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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=EglennonMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:12:41ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 092009-08-27T03:21:45Z<p>Eglennon: /* Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" */</p>
<hr />
<div>Enter your questions & comments on the readings below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments that compare or contrast readings ==<br />
<br />
I agree with Leslie Alexander that black women can have a place in Women’s History. It will require a lot of necessary changes but it seems that the right steps are begin taken in order for them to have a place in Women’s history. Steps have been taken such as considering wow race shapes gender instead of gender shaping race. Only time can tell to see if those steps will work in the future. <br />
<br />
When reading “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, I was fascinated by 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 />
<br />
I found it interesting that all the essays agree that American Women's History needs some changing. Whether it be the definition of the field, the ideas, the various aspects (sex, gender, race, political), they all agree it needs some reconstruction. Also, when they touched on the idea that not all women are in this "sisterhood," it brought a very good point. Many people lump in all women (regardless of race, class, country of origin) together in the same category, but you don't see that in other historical subjects. When Bock says "For too long, women have baked the cake and taken only the smallest to eat for themselves," to me it exemplifies the ever-lasting struggles women have in the "equality versus difference" arena. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
<br />
In both Bock(p.8) and Haulman's(p.4) piece they discuss how the history of women is not just about the oppression of women but the how the confinement to a certain sphere knitted them together and created a unique community. They were not just victims but actively shaped their own lives. What does this mean for studying women's history? How does seeing women as active in the midst of oppression and not necessarily victims change our view of them? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:14, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I believe that two major themes rang throughout all four essays: women's history thought in male terms and cultural differences affecting the gender experience. The examination of Women's Studies prior to the 1970's was thought of in male equivalent terms. An example that Kate Haulman uses in her essay Defining ''"American Women's History"'' is that "worthy" women's history was that of "exceptional" women such as Eleanor Roosevelt or Marie Curie, and that "ordinary" women did not have any historical value. This opinion is further expressed in ''Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History'' "Historical scholarship was far from 'objective' or 'universal'" Gisela Bock argued, "because it was based on the male experience." It is refreshing to know that present day studies in Women's history are based in egalitarian terms between the genders (for the most part at least). The second theme that I found throughout the essays was the attention to the gender experience. Haulman, Castaneda and Alexander agreed that women are not just inherently female; their gender does not wholly define them. Their gender experience is directly influenced by their personal culture and their ethnicity. I agree with this theme because cultural gender interactions are not cookie cutter examples. A woman, or any person for that matter, can not be solely defined by their biological or social gender, we are a collection of personal experience, growth, and culture. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman, Defining "American Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
I found Kate Haulman's essay Defining "American Women's History" to be interesting because it is a history of how historians thought about women in history. I never thought about the connotations of this phrase until she pointed it out. Being "American" is an identity that people have. She uses examples such as a textile worker, a Cherokee woman and an African American all of who defined being American differently. The word "women" brings up gender issues. She asks, " What are the consequences of identifying, or being positioned as a woman..." History in this phrase is a study of the past. Haulman thinks that studying woman's history can frame current debates about justice and human rights and I completely agree with that statement. The more we study women and their issues the more information we will have to help make an informed decision about issues that affect us today. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
As LeAnn and Erin noted, it is interesting how Haulman breaks down "American Women's History" into three separate ideas. Each person has a different connotation about each and when you place all three together, different people can assume different ideas about the subject. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The historiography by Haulman gives a nice overview of the field of American women’s history studies. It’s somewhat incredible, though not necessarily shocking, that studying women’s history is a rather recent development. Historians have been recounting history for thousands of years, but women’s contributions have been nothing more than a footnote, if even that, for most of that time. Particularly interesting to me was one of the dichotomies the Bock essay mentioned regarding nature vs culture. Women being perceived as “natural” and unchanging labeled them as uninteresting, which vindicated the lack of studying women, while men being perceived as products of culture apparently made them great subjects for study. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I liked in Haulman's essay on page 5 how she asks the question, "If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still a 'woman's' work?" The first thing I thought about when I read that was the modern stay-at-home dads who watch the kids while the woman is the bread winner of the family. Just because the man is the one doing the domestic chores, does that mean he is no longer a man? Perhaps, in societies eyes. Maybe not as much today, but likely in the earlier 20th century. I found it especially interesting that Bock mentions the fatherhood issue breifly in her essay, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History." She writes, on page 9, that "Fatherhood, however, was usally seen not as natural but as 'social.'" Does this mean that fatherhood was optional? This seems to say that women HAD to be mothers, and men could do whatever they wanted. I find it interesting that the distinctions seem to be broader and that in the world today, it is not uncommon for a woman to be seen doing something that only a 'man' would only be allowed to do (and vice-versa) a hundred( and less) years ago. -Kristina <br />
<br />
<br />
== Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander’s essay “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” does a great job explaining where Black women fit into Women’s Studies and feminism as a whole. What I found out was that Black women don’t fit in at all. When I think of the feminist movement I think of white, upper middle class women. And after reading Alexander’s essay, this is not surprising. Women’s studies have historically been modeled based on white women and have largely left out other categories such as race and class. This model does not work for Black women. Alexander argues that it is impossible to analyze Black women based solely on their gender, and any model that tries to do so will fail. This is because Black women have a culture in which they identify themselves with their community. Alexander goes on to argue the importance of grappling with issues such as race, culture, community, and class to further understand the lives of women. While discussing this flaw in Women's Studies, Alexander pushes for scholars to analyze Black women “through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and oppression." –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree that Black women do not fit into Women's Studies. When I think of the feminist movement or even of the idea of women's history, I also picture white upper middle class women. I always remember learning about women's history, and then learning about African-American history, but the two never seemed to cross paths in lessons. I liked what Kate Haulman said in her essay, "A woman who self-identified as Chinese American...was not Chinese American four days out of the week and a woman the other three- she was always both." I think that idea could be used in the case of Black women, and for women of all other races. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
If the reading is on a women in American History then I think it does fit in this article. Black women are a part of American history no matter through a white person's point of of view or what class status they had. I do agree that the feminist movement would have mostly been white upper middle class but I also think that black women and white women each had their own social classes. I agree with Alexander that we should have scholars analyze the history of a black woman through their own eyes even though we know in the past that was not so easy. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In Leslie Alexander's essay, I was interested in the comments made about black women and their role in women's history. I had never really given much thought to the idea, but realized after reading that they do not appear to be a huge part in women's history; historians and people interested in history may just assume that this group of women are included butit may be important to have a bit more focus. Historians may want to homogenize them but in reality they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Traditionally, the women’s rights movement discriminated against women of different races and classes. While I think Alexander makes a very important point that feminism has excluded many people, I wonder if she has overexaggerated or simplified African American women’s ambivalence towards the women’s rights movement. Alexander stated that feminism has had a “gender first” requirement. I personally know more about earlier feminism, such as the fight for suffrage, rather than later feminism, but I think one can make an argument that much of at least earlier feminism was “class first” rather than “gender first.” -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
In agreement, I do say that traditionally I think most people think of American Women's History as an upper (maybe at time middle) class white subject. However, the problem lies in the fact that while there may be documentation (primary sources) on these white women due to their education and status levels, one might be hard-pressed to find the much lacking resources on Black women in history. For example, you may find plenty of information into the lives of a wealthy white woman plantation owner's wife, but you are not going to have the same time looking up her main house slave. I do believe the work should be done on elaborating American Women's History, it just seems that it would be a difficult task to take on. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The Castañeda and Alexander readings examine contributions women of different ethnic/racial backgrounds have made to the women’s studies field outside of the traditional and dominate women’s liberation, white middle-class approach taken by most scholars. These historians have challenged overlooking race and class as an influence on women, as well as the idea of looking at women of color as little more than doubly oppressed victims. However, I feel that Leslie Alexander does a little of what she accuses other scholars of women’s history of doing: generalizing women’s experiences. She argues that “although feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model in not applicable, and has prevented full understanding of Black women’s lives [19].” The feminism she seems to be describing is very much based in white middle-class ideology, so it’s just as inaccurate to try to fit ''all'' White women into this paradigm as it is to try to fit Black women into it. I would’ve liked to have seen a ''small'' acknowledgment of the complexities and cultural differences that exist not just between women of different races, but also between women of the same race, both Black and White. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I agree with many of the other students that in the past when I have studied women’s history or the Women’s Rights Movement I think about White middle class women. I feel that Leslie Alexander does a good job at identifying many of the reasons behind why Black women have a hard time connecting with the “womanhood/ sisterhood” that is popular in Women’s history studied by White female scholars.-- Erin Glennon<br />
<br />
== Antonia Castañeda’s“Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” ==<br />
<br />
The last sentence of this essay sums up her argument well. "The study of women of color requires us to reexamine, challenge, and change those structures. Only then will we decolonize western history." Castañeda points out how women's history can easily fall into the same error as "traditional" history does by focusing on one specific sub-group within women's history, in this case middle-class white women. Studying women of color places the historian at intersect that challenges both gender and racial studies.<br />
I also wonder how many presumptions we make about western history because of white European influence. I love this notion of "decolonizing" western history and Castañeda only can begin to touch on some of the issues. How entrenched is our history in this "colonized" thinking?<br />
--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:48, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I believe that Castañeda brings out some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas in her essay about the struggle against both gender and race discrimination in history. However, I would have liked her to be more clear about who she includes and does not include when she says "women of color." Additionally, I would have liked her to also clarify who she means when she says "white." There are many European countries from which women in America have ancestry. I found it a bit hypocritical that a person writing about the need for history to include the lives of "women of color" more fairly, would continuously clump all "women of non-color" into one generlized category of "white." --[[User:Mturner|Mturner]] 20:02, 26 August 2009 (MDT)-Mary Turner<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I found many interesting ideas in Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History". When she discussed the work versus family dichotomy, she mentioned that women have always worked. For many women, their family was their work. However, since they were not employed outside the home, or even compensated for their hard work, these women were not considered to be "workers". I like the term "paid versus unpaid work" better. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think the part in this essay that really struck me was when Bock discusses "Work versus family." Personally, I don't understand the significance of re-labeling the roles that women, or men for that matter play at home. Family life is seperate from career work, and in my opinion should not constitute being called "work." Bock also mentions that the opposition to the "work versus family" issue is linked to low-paying jobs for women. Maybe I am misunderstanding her point, but is she suggesting that women should be compensated for housework, or perhaps that because women typically take on housework--they have handicapped themselves in the workplace, even in jobs that aren't related to domestic work? Also, I think that the term "working mother" is reserved for women working outside the home because there is a stigma on women who demand that their responsibilities as a mother be considered "work." It makes it seem as though they think their children and home are equivalent to a job and workplace, which is not usually an accepted concept in American society.---[[User:Mturner|Mturner]] 20:02, 26 August 2009 (MDT)Mary Turner<br />
<br />
The piece on "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found most interesting. There are obvious gender difference such as women can have babies and men cannot. But it is interesting because the roles of women and men have changed. I think that each individual is different and their expectations change for themselves and how they are viewed by those around them like family and society as a whole. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Block writes about nature verses culture. I found it interesting that the activities of men were considered cultural and activities of women were natural. "Nature" in the context it was used undervalues the work women did. It just shows how far women have come since the 1970's. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
:I too found this point on nature vs culture fascinating. It makes me wonder what else in history we view through a distorted lens because we see certain things as nature and others as culture? Or if we take a look at the other dichotomies that Bock uses how could they be applied to other areas of study? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:08, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's essay made me realize how intricate the study of women's history really is. 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. I thought the dichotomies and the essay were interesting. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
The sex versus gender and the equality verses difference brought up some good and points about how women are looked at historically. I do see the difficulties of seperating biological and cultural difference and I think it is best not to seperate them too much since tey both influence one another. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the essay about Women of Color and the rewriting of Western History very interesting for a couple of reasons. I thought that women of all races collaborated with one another during the Women’s movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s. As Castandeda states there were two different movements one being the women’s liberation movement and the second one being the third-world liberation movements. Women of color had a more difficult time obtaining equal rights than white middle class women because not only did they have to deal with the question of gender but also with race. -Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's essay, ''Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History'' was fascinating for a few reasons. First of all, she begins her thesis by reminding us that the reason that Women's History is rendered visible is fundamentally due to subjection. This was a thought provoking statement because all American minority history begins with exploitation or subjection so I was quite intrigued. Bock's essay differed from Kate Haulman's in its use of definitions and the words that she chose to focus on. Mainly, her attention to Gender VS. Sex or biology. I found it interesting that her Equality Vs. Difference section tied directly into further examination of Sex vs Gender. It seemed ironic that in the battle for gender equality, in the public, private, and scholarly arena, Women's Studies runs the risk of becoming invisible yet again by "mainstreaming" because it has been turned into an amalgamation of Gender Studies. This in turn could characterize the word Woman as biological leaving it historically irrelevant. One would hope that Women's Studies does indeed receive the autonomy and examination that it truly deserves while exploring and remembering that both genders live and work reflexively with each other and thus influence each other immensely. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I found the dichotomies presented in Gisela Bock’s essay, “ Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History,” to be very interesting. One of the dichotomies that I found to be interesting in the essay was nature vs. culture, I thought it was fascinating how the role of motherhood and fatherhood are labeled two different ways, with the role that women take in the bearing and raising of children being “natural” and the role of men being labeled as “social”. -- Erin Glennon</div>Eglennonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 092009-08-27T03:20:22Z<p>Eglennon: /* Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” */</p>
<hr />
<div>Enter your questions & comments on the readings below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments that compare or contrast readings ==<br />
<br />
I agree with Leslie Alexander that black women can have a place in Women’s History. It will require a lot of necessary changes but it seems that the right steps are begin taken in order for them to have a place in Women’s history. Steps have been taken such as considering wow race shapes gender instead of gender shaping race. Only time can tell to see if those steps will work in the future. <br />
<br />
When reading “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, I was fascinated by 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 />
<br />
I found it interesting that all the essays agree that American Women's History needs some changing. Whether it be the definition of the field, the ideas, the various aspects (sex, gender, race, political), they all agree it needs some reconstruction. Also, when they touched on the idea that not all women are in this "sisterhood," it brought a very good point. Many people lump in all women (regardless of race, class, country of origin) together in the same category, but you don't see that in other historical subjects. When Bock says "For too long, women have baked the cake and taken only the smallest to eat for themselves," to me it exemplifies the ever-lasting struggles women have in the "equality versus difference" arena. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
<br />
In both Bock(p.8) and Haulman's(p.4) piece they discuss how the history of women is not just about the oppression of women but the how the confinement to a certain sphere knitted them together and created a unique community. They were not just victims but actively shaped their own lives. What does this mean for studying women's history? How does seeing women as active in the midst of oppression and not necessarily victims change our view of them? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:14, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I believe that two major themes rang throughout all four essays: women's history thought in male terms and cultural differences affecting the gender experience. The examination of Women's Studies prior to the 1970's was thought of in male equivalent terms. An example that Kate Haulman uses in her essay Defining ''"American Women's History"'' is that "worthy" women's history was that of "exceptional" women such as Eleanor Roosevelt or Marie Curie, and that "ordinary" women did not have any historical value. This opinion is further expressed in ''Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History'' "Historical scholarship was far from 'objective' or 'universal'" Gisela Bock argued, "because it was based on the male experience." It is refreshing to know that present day studies in Women's history are based in egalitarian terms between the genders (for the most part at least). The second theme that I found throughout the essays was the attention to the gender experience. Haulman, Castaneda and Alexander agreed that women are not just inherently female; their gender does not wholly define them. Their gender experience is directly influenced by their personal culture and their ethnicity. I agree with this theme because cultural gender interactions are not cookie cutter examples. A woman, or any person for that matter, can not be solely defined by their biological or social gender, we are a collection of personal experience, growth, and culture. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman, Defining "American Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
I found Kate Haulman's essay Defining "American Women's History" to be interesting because it is a history of how historians thought about women in history. I never thought about the connotations of this phrase until she pointed it out. Being "American" is an identity that people have. She uses examples such as a textile worker, a Cherokee woman and an African American all of who defined being American differently. The word "women" brings up gender issues. She asks, " What are the consequences of identifying, or being positioned as a woman..." History in this phrase is a study of the past. Haulman thinks that studying woman's history can frame current debates about justice and human rights and I completely agree with that statement. The more we study women and their issues the more information we will have to help make an informed decision about issues that affect us today. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
As LeAnn and Erin noted, it is interesting how Haulman breaks down "American Women's History" into three separate ideas. Each person has a different connotation about each and when you place all three together, different people can assume different ideas about the subject. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The historiography by Haulman gives a nice overview of the field of American women’s history studies. It’s somewhat incredible, though not necessarily shocking, that studying women’s history is a rather recent development. Historians have been recounting history for thousands of years, but women’s contributions have been nothing more than a footnote, if even that, for most of that time. Particularly interesting to me was one of the dichotomies the Bock essay mentioned regarding nature vs culture. Women being perceived as “natural” and unchanging labeled them as uninteresting, which vindicated the lack of studying women, while men being perceived as products of culture apparently made them great subjects for study. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I liked in Haulman's essay on page 5 how she asks the question, "If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still a 'woman's' work?" The first thing I thought about when I read that was the modern stay-at-home dads who watch the kids while the woman is the bread winner of the family. Just because the man is the one doing the domestic chores, does that mean he is no longer a man? Perhaps, in societies eyes. Maybe not as much today, but likely in the earlier 20th century. I found it especially interesting that Bock mentions the fatherhood issue breifly in her essay, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History." She writes, on page 9, that "Fatherhood, however, was usally seen not as natural but as 'social.'" Does this mean that fatherhood was optional? This seems to say that women HAD to be mothers, and men could do whatever they wanted. I find it interesting that the distinctions seem to be broader and that in the world today, it is not uncommon for a woman to be seen doing something that only a 'man' would only be allowed to do (and vice-versa) a hundred( and less) years ago. -Kristina <br />
<br />
<br />
== Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander’s essay “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” does a great job explaining where Black women fit into Women’s Studies and feminism as a whole. What I found out was that Black women don’t fit in at all. When I think of the feminist movement I think of white, upper middle class women. And after reading Alexander’s essay, this is not surprising. Women’s studies have historically been modeled based on white women and have largely left out other categories such as race and class. This model does not work for Black women. Alexander argues that it is impossible to analyze Black women based solely on their gender, and any model that tries to do so will fail. This is because Black women have a culture in which they identify themselves with their community. Alexander goes on to argue the importance of grappling with issues such as race, culture, community, and class to further understand the lives of women. While discussing this flaw in Women's Studies, Alexander pushes for scholars to analyze Black women “through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and oppression." –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree that Black women do not fit into Women's Studies. When I think of the feminist movement or even of the idea of women's history, I also picture white upper middle class women. I always remember learning about women's history, and then learning about African-American history, but the two never seemed to cross paths in lessons. I liked what Kate Haulman said in her essay, "A woman who self-identified as Chinese American...was not Chinese American four days out of the week and a woman the other three- she was always both." I think that idea could be used in the case of Black women, and for women of all other races. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
If the reading is on a women in American History then I think it does fit in this article. Black women are a part of American history no matter through a white person's point of of view or what class status they had. I do agree that the feminist movement would have mostly been white upper middle class but I also think that black women and white women each had their own social classes. I agree with Alexander that we should have scholars analyze the history of a black woman through their own eyes even though we know in the past that was not so easy. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In Leslie Alexander's essay, I was interested in the comments made about black women and their role in women's history. I had never really given much thought to the idea, but realized after reading that they do not appear to be a huge part in women's history; historians and people interested in history may just assume that this group of women are included butit may be important to have a bit more focus. Historians may want to homogenize them but in reality they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Traditionally, the women’s rights movement discriminated against women of different races and classes. While I think Alexander makes a very important point that feminism has excluded many people, I wonder if she has overexaggerated or simplified African American women’s ambivalence towards the women’s rights movement. Alexander stated that feminism has had a “gender first” requirement. I personally know more about earlier feminism, such as the fight for suffrage, rather than later feminism, but I think one can make an argument that much of at least earlier feminism was “class first” rather than “gender first.” -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
In agreement, I do say that traditionally I think most people think of American Women's History as an upper (maybe at time middle) class white subject. However, the problem lies in the fact that while there may be documentation (primary sources) on these white women due to their education and status levels, one might be hard-pressed to find the much lacking resources on Black women in history. For example, you may find plenty of information into the lives of a wealthy white woman plantation owner's wife, but you are not going to have the same time looking up her main house slave. I do believe the work should be done on elaborating American Women's History, it just seems that it would be a difficult task to take on. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The Castañeda and Alexander readings examine contributions women of different ethnic/racial backgrounds have made to the women’s studies field outside of the traditional and dominate women’s liberation, white middle-class approach taken by most scholars. These historians have challenged overlooking race and class as an influence on women, as well as the idea of looking at women of color as little more than doubly oppressed victims. However, I feel that Leslie Alexander does a little of what she accuses other scholars of women’s history of doing: generalizing women’s experiences. She argues that “although feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model in not applicable, and has prevented full understanding of Black women’s lives [19].” The feminism she seems to be describing is very much based in white middle-class ideology, so it’s just as inaccurate to try to fit ''all'' White women into this paradigm as it is to try to fit Black women into it. I would’ve liked to have seen a ''small'' acknowledgment of the complexities and cultural differences that exist not just between women of different races, but also between women of the same race, both Black and White. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I agree with many of the other students that in the past when I have studied women’s history or the Women’s Rights Movement I think about White middle class women. I feel that Leslie Alexander does a good job at identifying many of the reasons behind why Black women have a hard time connecting with the “womanhood/ sisterhood” that is popular in Women’s history studied by White female scholars.-- Erin Glennon<br />
<br />
== Antonia Castañeda’s“Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” ==<br />
<br />
The last sentence of this essay sums up her argument well. "The study of women of color requires us to reexamine, challenge, and change those structures. Only then will we decolonize western history." Castañeda points out how women's history can easily fall into the same error as "traditional" history does by focusing on one specific sub-group within women's history, in this case middle-class white women. Studying women of color places the historian at intersect that challenges both gender and racial studies.<br />
I also wonder how many presumptions we make about western history because of white European influence. I love this notion of "decolonizing" western history and Castañeda only can begin to touch on some of the issues. How entrenched is our history in this "colonized" thinking?<br />
--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:48, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I believe that Castañeda brings out some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas in her essay about the struggle against both gender and race discrimination in history. However, I would have liked her to be more clear about who she includes and does not include when she says "women of color." Additionally, I would have liked her to also clarify who she means when she says "white." There are many European countries from which women in America have ancestry. I found it a bit hypocritical that a person writing about the need for history to include the lives of "women of color" more fairly, would continuously clump all "women of non-color" into one generlized category of "white." --[[User:Mturner|Mturner]] 20:02, 26 August 2009 (MDT)-Mary Turner<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I found many interesting ideas in Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History". When she discussed the work versus family dichotomy, she mentioned that women have always worked. For many women, their family was their work. However, since they were not employed outside the home, or even compensated for their hard work, these women were not considered to be "workers". I like the term "paid versus unpaid work" better. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think the part in this essay that really struck me was when Bock discusses "Work versus family." Personally, I don't understand the significance of re-labeling the roles that women, or men for that matter play at home. Family life is seperate from career work, and in my opinion should not constitute being called "work." Bock also mentions that the opposition to the "work versus family" issue is linked to low-paying jobs for women. Maybe I am misunderstanding her point, but is she suggesting that women should be compensated for housework, or perhaps that because women typically take on housework--they have handicapped themselves in the workplace, even in jobs that aren't related to domestic work? Also, I think that the term "working mother" is reserved for women working outside the home because there is a stigma on women who demand that their responsibilities as a mother be considered "work." It makes it seem as though they think their children and home are equivalent to a job and workplace, which is not usually an accepted concept in American society.---[[User:Mturner|Mturner]] 20:02, 26 August 2009 (MDT)Mary Turner<br />
<br />
The piece on "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found most interesting. There are obvious gender difference such as women can have babies and men cannot. But it is interesting because the roles of women and men have changed. I think that each individual is different and their expectations change for themselves and how they are viewed by those around them like family and society as a whole. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Block writes about nature verses culture. I found it interesting that the activities of men were considered cultural and activities of women were natural. "Nature" in the context it was used undervalues the work women did. It just shows how far women have come since the 1970's. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
:I too found this point on nature vs culture fascinating. It makes me wonder what else in history we view through a distorted lens because we see certain things as nature and others as culture? Or if we take a look at the other dichotomies that Bock uses how could they be applied to other areas of study? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:08, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's essay made me realize how intricate the study of women's history really is. 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. I thought the dichotomies and the essay were interesting. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
The sex versus gender and the equality verses difference brought up some good and points about how women are looked at historically. I do see the difficulties of seperating biological and cultural difference and I think it is best not to seperate them too much since tey both influence one another. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the essay about Women of Color and the rewriting of Western History very interesting for a couple of reasons. I thought that women of all races collaborated with one another during the Women’s movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s. As Castandeda states there were two different movements one being the women’s liberation movement and the second one being the third-world liberation movements. Women of color had a more difficult time obtaining equal rights than white middle class women because not only did they have to deal with the question of gender but also with race. -Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's essay, ''Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History'' was fascinating for a few reasons. First of all, she begins her thesis by reminding us that the reason that Women's History is rendered visible is fundamentally due to subjection. This was a thought provoking statement because all American minority history begins with exploitation or subjection so I was quite intrigued. Bock's essay differed from Kate Haulman's in its use of definitions and the words that she chose to focus on. Mainly, her attention to Gender VS. Sex or biology. I found it interesting that her Equality Vs. Difference section tied directly into further examination of Sex vs Gender. It seemed ironic that in the battle for gender equality, in the public, private, and scholarly arena, Women's Studies runs the risk of becoming invisible yet again by "mainstreaming" because it has been turned into an amalgamation of Gender Studies. This in turn could characterize the word Woman as biological leaving it historically irrelevant. One would hope that Women's Studies does indeed receive the autonomy and examination that it truly deserves while exploring and remembering that both genders live and work reflexively with each other and thus influence each other immensely. - Caryn Levine</div>Eglennon 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