmer's speech, we are getting to see a woman recognize the inequality of the separate spheres doctrine and publicly push for the inclusion of women in more than restrictive "spheres" constructed by men. After all, how can a woman truly be free when she is being oppressed by men in all that she does? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
The reasoning behind the creation of the women's pavilion seem more in line with what I imagine to be the goals of feminists (8). Then again, the "acknowledgement" that the women credit men in the passage, that heretofore, men have been the sole contributors to humanity, etc etc seemed to dismiss or perhaps demonstrate ignorance of what women had accomplished throughout history. -schang<br />
<br />
'''Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892'''<br />
<br />
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ida B. Wells''' – <br />
<br />
'''Frances Willard'''–<br />
<br />
'''Anzia Yezierska''' – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World<br />
<br />
Immigrant women like Anzia and her fictional heroine Sara faced unique challenges at the turn of the century. They were caught between the growing American emphasis on education and more independence for women and their tradition bound fathers and husbands. Men like Sara's father in the reading probably saw their daughters' rebellious streaks as not only a threat to their patriarchal authority but also to the culture and customs they brought from their countries of origin. When immigrant daughters went to school or moved out on their own they joined an 'American' movement that their parents may not have understood or feared for its ability to remove their daughters from an acceptably ethnic upbringing. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
I strongly agree with Mary Ann, I think fathers especially immigrant fathers wanted the "American Dream" and felt that when they arrived it was hard to achieve so held onto the one stable condition they always knew as being heads of the household. Men, like Sara's father used a different tactic to establish authority through the use of religion,"It says in the Torah, only through a man has a woman an existence." (22) contradicting the idea in America where women were normally seen as morally superior. This made me wonder if the influence of new religions and cultures in America helped bring about the women's movement? Did statements such as the one Sara's father made cause women to rebel more and prove they did not need a man nor his religion to survive. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
The story of the Bread Givers by Anzia Yezierska is an example of traditional values and norms crashing headfirst into a changing society. As a man of God in their old country, Sara’s father would have been required to provide spiritual leadership to his community in exchange for food and shelter; but in America that is not the case. Instead, he forces his family to sacrifice so that he can continue to focus completely on his religion. Sara’s ability to break away from her father’s overbearing dominance also forces her to turn her back on her sisters and mother. This conflict between generations was a prominent narrative at the turn of the century. – E Fritz <br />
<br />
'''Edith Eudora Ammons''' – A Woman Homesteader<br />
<br />
When I have pictured manifest destiny, I have hardly pictured Edith Ammons and her sister, two women, moving in to the West alone to build up new lives together. Of course, I would never think of the West in the 19th century as a place of freedom and new beginnings because I know how rough it was from studying history. Ammons herself admits, "This was not the West as I had dreamed it... It was a desolate, forgotten land, without vegetation save for the dry, crackling grass, without visible tokens of fertility" (p. 26). Yet, the sisters toughed it out, taking on hardship after hardship in exchange for their freedom to live where they wanted and do what they wanted. I think that with our comforts of today, it is often hard to imagine women putting themselves through such trials to achieve the freedom they desired. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==<br />
<br />
'''Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)'''<br />
<br />
One thing I really liked about this story was how Molly talked about how she struggled with her studies. I thought this was important because it shows that girls weren't just sent away to learn how to become good wives, but they were actually taught things. They actually had to learn science and practice experiments. Molly seems like a completely modern college girl in the way she complains about her classes! She also talks about her social life quite openly. Girls were willing to dress up like boys in order to go out and have fun. Its nice to see that all girls of that period weren't prim and proper like we are sometimes led to believe. -- Angie<br />
<br />
'''Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)'''<br />
<br />
In class we spoke some of this issue that the “New Woman” faced about what to do after leaving college. Here I found what Jane Addams and Ellen Starr do very admirable, such as creating the famous Hall House. In today’s world you don’t see many women, especially white, moving into “bad” parts of cities to truly help the people there. But these women I found fearless of being in Chicago such as the incident with them leaving the side door left open and “were much pleased in the morning to find that we possessed a fine illustration of the honesty and kindliness of our new neighbors,” (pg. 36). I would have been so upset that I had risked my home and self, just being in a new place for the first night is nerve-racking, but leaving a door open would make me even more paranoid. These women were actually asked to “wash the newborn babies, and to prepare the dead for burial, to nurse the sick, and to ‘mind the children’,” (pg. 36). Where there no others to do these tasks, such as a mortician, hospital, or baby-sitters? I know to remember that these people were of the poorest of the city, but these women were asked to prepare the dead, really? Ew.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)'''<br />
<br />
The first piece of this article I saw was that it parallels to the Jane Addams Article in that Alice Hamilton spent time at the Hull House. In her writing Alice actually mentions the Hull House, other than her biography at the beginning stating that she had spent time there and that she truly learned something from her time at the Hull House gives more evidence to the fact of Jane creating something great. “Life at Hull-House had accustomed me to going straight to the homes of people whom I wished to learn something and talking to them in their own surroundings, where they have courage to speak out what is in their minds,” (pg. 39). The Hull House taught Alice how to relate to people and I can see this consideration being very important, essential, to her profession of being a physician. In addition to her being a physician I think that a certain level of arrogance blossomed as well. Alice tends to look down on people at times, but at the same time being understanding; an example being her take on the reason for immigrants to take jobs to support their families after coming to American; “of course they took the first job they could find and if it proved to be one that weakened and crippled them---well, that was their bad luck!” (pg. 39). I found this a bit uncharacteristic of the women who spent time in the Hull House, but that is entirely my take. I’m sure being a women physician is something to be quite proud of, but to look down on immigrants who you are caring for because they are trying to make the best of the life they have been dealt, seems a bit harsh. ---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) '''<br />
<br />
'''Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)'''<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)'''<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Mother Jones. Her writing is very strong and passionate, and its hard not to have emotions dredged up while reading about this strike. I found it interesting that she went and stayed with the families working in the mine to witness first-hand the hardships they endure. The conditions seemed to be not too far off of what miners dealt with in more recent times which is saddening. - Christine L<br />
<br />
'''Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home'''<br />
<br />
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913'''<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman's husband's boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?<br />
-Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I found this article the most interesting out of all of them. Josephine Conger-Koneko takes a very hard line on the position that women should be paid for their housework. I also found it interesting how she equivocated a woman's life in the home doing housework for her husband as the life of a slave. She seems to be a bit radical in her discussion of women being paid for household duties. I also found it striking that Koneko argues that a husband should go to his employer and ask for wages for his wife at home doing the housework and how men getting married is actually benefical more for the employer because then he will have a continuing work force. Did women during this time believe they should be paid for work, and if after reading this, did woman's groups advocate paid labor for women working in the home? -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn't just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I thought the Sanger article was very interesting. I like how Sanger is able to use the story of Mrs. Sachs to show the rising need and importance for birth control. I think it presents birth control as more of a social issue, rather than just an issue of liberating woman's sexuality. She demonstrates that birth control is a necessity because of all the hurt, poverty and death that is occurring due to a lack of birth control. At this time, one had to have enough money for doctors who they could pay to tell them about birth control options/abortion due to the Comstock Laws, and I think this is important for why Sanger decides to advocate birth control, especially to the poorer classes. -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911'''</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-02-04T02:36:14Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” ==<br />
<br />
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that "Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible" and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word "girls" which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
The welfare activism article notes that a fair amount of the black women involved in welfare were married, and it was more generally acceptable for black women to be involved in public life than white women, which I suppose is partly due to their positions as heads of families during slavery’s heyday and the fact that many black women had to work outside the home due to economic necessity (except these reform women who were pretty well off). However, Anna J. Cooper seemed to believe that black men were not supportive of women outside the home and didn’t recognize their value in politics and reform. What accounts for this disparity? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool how even though black women may not have had the advantages that white women had in the reform movement, they made the best out of it. White women raised money but they also were able to gain support or recognition from people in congress. Black women were not so fortunate but they did not let that stop them; they had bake sales, church dinners, and other such functions to raise money and awareness. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Like Amy, I noticed the differences between how black and white women raised money for their causes. It seems like white women relied far more on their status and privilege to gain access to (mostly white men) policy makers and other influential leaders who could help them. Black women, for the most part, did not have this option. So they turned to their communities for support, in much the same way as they had turned voting and politics into community activities. Black women already had a solid tradition of getting the community to rally around them for a cause, so when the need arose for schools and public health measures and other programs, women again banded to together for the good of the group as a whole. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the most intriguing part, and yet a short piece, of Linda Gordon’s article to be on the Lesbianism and homosexual escapades. Different from black women’s dependence on their community and occasionally their husbands, white women greatly relied on one-another rather than their husbands or families. “The great majority of white women were single-34 percent had ever been married, and only 18 percent remained married during their peak political activity,” (pg. 229). To this effect women Gordon gives the fact that “28 percent were in relationships with other women…called Boston marriages,” (pg. 229). I think that we as a generation think that Lesbianism is a new trend/ideal, and yet these women were practicing it in the 18th-19th century. This was probably not seen as a controversial idea to these women, so why is it such a big issue today when is a part of history? ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that rape was ever "justified" by anyone, and it has always been seen as a barbarism, even when it was performed ritualistically by warring states. Just because a society's dialogue doesn't include rape doesn't mean that it was accepted, by any means. Also, to encapsulate human nature as such is not a dismissal, as is evident even in our so-enlightened society when we "dismiss" the actions of men that is at times chauvinistic or derogatory as "boys will be boys"--does that mean that such behavior, speaking in broad terms, justified? I would think no. Also, while it seems as though black women did not have the kind of access to politicized power as white women did, Gordon points out, perhaps in contradiction to some of her conclusions, that half of the African American women who were married (85%) had influential husbands. I don't really see much difference between what the African American women did in comparison to WASP women, despite Gordon's attempts to highlight them. To me, it seems as though the only thing that really differed, notwithstanding the race issue (which I'm not dismissing), was the time that had elapsed between emancipation and what was then contemporary times. Like WASP women's groups, black women's societies were exclusionary, and it seems that if a few more generations had elapsed then the black women would be just as focused on maintaining social hierarchies as white women were. Perhaps they're concentration in the rural South maintained this as immigrants seldom ventured South and therefore black women would not have a class of "others" to perform activism on. But then again the entire African American community was persecuted against so I'm sure it's not as simplistic as that. I found the "white view" as a class issue, which I agree with and that the WASP women who were single and had a great deal of autonomy assumed that this was a class privilege and something that would not be desirable for poorer women. -schang <br />
<br />
While I agree with the comments above noticing the differences between black and white women's approaches to fundraising I found interesting how they worked together as well. According to the article women seemed to be the ringleaders not only for rights for themselves but for equality by working together against race riots, ie. Chicago 1919 p. 224. Even more interesting were women in the South working together, where they suffered racial violence constantly. It was not common to see women of both races working together for a cause but both races had common interests, each was under the domestic sphere and both had to fight for not only themselves but generations to come. I did think the way black women worked together was more effective, even without government support they were able to come together without the support of men and build a bond through sisterhood and charity. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought the information presented in this article regarding the priorities of black women and their focus on education was revealing. On page 225, Gordon points out that “education was the single most important area of activism for black women”. It makes sense that this would be the case, but I would have guessed that issues of equality would have outranked education as the primary concern. –E Fritz<br />
<br />
== Judy Yung, "The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in ''Chung Sai Yat Po'', 1900-1911" ==<br />
<br />
It’s ironic that in the early 20th century China was trying to emulate the Western world, including increasing women’s rights, to get out from under the hand of the West, and Chinese Americans emulated those reforms going on in China and not in their own country because they were so excluded from American life that they felt a closer kinship to China. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it was interesting how the reasons why people decided it was a good idea for women to have an education in America paralleled the decision for Chinese women to become educated. On page 263 Yung writes, "Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China." Even though I don't think this should be a number one reason for a woman to be given an education, at the time I would have been happy that women's education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Chinese Americans were witnessing freedoms in America that were not offered to them as Chinese Americans in America or China. Binding the feet was an example of their oppression to that of their husband. It’s interesting that binding of the feet was compared to binding of an American woman corset. They felt education was the key to stop the oppression. Chinese American lineage was to their home where their families were so they naturally felt the need to change things back at home. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
The CSYP was a very effective source to bringing light to the atrocities that Chinese American faced and the changes that needed to take place. Chinese American women could speak out through these journals in order to reach out to others and make changes. As Judy Yung noted though a lot did not read these articles, the news spread. Women talk and share their thoughts with other woman evoking their spirit and that brings change for them. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
Interesting reading, yes--new information, not really, at least to me. Why is it ironic that China saw the way out of Western domination as its emulation? That mentality has been repeated throughout history, from the Egyptians adopting chariots to overthrow the Hyksos to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents being found with US manuals on unconventional warfare. Also, it would seem only natural that the suppression of entry into the political sphere of an immigrant population would foster the desire to interact with the mother country. An aside--my own use of that term, "mother country" fascinates me in that nations have almost always been characterized as feminine and wonder what that kind of gendered language indicates about the pervasiveness of such gendered dichotomies in everyday life. Other things I found "interesting"--the actions of politicians and probably most likely liberal-minded reformers from the Progressive Era directly contributed to the high rate of prostitution among Chinese women as they barred further immigration in California and other western states. Also found significant the direction that these women's reform actions were aimed at--the revitalization of China as a nation, rather than the individualistic aims of many female reformers in America--kind of reminiscent of the African American women from the previous reading and their focus on universal rights etc. than their white female counterparts. -schang<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==<br />
'''Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890'''<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That's not masculine, it's disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
At first reading this article I initially thought, “How did Nellie think that she could actually do this in 1890? Was it even possible then?” Thinking more into it I can see why. She wanted to do something ambitious, that would make for a great story, but also make for a great experience, so why shouldn’t she as a woman be able to travel the world? Like Sarah, I feel bad that Nellie had to travel in one outfit for three months, but as she describes she is able to fit a good amount of clothing into her one hand-satchel, “two traveling caps…a pair of slippers, a dressing gown, tennis blazer…several changes of underwear,” (pg. 7). I would hope that priority number one would be the underwear. At the end of the article, I found that Nellie seems to indicate that she may have some sort of “baggage” in her life and I may be reading too much into it, but the way she speaks of the “the responsibilities and worries I escaped by not having a lot of trunks and boxes to look after,(pg. 7), seems to be a hidden meaning to her own emotional baggage.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
Here is a woman ready to trek around the world, alone, with only the contents of a little bag. She has the gumption to convince her boss that she can make the trip, yet she still falls back on the idea that if she conducts herself 'properly' she will "always find men ready to protect" (pg. 7) her. I don't fault her for wanting this protection, travel always entails a certain degree of danger, but I do wonder at her assumptions as to what constitutes proper behavior. In making the trip, hasn't she already broken several social norms concerning appropriate womanly conduct? And did she believe that men the world over would hold the same ideas about women and their behavior? What of her safety if her conduct was deemed improper? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found this article really interesting because Nellie seems like a very independent and confident woman. That is why it was such a surprise to me that she quit journalism to marry a 72 year old man!! Perhaps she loved him, or maybe she thought that her job couldn't last forever and she needed someone to support her? It did also say that she shed a few years off her age to make herself seem more youthful. Maybe there was a common thought in society that once a woman got too old, she wasn't useful anymore. If that is true, then it must have been quite a strong societal expectation in order to get Nellie to stop what she loved doing. I think its also important to notice that Nellie had to stop her job when she got married. She obviously loved doing because she wanted to go back to it when her husband died, so there must have been some pressure on her to quit and spend her time being a wife. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I was also shocked at ther marriage to the rather old man, thats old today, so I'm sure back then that had to be quite an old guy. I feel that Nellie is a perfect example of this New Woman, out embracing the world without a care or fear in the world, ready to tackle any man's job. Good for her. - Christine L<br />
<br />
'''Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893'''<br />
<br />
I was actually surprised that Bertha Palmer used her speech at the World Fair to both honor women and criticise men's attitudes towards women. Women had been allowed a space at the Fair to display their own creativity, but it was within a well defined and controlled "sphere" designated by men. With Palmer's speech, we are getting to see a woman recognize the inequality of the separate spheres doctrine and publicly push for the inclusion of women in more than restrictive "spheres" constructed by men. After all, how can a woman truly be free when she is being oppressed by men in all that she does? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
'''Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892'''<br />
<br />
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ida B. Wells''' – <br />
<br />
'''Frances Willard'''–<br />
<br />
'''Anzia Yezierska''' – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World<br />
<br />
Immigrant women like Anzia and her fictional heroine Sara faced unique challenges at the turn of the century. They were caught between the growing American emphasis on education and more independence for women and their tradition bound fathers and husbands. Men like Sara's father in the reading probably saw their daughters' rebellious streaks as not only a threat to their patriarchal authority but also to the culture and customs they brought from their countries of origin. When immigrant daughters went to school or moved out on their own they joined an 'American' movement that their parents may not have understood or feared for its ability to remove their daughters from an acceptably ethnic upbringing. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
I strongly agree with Mary Ann, I think fathers especially immigrant fathers wanted the "American Dream" and felt that when they arrived it was hard to achieve so held onto the one stable condition they always knew as being heads of the household. Men, like Sara's father used a different tactic to establish authority through the use of religion,"It says in the Torah, only through a man has a woman an existence." (22) contradicting the idea in America where women were normally seen as morally superior. This made me wonder if the influence of new religions and cultures in America helped bring about the women's movement? Did statements such as the one Sara's father made cause women to rebel more and prove they did not need a man nor his religion to survive. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
'''Edith Eudora Ammons''' – A Woman Homesteader<br />
<br />
When I have pictured manifest destiny, I have hardly pictured Edith Ammons and her sister, two women, moving in to the West alone to build up new lives together. Of course, I would never think of the West in the 19th century as a place of freedom and new beginnings because I know how rough it was from studying history. Ammons herself admits, "This was not the West as I had dreamed it... It was a desolate, forgotten land, without vegetation save for the dry, crackling grass, without visible tokens of fertility" (p. 26). Yet, the sisters toughed it out, taking on hardship after hardship in exchange for their freedom to live where they wanted and do what they wanted. I think that with our comforts of today, it is often hard to imagine women putting themselves through such trials to achieve the freedom they desired. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==<br />
<br />
'''Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)'''<br />
<br />
One thing I really liked about this story was how Molly talked about how she struggled with her studies. I thought this was important because it shows that girls weren't just sent away to learn how to become good wives, but they were actually taught things. They actually had to learn science and practice experiments. Molly seems like a completely modern college girl in the way she complains about her classes! She also talks about her social life quite openly. Girls were willing to dress up like boys in order to go out and have fun. Its nice to see that all girls of that period weren't prim and proper like we are sometimes led to believe. -- Angie<br />
<br />
'''Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)'''<br />
<br />
In class we spoke some of this issue that the “New Woman” faced about what to do after leaving college. Here I found what Jane Addams and Ellen Starr do very admirable, such as creating the famous Hall House. In today’s world you don’t see many women, especially white, moving into “bad” parts of cities to truly help the people there. But these women I found fearless of being in Chicago such as the incident with them leaving the side door left open and “were much pleased in the morning to find that we possessed a fine illustration of the honesty and kindliness of our new neighbors,” (pg. 36). I would have been so upset that I had risked my home and self, just being in a new place for the first night is nerve-racking, but leaving a door open would make me even more paranoid. These women were actually asked to “wash the newborn babies, and to prepare the dead for burial, to nurse the sick, and to ‘mind the children’,” (pg. 36). Where there no others to do these tasks, such as a mortician, hospital, or baby-sitters? I know to remember that these people were of the poorest of the city, but these women were asked to prepare the dead, really? Ew.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)'''<br />
<br />
The first piece of this article I saw was that it parallels to the Jane Addams Article in that Alice Hamilton spent time at the Hull House. In her writing Alice actually mentions the Hull House, other than her biography at the beginning stating that she had spent time there and that she truly learned something from her time at the Hull House gives more evidence to the fact of Jane creating something great. “Life at Hull-House had accustomed me to going straight to the homes of people whom I wished to learn something and talking to them in their own surroundings, where they have courage to speak out what is in their minds,” (pg. 39). The Hull House taught Alice how to relate to people and I can see this consideration being very important, essential, to her profession of being a physician. In addition to her being a physician I think that a certain level of arrogance blossomed as well. Alice tends to look down on people at times, but at the same time being understanding; an example being her take on the reason for immigrants to take jobs to support their families after coming to American; “of course they took the first job they could find and if it proved to be one that weakened and crippled them---well, that was their bad luck!” (pg. 39). I found this a bit uncharacteristic of the women who spent time in the Hull House, but that is entirely my take. I’m sure being a women physician is something to be quite proud of, but to look down on immigrants who you are caring for because they are trying to make the best of the life they have been dealt, seems a bit harsh. ---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) '''<br />
<br />
'''Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)'''<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)'''<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Mother Jones. Her writing is very strong and passionate, and its hard not to have emotions dredged up while reading about this strike. I found it interesting that she went and stayed with the families working in the mine to witness first-hand the hardships they endure. The conditions seemed to be not too far off of what miners dealt with in more recent times which is saddening. - Christine L<br />
<br />
'''Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home'''<br />
<br />
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913'''<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman's husband's boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?<br />
-Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I found this article the most interesting out of all of them. Josephine Conger-Koneko takes a very hard line on the position that women should be paid for their housework. I also found it interesting how she equivocated a woman's life in the home doing housework for her husband as the life of a slave. She seems to be a bit radical in her discussion of women being paid for household duties. I also found it striking that Koneko argues that a husband should go to his employer and ask for wages for his wife at home doing the housework and how men getting married is actually benefical more for the employer because then he will have a continuing work force. Did women during this time believe they should be paid for work, and if after reading this, did woman's groups advocate paid labor for women working in the home? -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn't just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I thought the Sanger article was very interesting. I like how Sanger is able to use the story of Mrs. Sachs to show the rising need and importance for birth control. I think it presents birth control as more of a social issue, rather than just an issue of liberating woman's sexuality. She demonstrates that birth control is a necessity because of all the hurt, poverty and death that is occurring due to a lack of birth control. At this time, one had to have enough money for doctors who they could pay to tell them about birth control options/abortion due to the Comstock Laws, and I think this is important for why Sanger decides to advocate birth control, especially to the poorer classes. -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911'''</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-01-20T16:21:57Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments/questions comparing the articles ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on a paper I wrote on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, this was a very interesting essay to read. Fahs mentions that the war still follows the "masculanized culture" that was in place at the time and through my research I discovered the same things. Much of the standard literature was centered around the fighting and the man's roles on the battlefield, yet women's roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten. It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as "feminist" literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting how she discusses the different type of surrering that women endured. Men endured the horrors of war and their suffering was very physical and visual. Women, however, also suffered but they experienced strictly emotional suffering. They were cut deeply by these emotional wounds of not knowing weather their loved-ones were safe on the battlefield and some argued that these wounds cut deeper than those of men. Where men simply died on the battlefield, women had to endure the death of a loved one, while still remaining strong, and now being forced to provide for themselves. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Civil War literature shifted from a focus on the tribulations of northern women to those of southern women. And despite a strong emphasis on realistic literature, southern women and antebellum plantation life was highly romanticized. This probably came in part from a desire to both remember a time when the nation was united (which can also be seen in the popularity of stories centered around the Revolution)and to try to create a new identity centered around northern and southern reconciliation and "white" ideals. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I can't help but think about "Gone With the Wind" whenever they mentioned southern woman's literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)<br />
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman's role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today's non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think it is important to keep in mind that literature is largely written for an audience, and yet, this literature is what shapes the public memory of an event. The dominant forms of fiction at the outset of the war were women’s domestic novels. This impacts what type of literature was written during the war. It should come as no surprise that during the war, “the literary marketplace supported an outpouring of popular literature portraying women’s domestic participation in the war.” This domestic participation includes working, sacrifice, and loss, some even argue that the women sacrificed more than the men who were fighting. However, there was a shift in literature with the rise of Civil War veterans organizations. This led to a shift in who were the bearers of the war’s memory from women to veterans. It is amazing how the Civil War has become, “a white male conflict, rather than a cataclysmic event that rent and remade the fabric of life for all Americans.” – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Throughout the reading on the Feminized Civil War, I kept asking myself where the women had gone; it was as if their memory of the Civil War had disappeared entirely. I was pleased when I came across Mary Livermore who, in 1887, spoke out against where the literature about the civil war was going. She argued that the story of Northern women was missing. Then, in 1889 Edward Bellamy, stated that, “many pictures of battles have been painted, but no true one yet, for the pictures contain only men. The women are unaccountably left out.” Finally, there was Elizabeth Stuart Phelps who actually “undermined stereotypes of veterans” and “challenged the veteran dominated culture of remembrance itself.” I was just happy to see that women were not entirely forgotten in the decades following the Civil War. I am curious as to how the majority of women felt when their impacts on the war became largely overlooked, especially after all of the pain and loss that they had experienced. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
It seems as time moved on after the Civil War it increasingly became to be defined as a "Man's War", specifically a "White Man's War". All of the domestic issues women faced, such as caring for children, the home, and earning a living, faded with the passage of time. It appears that a romanticized portrait of the war was painted in which much of the heart-ache and problems women faced on an everyday basis were pushed to the wayside in favor of remembering the great battles and generals of the day. This is yet another example of how women were forgotten in the shadow of their men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna Holman's approach that the Civil War had largely (and unfortunately) came to be defined as a "Man's War." I also found it interesting that they begin to recognize the importance of the woman in everyday life, thought the focus was only on the mother initially. On page 133, Fahs points out that, "women especially mothers, personalized the nation, that they link the private and public realms." Not only does Fahs point out that women were in a sense the backbone of the nation, but they were also able to tie together the separate spheres. --MDvorak <br />
<br />
I also completely agree with Erin Sanderson's statement in which she discusses how after men returned from the war, the literature market increasingly became dominated by men's war stories. The interests of women were again pushed away for those of men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find out that the Civil War was so feminized during the war and directly following it. The war has definitely become masculine in the public memory, and it makes me want to take a look at how the public images of other wars have changed. Why was there a focus on the Northern women’s war in Civil War literature in the first place? Was it because they were the only ones around that had the opportunity to read it? Many Northern men would have been fighting, and in the South, both men and women would have had larger concerns than publishing and reading literature. How come when the war once again entered popular memory in the 1880s, it became focused on the masculine aspects of the war? The article mentions a shift away from Victorian feminine literature towards realist literature. Was there some sort of demographic change in readership? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It seems as though the media played a larger role during and after the civil war. From the material read, it seemed to have expressed sadness, pride, and Patriotism of people’s experiences of the War. Women's writing was more prominent because the men were away in war. But when the men came home their stories needed to be told. I think this symbolizes men returning to the public sphere. I think the type of stories told says something about men and women's roles. In these stories about women you see the emotional side and in men's stories they were more about glory and valor. The change from fiction to more non-fiction stories is interesting. Could this have been because people had just dealt with real emotions, those including pain and sorrow, were ready for something real? Was it something they could better relate to? --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I too was initially a little surprised to find that stories about women dominated much of the media at the time, but it really makes sense considering women were the ones remaining home and actually buying and reading the publications of the day. These women understandably wanted stories that they could relate to and that emphasized the importance of their own contributions to the war effort. It also may have been a not so subtle nudge on behalf of the powers-that-be to encourage women, for purely practical reasons, to continue to support the men at war. After all, soldiers who had the support of their families, even if the women believed in the war effort for romanticized reasons, were less likely to desert or to not enlist at all. After the war was over, the pressing need to maintain that support base fell off, and so did the feminized literature. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really liked the Tony Horwitz quote that Fahs included (and not just because he might be one of my favorite authors). She said that in the late nineteenth century Americans "reclaimed a past of their own creation." It's so important for us to remember that collective memory is constantly changing. Perceptions of the Civil War changed with the changing attitudes about war and women of the time. It makes some sense that, postwar, women's stories might be pushed to the side in favor of more masculine stories about the front. Returning veterans were a very visible part of post-war life; women's suffering, while obviously still with them, was no longer front and center. So, perceptions shifted, and they continued to change with the country, eventually colliding with the force-to-be-reckoned-with that was Gone with the Wind. I think it's safe to say that many Americans hold certain ideas about the Civil War based on that novel alone, as well as ideas from all of the other Civil War books and movies produced over the past few decades. Not all of these memories are accurate, maybe most are not, but they represent something very real to the society that holds them as well as an interesting challenge to historians fighting to keep a semblance of reality, as experienced by women and men, both Northern and Southern, in the conversation. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed finally reading something about how women's work and contributions were acknowledged and became part of a major event in US history. The essay said frequently that women's role in the war effort was vital and influential. The literature at the time included feminized literature that "involved a distinctive, sentimentalized patriotism." A good bit of the literature also centered on the woman's responsibility to "sacrifice their men for their country." The stories and articles seemed to focus on either persuading women to act patriotic to support their country or describe the emotions, struggles, and experiences of women or the "woman's war." It was sad to see that once the men came back from war the focus shifted more towards the masculinized war. Maybe it was to showcase the men for their bravery and patriotism for their country. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” ==<br />
<br />
I beleive this is the most important question asked in this essay: After the war, should the enfranchisement of black women, or of all women take place? This question is central to many of the political struggles in the late 19th century. Black women almost seperated themselves into a community to bond, which made overall suffrage more difficult.<br />
-Afrisk<br />
<br />
Going with the question of the enfranchisement of women... I really was encouraged by the fact that although the book explicitly states that Black men also felt that women were inferior to men in their social positions it was later stated that "serious discussion" regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman's suffrage movement. -SSellers<br />
<br />
I thought chapter 10 brought up a good question, which was how the transition from slavery to freedom was expected to function. If I remember correctly the majority of white Americans still viewed African Americans as inferior and it was mainly a small percentage of Northern Radicals that were trying to achieve equality for them in their meaning of freedom. As history shows it would still take a long time for freedom to mean anything for freed slaves. So my question is after the Civil War ended what kind of life could African Americans find without having any rights? ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
African American women saw the vote as a collective possession between men and women based on the belief within the African American community of collective responsibility. Republican black males supported this belief. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but the impression I got was that it wasn’t necessarily because they believed in any kind of “autonomy as one” thing but because the women could help keep black men from voting as Democrats, which helped keep the Republicans in power. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
-Taylor, would the men have voted Democratic if their wives hadn't insisted on Republican? I'm not sure, but I feel like many would have continued to vote Republican because of the party's strong ties to Lincoln. Perhaps the issue would have been whether they voted at all if their wives had not forced them to get to the polls. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The idea of collective responsibility is very interesting. That it takes a whole family sometimes including fictive kin to survive. The idea that when one makes a decision it effects the whole family especially including political decisions. Did the importance of community and family stem from the fact that they had been divided in slavery? --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it really striking that African American women worked so hard to ensure that the men in their lives voted, and voted Republican. And that it was a family vote, not a man's vote on behalf of his family says a lot about the system of community many seemed to operate under. In answer to Mhimes, I would say that yes, a lot of the importance of family probably stemmed from generations of families being torn apart. Now that these individuals could house their families under one roof a strong desire to do everything they could to protect that family meant weighing every decision, including of course the political ones, carefully. And slaves, out of necessity, had long built families out of unrelated community members so I imagine that the same sense of self-preservation felt for blood relatives carried over for the community as a whole. The women did not want to see hard won freedom taken away by a lack of awareness and participation. And, as the author points out, some of the women's involvement was even to ensure the physical safety of the voting men. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting when the essay talked about how even though black men had finally gained rights to vote they still were not completely supportive of women having the right to vote. Maybe it is a stupid assumption but I would think that since they knew how it felt to have less rights than others they would show more sympathy towards women. They didn't think it was as absurd as white men did but why wouldn't they fight for them harder, especially if that meant all African American people would finally have their rights and freedoms? Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The changing narratives following the war was not something that I was aware of. The literature during and just following the war focused a great deal on women's issues, yet changed in the 1880's and 1890's to a more masculinized story. I wonder why the Southern women's narrative has remained as the most compelling story of the Civil War to this day.-efritz<br />
<br />
The author posits that women's suffering was equal to or greater than that of men fighting in the war. Although women suffered great emotional trauma with the loss of their spouses or children, I don't think that you can compare this emotional suffering to what the men were exposed to in battle. They all suffered in their individual way, but the emotional and physical toll the men faced daily cannot be compared to that of women's suffering back home.-efritz</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-01-14T01:20:12Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>So apparently I'm the first to comment, yay. In "Defining "American Women's History" I really liked the concept on page 6 that "if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on." I found it interesting to think about Women's history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an "inferior" race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers<br />
<br />
Kind of going along with the first statement, it was interesting to see that some historians balk at including race, class, etc., in women's history because they seem to feel that it will ultimately remove the gender aspect from the discipline in favor of a focus on race or another variable. Yet if you're going to study women, don't you have to study real women's lives, as complex or as multifaceted as they may be? To claim that all women can be put into the same category risks losing the richness of understanding that comes with exploring the differences as well as the similarities among groups or individuals, as Leslie M. Alexander points out. And it would also turn many people away from studying the subject, just as women can feel excluded by traditional, male-focused history. -MMackey<br />
<br />
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women's history separate from "men's" history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women's history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men's history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers<br />
<br />
In response to SSellers, I think it is important to remember that up until recently, history has been dominated by men because men were the ones who were literate. Therefore, history came from the male's perspective. I am not sure if that makes women's history inferior, just harder because it takes deeper analysis to find where women fit into history and how they felt. I mean, men and women share the same history. Their roles within it, however, were different and it takes a women's studies course to discover where women fit into the world during any given time. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Also commenting on SSellers and in agreement with Erin, just because women's history is a somewhat new classification of history, doesn't mean its "inferior." 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's history, or any other classification of history (black, native american, chinese, etc.) isn't segregating any one group. You can'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't know if being in the first half of this class has made me biased, but there ya go!!) - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The debate between "equality" and "difference" in terms of women in Gisela Bock's article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey<br />
<br />
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, shows how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I found the changing dynamics of women's history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only "notable women" were written about. Even being characterized as a "notable woman" was defined by male terms in a male dominated society. However, there was a great shift in the study of women from these notable women to the everyday woman. Even so, this study of the everyday woman was still dominated by male terms, as Gisela Bock notes. All of women's activities were judged by the male standard, which was deemed valuable. The spheres that the study of women were divided into, suck as Public vs. Private, were still male dominated. It seems that males have dominated almost every aspect of women's history. Males are the standard upon which women are judged, they decide which women are important enough to be studied, and they define all spheres of the women's lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Anna Holman's comment above. It was fascinating to read about the evolution of women's history and made me wonder how it will continue to evolve in the future. Hopefully as we move forward, women's history will be able to be studied without male domination and we can define ourselves. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
Adding onto Erin Sanderson's statement, I found it interesting how Kate Haulman stated that gender was created and fluid. It is fascinating to understand how people identify with the term "woman", and how it intersects the other aspects of their identity, such as their unique race and ethnicity. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As I was reading, I was intrigued by Kate Haulman's statement about the definition of "American." It did seem like the term would be uncomplicated, simply refering to residents of the United States. The fact that "American" could refer (maybe, should refer) to anyone in the Americas was something I had never considered before. --Kokeefe<br />
<br />
In accumulating the readings, I found that they similarly shared underlying factors. Those factors being race and ethnicity, gender, class, and locality. What I thought was interesting was that even though race and gender do not change, but perspectives towards race and gender do change over time. Naturally writings reflect changes in one’s perspective. --MHimes <br />
<br />
I found the same similarities of race, class, culture, community, and sexual orientation throughout the reading. All these factors seem to be the cornerstone for uncovering women's history. I agree with MHimes that perspectives do change over time, as does history. After reading this first chapter I have realized that Women's History is a completely different field of study told differently than other history subjects, both because we now live in a age where women have equality, and that scholars are coming to understand the history of women. ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
In Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American History, under the “gender first” policy, Alexander makes an valid point. I thought it was interesting when she said that you cannot divorce Black Women from the community or you will not understand the Black Woman. Black women had to hurdle racial inequality before they could focus on their own empowerment as a woman. They did not have that same leisure as a white woman. At the same time, you can’t explain women’s history without including black women. Black women were an intricate part of white women’s lives as servants or field laborers. Black Woman slaves relieved a lot of White Women’s duties so they could focus on raising their children. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I was interested in the statements made about black women and their roles in Women'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<br />
<br />
I was particularly interested in Kate Haulman's idea that identifying factors such as gender and race are created and fluid rather than having a sort of naturally fixed meaning. This notion gives richer meaning to the larger social and cultural narrative of any nation or people. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
The two most interesting articles to me were Kate Haulman's article and Leslie Alexander's. I agree with Erin about Haulman's approach. I found Haulman's article reminiscent of an article written by George Kennan. The article written by Kennan describes the difficulty in describing history because there is no specific beginning or end. I thought that theme was pertinent throughout Haulman's reading. The last reading written by Alexander made some good arguments and had an interesting approach. At first I was surprised by her resistance to grouping both black and white women together as a "homogeneous womanhood," but after pondering for a few minutes it makes sense. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I think equality based on the sameness between men and women versus equality with a recognition of the differences between men and women is an interesting concept, one that was likely very important and dividing as women were defining their expectations of equality. We’ve come to expect that women be treated the same as men, but to what extend is appropriate? Under the equality of sameness sometimes women who are on maternity leave are listed as being on disabled leave. It’s a little insulting to infer that pregnancy is a disability (though I’m sure a few people would argue that it is). -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The focus on women's history as opposed to studying men and women in history combined is an important distinction. Gisela Bock's essay and dichotomies describe how distinct men really are from women. Men and women are different in many ways including "working" at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms "sex" and "gender" are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
All women aren’t united under the cause of women’s rights because they have had different experiences that have resulted from race, class, socio-economic status, and more, which according to Leslie Alexander also extends into the study and interpretation of women’s history by historians. She focuses on the particular issues of race and argues that the feminist movement is only useful as a lens for studying the experiences of white women, not the experiences of black women. While her view certainly has merit, by dismissing feminism’s use to black women in the manner she does it almost seems like she’s suggesting that the feminist movement is useful for considering all white women in general, while I would argue that it is most useful in regards to only a certain group of white women, particularly of the middle-class. Similarly, there is no simple lens to study the experiences of black women, as they are also influenced by a variety of factors beyond that of race alone. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Taylor's above comments. It is easy to see where Alexander comes from in contrasting Black women's history against those of what is generally thought of as Women's history. However, black women do fall under the umbrella of women'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'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'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'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<br />
<br />
<br />
I found Gisela Bock's essay on dichotomies the most intriguing of all. By using these comparisons, I found that she fantastically described many of the social and political struggles that women face while describing different categories that scholars study women under. My favorite was the dichotomy of Integration vs. Autonomy because I had no idea that there was such argument going on about where Women's History should be included in a course of study as well as what it should include in itself. This argument of whether Women's History should be autonomous or integrated with such things as Gender History seemed like a parallel to feminist controversies in modern day social and work settings. I have often heard the argument that if women want to be integrated with men, then they should be treated the same, no special exceptions. But, if they want to keep things like maternity leave and not getting drafted, then they should remain autonomous with perhaps less benefits than men receive. I think that Bock definitely provided some interesting parallels between womens history controversies and modern social controversies. -- Angie W.<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander puts forth an interesting idea when she says that "the recognition that Black and White women are culturally different opens a Pandora's box..." (p. 20) because it is something that many young feminists never consider, but when they do, they realize that is so very true. If historians and feminists were to recognize this, then their theory of one, strong womanhood would be attacked. Like Alexander said, Black women often name their race as their main identifying factor while most white women, especially feminists, put woman. If women's history scholars were to recognize this, then they would have to take another look at women's history and perhaps separate not just separate women from men, but also from each other based on their class, race, and even sexual orientation. This would put a whole new spin on feminism and women's studies. -- Angie W.<br />
<br />
One of the key components in the study of women'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<br />
<br />
I agree with Taylors interpretation of equality between the sexes. The women's movement of the 1970'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</div>Efritzhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-01-14T01:01:09Z<p>Efritz: </p>
<hr />
<div>So apparently I'm the first to comment, yay. In "Defining "American Women's History" I really liked the concept on page 6 that "if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on." I found it interesting to think about Women's history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an "inferior" race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers<br />
<br />
Kind of going along with the first statement, it was interesting to see that some historians balk at including race, class, etc., in women's history because they seem to feel that it will ultimately remove the gender aspect from the discipline in favor of a focus on race or another variable. Yet if you're going to study women, don't you have to study real women's lives, as complex or as multifaceted as they may be? To claim that all women can be put into the same category risks losing the richness of understanding that comes with exploring the differences as well as the similarities among groups or individuals, as Leslie M. Alexander points out. And it would also turn many people away from studying the subject, just as women can feel excluded by traditional, male-focused history. -MMackey<br />
<br />
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women's history separate from "men's" history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women's history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men's history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers<br />
<br />
In response to SSellers, I think it is important to remember that up until recently, history has been dominated by men because men were the ones who were literate. Therefore, history came from the male's perspective. I am not sure if that makes women's history inferior, just harder because it takes deeper analysis to find where women fit into history and how they felt. I mean, men and women share the same history. Their roles within it, however, were different and it takes a women's studies course to discover where women fit into the world during any given time. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Also commenting on SSellers and in agreement with Erin, just because women's history is a somewhat new classification of history, doesn't mean its "inferior." 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's history, or any other classification of history (black, native american, chinese, etc.) isn't segregating any one group. You can'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't know if being in the first half of this class has made me biased, but there ya go!!) - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The debate between "equality" and "difference" in terms of women in Gisela Bock's article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey<br />
<br />
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, shows how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I found the changing dynamics of women's history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only "notable women" were written about. Even being characterized as a "notable woman" was defined by male terms in a male dominated society. However, there was a great shift in the study of women from these notable women to the everyday woman. Even so, this study of the everyday woman was still dominated by male terms, as Gisela Bock notes. All of women's activities were judged by the male standard, which was deemed valuable. The spheres that the study of women were divided into, suck as Public vs. Private, were still male dominated. It seems that males have dominated almost every aspect of women's history. Males are the standard upon which women are judged, they decide which women are important enough to be studied, and they define all spheres of the women's lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Anna Holman's comment above. It was fascinating to read about the evolution of women's history and made me wonder how it will continue to evolve in the future. Hopefully as we move forward, women's history will be able to be studied without male domination and we can define ourselves. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
Adding onto Erin Sanderson's statement, I found it interesting how Kate Haulman stated that gender was created and fluid. It is fascinating to understand how people identify with the term "woman", and how it intersects the other aspects of their identity, such as their unique race and ethnicity. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As I was reading, I was intrigued by Kate Haulman's statement about the definition of "American." It did seem like the term would be uncomplicated, simply refering to residents of the United States. The fact that "American" could refer (maybe, should refer) to anyone in the Americas was something I had never considered before. --Kokeefe<br />
<br />
In accumulating the readings, I found that they similarly shared underlying factors. Those factors being race and ethnicity, gender, class, and locality. What I thought was interesting was that even though race and gender do not change, but perspectives towards race and gender do change over time. Naturally writings reflect changes in one’s perspective. --MHimes <br />
<br />
I found the same similarities of race, class, culture, community, and sexual orientation throughout the reading. All these factors seem to be the cornerstone for uncovering women's history. I agree with MHimes that perspectives do change over time, as does history. After reading this first chapter I have realized that Women's History is a completely different field of study told differently than other history subjects, both because we now live in a age where women have equality, and that scholars are coming to understand the history of women. ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
In Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American History, under the “gender first” policy, Alexander makes an valid point. I thought it was interesting when she said that you cannot divorce Black Women from the community or you will not understand the Black Woman. Black women had to hurdle racial inequality before they could focus on their own empowerment as a woman. They did not have that same leisure as a white woman. At the same time, you can’t explain women’s history without including black women. Black women were an intricate part of white women’s lives as servants or field laborers. Black Woman slaves relieved a lot of White Women’s duties so they could focus on raising their children. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I was interested in the statements made about black women and their roles in Women'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<br />
<br />
I was particularly interested in Kate Haulman's idea that identifying factors such as gender and race are created and fluid rather than having a sort of naturally fixed meaning. This notion gives richer meaning to the larger social and cultural narrative of any nation or people. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
The two most interesting articles to me were Kate Haulman's article and Leslie Alexander's. I agree with Erin about Haulman's approach. I found Haulman's article reminiscent of an article written by George Kennan. The article written by Kennan describes the difficulty in describing history because there is no specific beginning or end. I thought that theme was pertinent throughout Haulman's reading. The last reading written by Alexander made some good arguments and had an interesting approach. At first I was surprised by her resistance to grouping both black and white women together as a "homogeneous womanhood," but after pondering for a few minutes it makes sense. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I think equality based on the sameness between men and women versus equality with a recognition of the differences between men and women is an interesting concept, one that was likely very important and dividing as women were defining their expectations of equality. We’ve come to expect that women be treated the same as men, but to what extend is appropriate? Under the equality of sameness sometimes women who are on maternity leave are listed as being on disabled leave. It’s a little insulting to infer that pregnancy is a disability (though I’m sure a few people would argue that it is). -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The focus on women's history as opposed to studying men and women in history combined is an important distinction. Gisela Bock's essay and dichotomies describe how distinct men really are from women. Men and women are different in many ways including "working" at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms "sex" and "gender" are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
All women aren’t united under the cause of women’s rights because they have had different experiences that have resulted from race, class, socio-economic status, and more, which according to Leslie Alexander also extends into the study and interpretation of women’s history by historians. She focuses on the particular issues of race and argues that the feminist movement is only useful as a lens for studying the experiences of white women, not the experiences of black women. While her view certainly has merit, by dismissing feminism’s use to black women in the manner she does it almost seems like she’s suggesting that the feminist movement is useful for considering all white women in general, while I would argue that it is most useful in regards to only a certain group of white women, particularly of the middle-class. Similarly, there is no simple lens to study the experiences of black women, as they are also influenced by a variety of factors beyond that of race alone. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Taylor's above comments. It is easy to see where Alexander comes from in contrasting Black women's history against those of what is generally thought of as Women's history. However, black women do fall under the umbrella of women'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'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'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'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<br />
<br />
<br />
I found Gisela Bock's essay on dichotomies the most intriguing of all. By using these comparisons, I found that she fantastically described many of the social and political struggles that women face while describing different categories that scholars study women under. My favorite was the dichotomy of Integration vs. Autonomy because I had no idea that there was such argument going on about where Women's History should be included in a course of study as well as what it should include in itself. This argument of whether Women's History should be autonomous or integrated with such things as Gender History seemed like a parallel to feminist controversies in modern day social and work settings. I have often heard the argument that if women want to be integrated with men, then they should be treated the same, no special exceptions. But, if they want to keep things like maternity leave and not getting drafted, then they should remain autonomous with perhaps less benefits than men receive. I think that Bock definitely provided some interesting parallels between womens history controversies and modern social controversies. -- Angie W.<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander puts forth an interesting idea when she says that "the recognition that Black and White women are culturally different opens a Pandora's box..." (p. 20) because it is something that many young feminists never consider, but when they do, they realize that is so very true. If historians and feminists were to recognize this, then their theory of one, strong womanhood would be attacked. Like Alexander said, Black women often name their race as their main identifying factor while most white women, especially feminists, put woman. If women's history scholars were to recognize this, then they would have to take another look at women's history and perhaps separate not just separate women from men, but also from each other based on their class, race, and even sexual orientation. This would put a whole new spin on feminism and women's studies. -- Angie W.<br />
<br />
One of the key components in the study of women'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</div>Efritz Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38