Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: 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=Jcast2lxMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:04:40ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/CommentsWeek 15 Questions/Comments2007-12-06T05:38:31Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the things that stood out to me during these readings was in "The Office Clerk" when the office manager was listing all of the reasons women were superior towards men for these positions. Among these reasons were that they almost always present for the work day and not making up silly excuses for an absence and the precision that they conducted their work in. I found it surprising that this man had such high praise for women. Could he have been saying this to the interviewer (Clara Lanza) to appease the female crowd who would be reading her article? Or did he really feel this way towards his female workers? Did the fact that companies could get away with paying women less than men factor into this appreciation for women clerks? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found the article "Objections to Domestic Service" in that Lucy Salmon polled servants and their employers and from that managed to come up with a list of disadvantages. These disadvantages were an effort to dissuade young, American born women from entering this type of service. Such "industrial disadvantages" include "lack of all opportunity for promotion," "lack of organization in the service," "irregularity in working hours," "competition with the foreign born and the negro element," and "the interference with work often by those less skilled than the workers themselves." I can understand Salmon's reasoning for wanting to keep women from working as domestic servants. However, I'm slightly confused when she comments on how with the professions of seamstresses, clerks, trained nurses, and teachers can lead to promotions in the working environment. So in that sense, Salmon is urging women to pursue jobs other than domestic servitude. But is she at all encouraging them to return to the home? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I think, in response to Vanessa's question, that Lucy Salmon felt that she was encouraging women to return to the home. Where else would they be if not in the work place? They would be at home with their housework and their families. By expressing the disadvantages of the working world she was able to show women what they would be missing from their home if they joined the workforce, without listing all the things to be done at home and the need to be at home. For some that would probably encourage them to work. Also I think that Lucy Salmon was well aware that the majority of women in the workforce were working because they had to to support their families and they would return to the home if it was possible. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I liked the interview contained in Lucy Maynard Salmon’s piece called "Objections to Domestic Service". I thought it was interesting that the girl answering the question “Why do girls dislike domestic service?” says that factory workers are smarter, make better wives, and have cleaner homes while domestic workers that get married become careless and lazy with their housework even though that was their job before marriage and they should probably know how to do it well. I don’t think she really has any proof of this, it’s more about reassuring herself and everyone else that she is in fact a good candidate for marriage. She probably saw marriage as a way out of factory work.-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
When I was reading the 1st three pieces for class I thought that it was interesting how they all compared to each other. In the first reading Hellen Campbell talked about how difficult life was for working women, she compared the desperate women all seeking jobs in shops to the even more desperate women who were forced into doing difficult piece work like laundry, sewing, or ironing. The second piece, by Salmon was equally concerned about women working but this time in domestic service (as servants in another person's household) What I found most interesting about this was the problems women had with the profession some of which were very much racially driven- one woman even said that it was a problem for her to work with a Chinese man because he did not know how to "treat women". The final piece talked about how African American women needed jobs so desperately that even women who had college educations had to work as domestic servants. These women hated such work because it was too much like slavery for them. Honestly I think that the African American women have the most to be concerned about, they have a terrible time getting jobs they hate and in some cases are overqualified for. --Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I know that I already commented on these readings but I just wanted to point out something that I did not mention that I think is worthy of discussion. In the Isabel Eaton reading (Black Servants in Philadelphia) there is a mention of "light" black women and men "passing" as white and having better job security as domestic servants unless their bosses discover the truth. --Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
In Julia Ward Howe's writing under "The Joys of Activism," whether this is intended as propaganda or not, it certainly could be and nicely done. I love how she describes the moment she realized that women could and should do better than where they were. "During the first two thirds of my life I looked to the masculine ideal of character as the only true one... In an unexpected hour a new light came to me... The new domain now made clear to me was that of true womanhood - woman no longer in her ancillary relation to her opposite, man, but in her direct relation to the divine plan and purpose, as a free agent, fully sharing with man every human right and every human responsibility." She's certainly encouraging any that read this that she 'saw the light' you could say and the reader can have these realizations too. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found "Working Women Debate Woman Suffrage" very interesting, especially the entries from "Americus". The person writing these seemed to be extremely bitter towards men. She states that "we won't stay at home any more and cook and wash dishes either; we've done it long enough; let 'him' do it a little while."(Woloch 366) It just seems like she's extremely bitter that women do so much work with raising children and keeping the house clean, but men appear to go out have a good time with their friends and thats it. -Elizabeth frank<br />
<br />
When reading "We Are All Bound up Together," I found it telling when Frances Ellen Harper related her story of life after losing her husband. She was left with four children and no money. Someone even took her to court over a bed. She then discusses how if she had been a man, she would have been remarried by now and would not be facing economic hardship. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Isabel Eaton really exemplifies the challenge black men and women faced in finding jobs. There was no guarentee that they would get a job and often times they settled for domestic service. Even if they were educated, "white help" was always preferred. Many people gave up trying to find work outside of the domestic service branch because of this ideology. Black men and women were also refused domestic jobs because of the color of their skin in many cases. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Going along with the comment above me, I thought Isabel Eaton's survey of black servant workers was really interesting. The fact that she learned black men and women stuck with domestic servitude regardless of how terrible the job was because they feared rejection is just heartbreaking. I also was intrigued by how one of the reasons they gave to themselves about rejection for domestic servitude was because "if the mistresses has bad luck with one colored girl they won't never have another." It's just a terrible understanding and way of living and it really shows how, even though they were emancipated and technically free, it was like they were still slaves, except this time they were being paid a very minimal amount of money. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with both comments pertaining to Isabel Eaton's account of black workers. Their situation was really a horrible and sad thing. I think it's also interesting to note that Eaton was conducting her survey in the North where many people fought against slavery, yet, as Kelly said, the people participating in the survey were essentially still slaves.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I found Leonora Barry's piece on the Knights of Labor to be very interesting. I thought that it showed many of the characteristics mentioned by some of the other readings, the fact that she was a widow with three children for example. She seemed however, to be a very strong woman, one who embrassed her work and her position as master workman. What I found really interesting was that she and others went around educating the children in the factories and such and pushing for the children who are working to be educated in an effort to erase the social and economic situation that causes the circumstances that drive mothers into the workplace. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I also thought the "Office Clerk" by Clara Lanza was an interesting document. I thought it was particularly intersting how it said that women never complained about things like "...the temperature of the building [being] too hot or too cold or that the light is not properly adjusted." Women might not have complained about things like the temperature or light, because they were happy to be able to have a job period that was outside of the home. Men however, could complain about those things and easily get a new job if their current job didn't suit them. ~K. Stinson~<br />
<br />
One trait that I found interesting in “The Office Clerk” was the insistence that office work did not make women unfit for marriage. In fact, the author claims that employment offers these young women the opportunities to meet and wed eligible bachelors, and these working girls often make particularly fine wives. I particularly enjoyed the claim that “men have outgrown their admiration for feminine helplessness and have come to look upon independence as something worth having.” I have to wonder how much of that was actually true and how much was simply the hope of the female author. Unfortunately, we still have women today who fake ignorance or weakness to attract men; how common would it have been in the 19th century? --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I also noticed the focus on marriage in "The Office Clerk." In my opinion, the author insisted on this point because she wanted to emphasize that a woman could work as an office clerk and still be a part of the domestic sphere. It showed that, as single woman, it was okay for them to work. It even helped them find a good husband to support them. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
I particularly enjoyed Sadie Frowne's account of her life as a garment worker in a sweatshop. I associated many of the things she said with stories I remember from older relatives. Much of her story was familiar--the constant machines, the long hours, the appreciation for the union, the freedom of life as an independent factory worker, her immigrant status. But at the same time, many of the details were unique, which made her story feel new. I haven't heard this story about Polish immigrant workers as frequently. I've read stories about days off at pleasure areas like Coney Island, but rarely has the location been Coney Island. Sadie's concerns about not being a socialist or an anarchist make sense in light of the paperwork immigrants had to sign and the great concerns about labor's connections to socialism. I found her acknowledgment that she didn't even know what she was denying very touching. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
What really struck me about "A Sweatshop Girl's Story" was how Sadie Frowne felt about injuries sustained on the job in factories. From the way she was talking, she made it seem like these injuries were no big deal. If you hurt your finger, you just wrap it with a bit of cotton, if the injury is worse than that, you may have to have that finger amputated, but, you just accept it and go on with your life. Maybe injuries like that were so common in those factories, that it truely was no big deal. ~K. Stinson~<br />
<br />
The excerpt I enjoyed the most was Sadie Frowne's tale, A Sweatshop Girl's Story. Quite a few things stuck out to me. First, I always assumed that women hated working in the factories because all you hear is how back breaking and boring the work is but she seems to take it in stride. She even talks about how nice it was when the union fought and won for them to "only work nine and half hours." She understood that if she worked hard sooner or later she would fulfill her own American Dream (did that concept exist then?). I was wondering when she says, on page 309 that "Harry has seen me home every night for a long time and makes love to me," if she meant pre-marital sex because she says it so non-chalantly. I agree with K. Stinson that I found it very strange how she described getting hurt in the work place as no big deal. Basically the vibe I got from her account was that while she was proud of her independence, her whole life was based around trying to become the accepted middle class girl. She talks about reading and educating herself, saving money, how ignorant people are low, and how a girl needs to have nice clothes in order to get into high society. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
In response to Emily's comment on "A Sweatshop Girl's Story," I've read works where "making love" simply referred to wooing or courtship, not necessarily pre-marital sex, so I think it's quite possible that Frowne is using this meaning here. Additionally, I liked this piece for its depiction of a complete life which included work, school, a boyfriend, and entertainment such as dancing and theater. The lives of these women were difficult, but they were not all drudgery. Frowne remarks, "at the end of the day one feels so weak that there is a great temptation to lie right down and sleep. But you must go out and get air, and have some pleasure." I wonder if this attitude was common among the working women, or if this is an unusual example of girlish optimism and enthusiasm for life. --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I found the letter written by Americus from "Working Women Debate Suffrage" quite intriguing. She mocked equality by chosing to point out the most grotesque male qualities and declaring that now women could partake in them since they were equal. For instance, spitting tobacco, talking in slang, and snoring were all characteristics she declared women could now mimic. Reading this in the sarcastic manner for which it was intended, it can serve as an example of how some working class women saw suffrage as a threat to the familiar. Although many working class women supported equal wages, it did not necessarily mean they wanted the right to vote. In the introduction, Woloch points out that many working class women identified themselves more with their class than their gender, and some of these women felt suffrage only threatened class unity.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I agree with Lisa, these letters really helped me to understand where women against womans suffrage were coming from. Americus is really very interesting and while "spitting tobacco juice upon the trowsers of the gentlemen who pass" is not on the top of my list of things to do, I can understand why she feels threatened. --Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I also found the Americus letter interesting, since I've had a hard time understanding arguments (beyond the ones from women who preferred to stay at home and were happy with the lives they led) against female-male equality. I've heard arguments about the potential problems with true equality (nursing mothers being drafted, etc)made in a modern sense, but this was one of the first real accounts I'd read of the problems with true equality and suffrage. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In response to Lisa and Andrea, though, I was impressed with Ella A. Little's letter to the editor that was a response to Americus. She acknowledged what we had learned, which is that there were women who were completely content with being taken care of by their husbands and happy with the lives they were leading. But I really loved when she went on to address that they knew little about the hardships a majority of women faced and how often these women really wanted to make a change or earn a bit more equality and never had a way to express their interests or desires and voting was the way for them to accomplish those goals. It really must have struck a nerve when she said those women opposed to suffrage must thank their good luck since most women did not have their luxuries. -Kelly Wuyscik <br />
<br />
In Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "The Ills of the Home", she makes a profound observation when she says, "The permanent error of the housewife lies in the assumption that her love for her family makes her service satisfactorily." A mother washes the clothes, fixes the meals, and cleans the house because she loves her family, but that's not saying if she didn't do those things she would love them less. Gilman makes a great point here when she suggests that one of the reasons mothers have so much difficulty entering the workforce is because they are met with such guilt from society; a society which does not comprehend that mothers may interpret these chores as duties and may need to look elsewhere for personal fulfillment.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Reading "We Are All Bound up Together" reminded me of the very first readings we did in this class, which stated that one could not simply study "women's history," because it was a complex topic that had a lot different aspects. This text shows that much, by pointing out that indeed the position of black women was much different than the position of white women. Harper points out an example using the street cars. She notes that white women speak of "rights," but that she is speaking of the wrongs done to her race and gender -that everybody is against her. The article "An Anti-Speaks Out" had an interesting tidbit, saying: "While more practical and sensible women are tyring to put their kitchens...in order.." This makes me wonder what the ration of married to unmarried women are in the suffragist movement compared to the anti-suffragist movement. If I had to guess, it would be that anti-suffragists are more often in a marriage. <br />
-Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
I liked the piece "Political Lessons" by Stanton and Anthony. Both of these women were great and persuasive writers. I know we had talked about how the NWSA did not accept male members, but I was surprised that they explicitly said that men could not join. This piece really shows that that the NWSA was much more militant and aggressive than the AWSA. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
I was surprised when Barry wrote about child labor in "A Labor Organizer." She mentions that Pennsylvania had 125,00 children under the age of 15 working in workshops, factories and mines. I was surprised their were so many, and what made PA so bad in this respect? I'm glad the Knights of Labor worked to elevate women and put them in the classroom to be educated. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
In "A Sweatshops Girl's Story" I was surprised about how calm she was about all the injuries that took place. She mentions needles going through the nail or finger and sometimes splintering the bone yet doesn't seem to upset by it. Was she just used to it? Did she assume she couldn't do better? Or was it really not all that bad? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
While "Shop Girls and Piece Workers" was not shocking to me, I couldn't help but wonder if it would actually have been shocking to women of the day. I mean, even middle or upper class women had to be aware of what lower class women were doing. So did this book actually shock any one at the time?-- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree with Lisa's comments on "The Ills of the Home". I do feel that many women must have wished to engage in a skilled labor, especially those of the lower classes. While the need to provide monetary support is undoubtedly a major motivator, its seems the support of societal development also played a part. There seems to be a disconnect between housework and advancing society within the article. I wonder how much this sentiment was shared throughout the female community of the period. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
The piece by Isabel Eaton in response to black servants in Philadelphia was very interesting. At first I read the piece without taking in the context of where this was occurring, which was not a southern city, but a northern city. We discussed some in class about the difficulty blacks faced in the South trying to find jobs, particularly with their skills focused mostly on agriculture, but I had not given it much thought for northern cities. Eaton touched on the idea that many white women chose other white women over domestic servants, which is a practice that makes sense in the post Civil War South, but what factors influenced white women’s decisions to not hire blacks in the North? Was it purely racism? Bitterness in the post war era? I would think white women could pay black women less, so in a market where supply and demand is crucial, white women could take advantage of high numbers of domestic servants to obtain high quality service for low prices. Was this not the case? Is there evidence of the same practices in other large, northern cities? -Mary Beth Dillane</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/CommentsWeek 15 Questions/Comments2007-12-06T05:33:04Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the things that stood out to me during these readings was in "The Office Clerk" when the office manager was listing all of the reasons women were superior towards men for these positions. Among these reasons were that they almost always present for the work day and not making up silly excuses for an absence and the precision that they conducted their work in. I found it surprising that this man had such high praise for women. Could he have been saying this to the interviewer (Clara Lanza) to appease the female crowd who would be reading her article? Or did he really feel this way towards his female workers? Did the fact that companies could get away with paying women less than men factor into this appreciation for women clerks? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found the article "Objections to Domestic Service" in that Lucy Salmon polled servants and their employers and from that managed to come up with a list of disadvantages. These disadvantages were an effort to dissuade young, American born women from entering this type of service. Such "industrial disadvantages" include "lack of all opportunity for promotion," "lack of organization in the service," "irregularity in working hours," "competition with the foreign born and the negro element," and "the interference with work often by those less skilled than the workers themselves." I can understand Salmon's reasoning for wanting to keep women from working as domestic servants. However, I'm slightly confused when she comments on how with the professions of seamstresses, clerks, trained nurses, and teachers can lead to promotions in the working environment. So in that sense, Salmon is urging women to pursue jobs other than domestic servitude. But is she at all encouraging them to return to the home? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I think, in response to Vanessa's question, that Lucy Salmon felt that she was encouraging women to return to the home. Where else would they be if not in the work place? They would be at home with their housework and their families. By expressing the disadvantages of the working world she was able to show women what they would be missing from their home if they joined the workforce, without listing all the things to be done at home and the need to be at home. For some that would probably encourage them to work. Also I think that Lucy Salmon was well aware that the majority of women in the workforce were working because they had to to support their families and they would return to the home if it was possible. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I liked the interview contained in Lucy Maynard Salmon’s piece called "Objections to Domestic Service". I thought it was interesting that the girl answering the question “Why do girls dislike domestic service?” says that factory workers are smarter, make better wives, and have cleaner homes while domestic workers that get married become careless and lazy with their housework even though that was their job before marriage and they should probably know how to do it well. I don’t think she really has any proof of this, it’s more about reassuring herself and everyone else that she is in fact a good candidate for marriage. She probably saw marriage as a way out of factory work.-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
When I was reading the 1st three pieces for class I thought that it was interesting how they all compared to each other. In the first reading Hellen Campbell talked about how difficult life was for working women, she compared the desperate women all seeking jobs in shops to the even more desperate women who were forced into doing difficult piece work like laundry, sewing, or ironing. The second piece, by Salmon was equally concerned about women working but this time in domestic service (as servants in another person's household) What I found most interesting about this was the problems women had with the profession some of which were very much racially driven- one woman even said that it was a problem for her to work with a Chinese man because he did not know how to "treat women". The final piece talked about how African American women needed jobs so desperately that even women who had college educations had to work as domestic servants. These women hated such work because it was too much like slavery for them. Honestly I think that the African American women have the most to be concerned about, they have a terrible time getting jobs they hate and in some cases are overqualified for. --Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
In Julia Ward Howe's writing under "The Joys of Activism," whether this is intended as propaganda or not, it certainly could be and nicely done. I love how she describes the moment she realized that women could and should do better than where they were. "During the first two thirds of my life I looked to the masculine ideal of character as the only true one... In an unexpected hour a new light came to me... The new domain now made clear to me was that of true womanhood - woman no longer in her ancillary relation to her opposite, man, but in her direct relation to the divine plan and purpose, as a free agent, fully sharing with man every human right and every human responsibility." She's certainly encouraging any that read this that she 'saw the light' you could say and the reader can have these realizations too. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found "Working Women Debate Woman Suffrage" very interesting, especially the entries from "Americus". The person writing these seemed to be extremely bitter towards men. She states that "we won't stay at home any more and cook and wash dishes either; we've done it long enough; let 'him' do it a little while."(Woloch 366) It just seems like she's extremely bitter that women do so much work with raising children and keeping the house clean, but men appear to go out have a good time with their friends and thats it. -Elizabeth frank<br />
<br />
When reading "We Are All Bound up Together," I found it telling when Frances Ellen Harper related her story of life after losing her husband. She was left with four children and no money. Someone even took her to court over a bed. She then discusses how if she had been a man, she would have been remarried by now and would not be facing economic hardship. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Isabel Eaton really exemplifies the challenge black men and women faced in finding jobs. There was no guarentee that they would get a job and often times they settled for domestic service. Even if they were educated, "white help" was always preferred. Many people gave up trying to find work outside of the domestic service branch because of this ideology. Black men and women were also refused domestic jobs because of the color of their skin in many cases. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Going along with the comment above me, I thought Isabel Eaton's survey of black servant workers was really interesting. The fact that she learned black men and women stuck with domestic servitude regardless of how terrible the job was because they feared rejection is just heartbreaking. I also was intrigued by how one of the reasons they gave to themselves about rejection for domestic servitude was because "if the mistresses has bad luck with one colored girl they won't never have another." It's just a terrible understanding and way of living and it really shows how, even though they were emancipated and technically free, it was like they were still slaves, except this time they were being paid a very minimal amount of money. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with both comments pertaining to Isabel Eaton's account of black workers. Their situation was really a horrible and sad thing. I think it's also interesting to note that Eaton was conducting her survey in the North where many people fought against slavery, yet, as Kelly said, the people participating in the survey were essentially still slaves.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I found Leonora Barry's piece on the Knights of Labor to be very interesting. I thought that it showed many of the characteristics mentioned by some of the other readings, the fact that she was a widow with three children for example. She seemed however, to be a very strong woman, one who embrassed her work and her position as master workman. What I found really interesting was that she and others went around educating the children in the factories and such and pushing for the children who are working to be educated in an effort to erase the social and economic situation that causes the circumstances that drive mothers into the workplace. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I also thought the "Office Clerk" by Clara Lanza was an interesting document. I thought it was particularly intersting how it said that women never complained about things like "...the temperature of the building [being] too hot or too cold or that the light is not properly adjusted." Women might not have complained about things like the temperature or light, because they were happy to be able to have a job period that was outside of the home. Men however, could complain about those things and easily get a new job if their current job didn't suit them. ~K. Stinson~<br />
<br />
One trait that I found interesting in “The Office Clerk” was the insistence that office work did not make women unfit for marriage. In fact, the author claims that employment offers these young women the opportunities to meet and wed eligible bachelors, and these working girls often make particularly fine wives. I particularly enjoyed the claim that “men have outgrown their admiration for feminine helplessness and have come to look upon independence as something worth having.” I have to wonder how much of that was actually true and how much was simply the hope of the female author. Unfortunately, we still have women today who fake ignorance or weakness to attract men; how common would it have been in the 19th century? --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I also noticed the focus on marriage in "The Office Clerk." In my opinion, the author insisted on this point because she wanted to emphasize that a woman could work as an office clerk and still be a part of the domestic sphere. It showed that, as single woman, it was okay for them to work. It even helped them find a good husband to support them. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
I particularly enjoyed Sadie Frowne's account of her life as a garment worker in a sweatshop. I associated many of the things she said with stories I remember from older relatives. Much of her story was familiar--the constant machines, the long hours, the appreciation for the union, the freedom of life as an independent factory worker, her immigrant status. But at the same time, many of the details were unique, which made her story feel new. I haven't heard this story about Polish immigrant workers as frequently. I've read stories about days off at pleasure areas like Coney Island, but rarely has the location been Coney Island. Sadie's concerns about not being a socialist or an anarchist make sense in light of the paperwork immigrants had to sign and the great concerns about labor's connections to socialism. I found her acknowledgment that she didn't even know what she was denying very touching. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
What really struck me about "A Sweatshop Girl's Story" was how Sadie Frowne felt about injuries sustained on the job in factories. From the way she was talking, she made it seem like these injuries were no big deal. If you hurt your finger, you just wrap it with a bit of cotton, if the injury is worse than that, you may have to have that finger amputated, but, you just accept it and go on with your life. Maybe injuries like that were so common in those factories, that it truely was no big deal. ~K. Stinson~<br />
<br />
The excerpt I enjoyed the most was Sadie Frowne's tale, A Sweatshop Girl's Story. Quite a few things stuck out to me. First, I always assumed that women hated working in the factories because all you hear is how back breaking and boring the work is but she seems to take it in stride. She even talks about how nice it was when the union fought and won for them to "only work nine and half hours." She understood that if she worked hard sooner or later she would fulfill her own American Dream (did that concept exist then?). I was wondering when she says, on page 309 that "Harry has seen me home every night for a long time and makes love to me," if she meant pre-marital sex because she says it so non-chalantly. I agree with K. Stinson that I found it very strange how she described getting hurt in the work place as no big deal. Basically the vibe I got from her account was that while she was proud of her independence, her whole life was based around trying to become the accepted middle class girl. She talks about reading and educating herself, saving money, how ignorant people are low, and how a girl needs to have nice clothes in order to get into high society. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
In response to Emily's comment on "A Sweatshop Girl's Story," I've read works where "making love" simply referred to wooing or courtship, not necessarily pre-marital sex, so I think it's quite possible that Frowne is using this meaning here. Additionally, I liked this piece for its depiction of a complete life which included work, school, a boyfriend, and entertainment such as dancing and theater. The lives of these women were difficult, but they were not all drudgery. Frowne remarks, "at the end of the day one feels so weak that there is a great temptation to lie right down and sleep. But you must go out and get air, and have some pleasure." I wonder if this attitude was common among the working women, or if this is an unusual example of girlish optimism and enthusiasm for life. --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I found the letter written by Americus from "Working Women Debate Suffrage" quite intriguing. She mocked equality by chosing to point out the most grotesque male qualities and declaring that now women could partake in them since they were equal. For instance, spitting tobacco, talking in slang, and snoring were all characteristics she declared women could now mimic. Reading this in the sarcastic manner for which it was intended, it can serve as an example of how some working class women saw suffrage as a threat to the familiar. Although many working class women supported equal wages, it did not necessarily mean they wanted the right to vote. In the introduction, Woloch points out that many working class women identified themselves more with their class than their gender, and some of these women felt suffrage only threatened class unity.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I agree with Lisa, these letters really helped me to understand where women against womans suffrage were coming from. Americus is really very interesting and while "spitting tobacco juice upon the trowsers of the gentlemen who pass" is not on the top of my list of things to do, I can understand why she feels threatened. --Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I also found the Americus letter interesting, since I've had a hard time understanding arguments (beyond the ones from women who preferred to stay at home and were happy with the lives they led) against female-male equality. I've heard arguments about the potential problems with true equality (nursing mothers being drafted, etc)made in a modern sense, but this was one of the first real accounts I'd read of the problems with true equality and suffrage. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In response to Lisa and Andrea, though, I was impressed with Ella A. Little's letter to the editor that was a response to Americus. She acknowledged what we had learned, which is that there were women who were completely content with being taken care of by their husbands and happy with the lives they were leading. But I really loved when she went on to address that they knew little about the hardships a majority of women faced and how often these women really wanted to make a change or earn a bit more equality and never had a way to express their interests or desires and voting was the way for them to accomplish those goals. It really must have struck a nerve when she said those women opposed to suffrage must thank their good luck since most women did not have their luxuries. -Kelly Wuyscik <br />
<br />
In Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "The Ills of the Home", she makes a profound observation when she says, "The permanent error of the housewife lies in the assumption that her love for her family makes her service satisfactorily." A mother washes the clothes, fixes the meals, and cleans the house because she loves her family, but that's not saying if she didn't do those things she would love them less. Gilman makes a great point here when she suggests that one of the reasons mothers have so much difficulty entering the workforce is because they are met with such guilt from society; a society which does not comprehend that mothers may interpret these chores as duties and may need to look elsewhere for personal fulfillment.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Reading "We Are All Bound up Together" reminded me of the very first readings we did in this class, which stated that one could not simply study "women's history," because it was a complex topic that had a lot different aspects. This text shows that much, by pointing out that indeed the position of black women was much different than the position of white women. Harper points out an example using the street cars. She notes that white women speak of "rights," but that she is speaking of the wrongs done to her race and gender -that everybody is against her. The article "An Anti-Speaks Out" had an interesting tidbit, saying: "While more practical and sensible women are tyring to put their kitchens...in order.." This makes me wonder what the ration of married to unmarried women are in the suffragist movement compared to the anti-suffragist movement. If I had to guess, it would be that anti-suffragists are more often in a marriage. <br />
-Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
I liked the piece "Political Lessons" by Stanton and Anthony. Both of these women were great and persuasive writers. I know we had talked about how the NWSA did not accept male members, but I was surprised that they explicitly said that men could not join. This piece really shows that that the NWSA was much more militant and aggressive than the AWSA. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
I was surprised when Barry wrote about child labor in "A Labor Organizer." She mentions that Pennsylvania had 125,00 children under the age of 15 working in workshops, factories and mines. I was surprised their were so many, and what made PA so bad in this respect? I'm glad the Knights of Labor worked to elevate women and put them in the classroom to be educated. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
In "A Sweatshops Girl's Story" I was surprised about how calm she was about all the injuries that took place. She mentions needles going through the nail or finger and sometimes splintering the bone yet doesn't seem to upset by it. Was she just used to it? Did she assume she couldn't do better? Or was it really not all that bad? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
While "Shop Girls and Piece Workers" was not shocking to me, I couldn't help but wonder if it would actually have been shocking to women of the day. I mean, even middle or upper class women had to be aware of what lower class women were doing. So did this book actually shock any one at the time?-- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree with Lisa's comments on "The Ills of the Home". I do feel that many women must have wished to engage in a skilled labor, especially those of the lower classes. While the need to provide monetary support is undoubtedly a major motivator, its seems the support of societal development also played a part. There seems to be a disconnect between housework and advancing society within the article. I wonder how much this sentiment was shared throughout the female community of the period. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
The piece by Isabel Eaton in response to black servants in Philadelphia was very interesting. At first I read the piece without taking in the context of where this was occurring, which was not a southern city, but a northern city. We discussed some in class about the difficulty blacks faced in the South trying to find jobs, particularly with their skills focused mostly on agriculture, but I had not given it much thought for northern cities. Eaton touched on the idea that many white women chose other white women over domestic servants, which is a practice that makes sense in the post Civil War South, but what factors influenced white women’s decisions to not hire blacks in the North? Was it purely racism? Bitterness in the post war era? I would think white women could pay black women less, so in a market where supply and demand is crucial, white women could take advantage of high numbers of domestic servants to obtain high quality service for low prices. Was this not the case? Is there evidence of the same practices in other large, northern cities? -Mary Beth Dillane</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_14_Questions/CommentsWeek 14 Questions/Comments2007-11-29T11:45:08Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>As I was reading through the various wartime accounts of both Northern and Southern women, generally I was surprised how patriotic the women were and how readily they sacrificed for their cause. Just as soldiers were motivated to enlist based on their patriotic sentiments to their respective regions, those same political sentiments also motivated women to join the war effort. Another aspect from the readings that struck me involved a woman's attitude toward enemy soldiers. While some women held enemy soldiers with a certain distrust, others felt admiration, appreciating an enemy soldier's demonstration of masculinity. It was amazing, that despite the war, some women could still feel a female bond with the wives of enemy soldiers. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the account of Louisa May Alcott in Woloch when she was describing her period of nursing in the hospital. I knew that the conditions were bad but reading that account really made it clearer what they had to deal with, such as the lack of ventilation, which of course would not have helped the wounded and sick heal.- Elizabeth Lynn Frank<br />
<br />
I also found Alcott's journal interesting because she seems to be a woman looking for opportunity. She writes of "pent up energy" and a want of "new experiences." She seemed to have personal hopes the exceed what was allowed for women in the doctrine of separate spheres. Alcott took advantage of the war to gain new experiences.--Kelly Martin <br />
<br />
I'm a huge Alcott fan. Her novels are wonderful. Reading her journal brings to light her experiences during the war, showing the horrors of war and the trama and stress it placed not only on the soldiers but civilians as well. Her journals hightlights the humanitarian side of the war and the very real relationships and interactions which were established between the soliders and the nurses as seen in Alcott's reference to "my boys." -Katelynn Vance <br />
<br />
Alcott's journal seems to shed light on who these women nurses actually were. I typically find myself going along with the static ideas we may have about what they thought and felt, but this really shows their character behind the facade of who they are, as well as give insight as to what they were going through, why they were, and what kept them going. "Though often homesick, heartsick, and worn out, I like it, find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me..." and "Up at six, dress by gaslight, run through my ward and throw up windows... poke the fire, add blankets, joke, coax, and command." She also shows the affection nurses grew to have for their patients, at one point calling them her "big babies" and "my boys" which I thought was cute and funny. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Alcott's piece also shows how a certain type of women were attracted to the nursing profession: young, single, and adventurous. -- F. Cobb<br />
<br />
Like most of us, I also really enjoyed Alcott's journal. It was nice to see her writing from her own experiences, versus one of her novels! I really found it interesting how she just kept going. Through her own illness contracted from the hospital, as well as the horrible sights- she felt compelled to keep going and move on. In the beginning of her journal...she wrote how she "...was a boy going off to war." She was doing all that she could for the fight. And that included traveling 500 miles away from home- leaving family and friends behind. - Talya.<br />
<br />
Having long been an admirer of Louisa May Alcott's writings I was thrilled and fascinated to read her journal about her time as a nurse. Her writing style was such that you can almost see what she was seeing and feel what she felt. It was also an example of what we talked about in class, women taking opportunities to go and do something that they otherwise would not have and that they were just as susceptible to illness as their patients. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Alcott's journal was so interesting. What a great view into why a woman would become a nurse. Its so interesting that she saw this not only as a way to help her country, but also as a way to help her family (by giving them one less mouth to feed). It is also interesting that she sees becoming a nurse as "taking my life in my hand." Obviously the women saw themselves as making just as much of a sacrifice as male soldiers. -- Allison Johnson <br />
<br />
Although I didn't know that Alcott was a nurse during the Civil War, it did not surprise me to find out that she dropped everything and went into nursing. In her books the protagonists would do something similar but they are not always given such opportunities. --Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
Since the men have left/ Women take over the farm/ We do what we must. (Inspired by "Northern Women on Farms"; he did say we could do haikus). I liked reading this account because to me it shows how much women were willing to change in some cases in order to adjust to the men leaving for war and in order to make the farm continue to succeed. These women were great motivators, or could have been if they had encouraged others to do the same.- Elizabeth Lynn Frank<br />
<br />
After reading Clarissa Burdett's affidavit, I was surprised that Burdett would run away and leave her children behind, potentially to suffer the same abuse she endured. Because Burdett's torture was the punishment for her husband and niece's running away, wouldn't Burdett's running away cause the master to be especially cruel to her children?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I can only imagine the pain and anguish that Clarissa Burdett experienced. That said, I would think that she had to make a descision at that moment, to run away to to be potentialy beaten to death. If her master beats her to death there is still no one there to protect her children. She knew that she could not take them with her, so she made the desicion to leave them and sought help from the Union army to help her remove her children from the situation. I wish that we could know from the readings what became of her and her children, but in my opinion she choose the only option that she thought was available to her that was in the potential best interest of her and her children. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In Eva Jones' letters, there was one thing she said that seemed to emphasize what we discussed in class as to the shock of some southerns that their slaves were not in fact happy and left. "Adelline, Grace, and Polly have all departed in search of freedom, without bidding any of us an affectionate adieu." -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found Eva Jones's letters interesting because they presented a perspective I had never considered before: that of the wealthy Southern white woman. I would not usually think of these women as victims, but, as was mentioned in class, they experienced dramatic changes after the end of the war. I even pitied Jones when she wrote, "I expect before long to become a very efficient chambermaid and seamstress, though the latter comes very hard to my poor unused fingers." It must have been a difficult transition for women used to commanding slaves rather than doing their own domestic labor. -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I found Eva Jones' entry quite insightful. She mentions some of her slaves voluntarily stayed after the War, which brings about a question I have always pondered and hope that perhaps someone can shed some light on, why did slaves remain on plantations with their masters and mistresses? How often did this occur? Is it mainly a phenomenon seen with elderly slaves who could not travel or start fresh?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I was surprised by the women who strongly criticized other women following the Civil War, did they do this only because they were unable to directly attack men? - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
In Mary Anderson's story, I'm surprised to hear of how many slaves actually returned to their former masters' homes. She said that once she and a large portion of her family moved back, she got married and had several kids, but she doesn't mention what life was like or how they lived. I assume that this was maybe a sharecropping arrangement? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I know I've commented a lot already, but I was just so struck by Ada Bacot's comments that I had to comment at least one more time. She vehemently hates the two Yankee soldiers that were wounded and placed in her ward. "It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty." So despite her hatred, she does what she has to do as a nurse. But the last line emphasizes that hatred when she says, "I have never inquired there names nor do I intend to." Ouch. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's Comments on Two Wounded Yankees interesting. She comments that it is her duty to care for the wounded Yankee soldiers though it troubles her to do so. This just reaffirms the concept that women came to the front during the war and embraced a sense of duty--for some this was caring for men despite their Yankee or Confederate affiliation. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I too was struck by Ada Bacot’s sense of duty. It must have been extremely hard to care for two people who could have been shooting at your brother/father/cousin/uncle/brother-in-law/husband/other male relative.-Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read Sarah Morgan's account especially when she said, "But if I can't fight, being unfortunately a woman, which I now regret for the first time in my life...." I found this to be quite a radical statment considering the societal ideology of a woman's place. How many other women felt this way at the time of war? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I too found Sarah Morgan's statement, "But if I can't fight, being unfortunately a woman, which I now regret for the first time in my life....", a bit radical considering a woman's place in society at the time.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
I thought Cornelia Hancock's account in Major Problems was intersting. What I thought was particularly interesting was how Hancock could handle the sight of blood and watch amputations take place, but when she had to write home for a soldier, she couldn't do so without crying. I guess she had seen so many amputation take place that they no longer bothered her. I also want to know what kind of qualifications that a man needed to be a surgeon. To be a surgeon would a man have to already be a practicing doctor or could a surgeon be anyone willing to do the job? ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I really liked the accounts written by the nurses during the Civil War, particularly the account written by Maria Daly who was a New Yorker. Her details of the Southern nurses really emphasizes how little they wanted to be there and how different cultures were between the north and the south. One thing that really stuck out to me was the line, "I lose all patience when I think of these demonic Southern women, whose pride and arrogance have had so much to do with this fearful state of things." It just makes it so much clearer the difference between northern women and southern women. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Sarah Morgan's declaration of being a rebel also intrigued me quite a bit. I remember during the lecture how women in the South practically (totally) forced their male relatives to fight in the war, and this declaration just seemed to be the epitome of that. She seems so enthusiastic to be a Southerner that I wouldn't be surprised if she ended up dressing like a man to go fight or threw her male relatives onto the fields. Although she mentions that she was hesitant about the war at first, he attitude seems completely changed and it makes me wonder if this was a result of propaganda and public opinion, or if she was trying to boost moral for other southerners? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I enjoyed Lincoln's comments on the contributions of women: "I have never studied the art of paying compliments to women. But I must say that if all that has been said by orators and poets since the creation of the world in praise of women, was applied to the women of America, it would not do them justice for their conduct during this war. I will close by saying, God bless the women of America!" I'm not sure I have anything to say about it; I just thought it was a pretty fantastic quote. -Ashley H.<br />
<br />
Mary Livermore's writing in Major Problems was interesting because she believes that the heroism and unity of women during the Civil War was comparable to that of the men that were center stage doing the fighting. I think it was meant to be uplifting for women at the time. She wanted to show that women did play an important role as caretakers in the Civil War. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
Ada was not uncommon in her feelings towards the Yankee soldiers. Newspapers in the South tended to portray Yankees as “The Northern serpent, who has penetrated the Southern Eden… proposes to harm no one--to disturb nobody's private rights....” The newspapers insinuated how no one will forget “the cruelties practised [sic] upon our loyal and true citizens, the brutal treatment of women….” The quotes were taken from Virginia Center for Digital History, “Staunton Spectator,” The Valley of the Shadow, http://valley.vcdh.virginia.edu/newspapersp2.html. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Very interesting, but I'm not really surprised by that portrayal of the North. With things like that being printed in the newspapers, anti-Northern sentiments could only be exacerbated. I recently did a project in another class and did a tiny bit of research on Confederate Ladies' Memorial Associations that were established after the war with the purpose of preseving Confederate patriotism. It's no wonder that the women in the post-bellum South who were members of these groups were so paranoid...and they also REALLY mad because their boys just lost the war. Also, some news you can or cannot use: the Fredericksburg Ladies' Memorial Association is one of only two such orgainzations that is still active in the country. You heard it here, people. - Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
There seems to be a sense of fear in Louticia Jackson's letter about her slave Willes continual disobedience. Her last line reads: "He does seem so wicked [that] if any one was to come upon him about his conduct I do not know what he would do afterwards." When I consider how black male slaves were viewed by people as ready to commit any terrible crime, such as raping a helpless white woman, her fear does really seem really deeply felt. There really doesn't seem like there is anything she can do...its not like she could easily go get her neighbors to come and help. In a way, power has shifted to the slaves in a sort of hidden way. -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In "Teaching the Freedmen", Sarah Chase claims to have 140 pupils. This seems like an outrageously high number. Was such a large student:teacher ratio common in these post-war schools?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I wrote my paper on Louisa May Alcott so I was familiar with her diary describing her experience as an army nurse during the Civil War. Alcott fell very ill while working and it took her almost three months to recuperate after she returned home. Even though her work almost killed her Louisa continued to help in the war effort in any way that she could. For instance she rallied other women in Concord to sew for the soldiers. –Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I found the division between the women of the North and the women of the South completely fascinating. When Sarah Morgan stated, “Yes! I am glad we are two distinct tribes,” in combination with the piece by Caroline Kirkland, made it clear how prideful each side was. I think when we talked in class about sectional pride and the role of women in recruiting and setting the standards of men being soldiers I did not truly grasp the almost competition-like atmosphere created. Are there other examples of women or groups taking such passionate sides of soldiers? Can anyone think of modern-day examples of women standing so passionately next to their men for a cause? -Mary Beth D.<br />
<br />
Hancock's letter to her mother surprised me because it was so different from the others to her cousin and sister. To her sister she wrote of all the suffering and terrible conditions the men faced. To her mother though she spoke of being "waited upon like a princess," that sleeps and eats well and that she loves what she is doing. Could it be that she didn't want to worry her mother? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
Alex, you bring up an interesting point. I wonder how many female nurses truly felt unsafe, like Alcott, and how many of them would have been able to communicate their fears to friends and family without fearing objections and restrictions from people who still controlled their lives.I've read elsewhere similar comments to Daly's attacks on Southern white women, and I'm frequently left wondering if Southern white women were truly that awful, or if it was a propaganda tool.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I found Ella Gertrude's comments to Sherman's wife really harsh. It reminded me of cady high school girls when she was purposely trying to make his wife feel bad by telling her of the Mulatto girl he had been seen with (insinuating an affair). --Alex K.<br />
<br />
From reading "A Wartime Mistress", I was surprised how quickly the lack of an actor in a gender role had profound effects. For a slave to be openly defiant so quickly, it makes me wonder not only about the lack of worry about the mistress's punishment, but also the return of the master. Perhaps a feeling of freedom was already taking hold among some slaves with the temporary absence of their masters. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
No wiki haiku?<br />
<br />
I am so disappointed<br />
<br />
So much work to do</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/CommentsWeek 12 Questions/Comments2007-11-15T11:38:25Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Woloch's reading, (O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!), Maria Stewart, a black Bostonian, played a special role in public life and women's history. When the abolitionist movement began, William Lloyd Garrison published some of her essays in his antislavery journal. In her essays, I really liked how Stewart urged women to pursue self-improvement and assert their rights. A lot of her message was aimed at African American women. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie but I'd also like to point something else out about the piece "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" All throughout Maria Stewart's account, she used revolutionary rhetoric, more often than not using the word "liberty." She also consistently brought up freedoms such as the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, and it just emphasizes what we learned in class that this revolutionary rhetoric was coming back to haunt the upper and middle class white men that the rhetoric was supposed to apply to. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I thought Maris Stewart's writing was intellectual and extremely well written for a speech. In the essay, she speaks of freedom and equality to Americans. I think I understand why she would not see herself as an American- considering the awful circumstances- yet if everyone knew that the fear of the white men was that another race may not "assimilate," why would she not call herself American and attempt to be truly equal? When did the term African American come into play? These may be ignorant questions- but I am hoping someone else is in the same boat- Talya. <br />
<br />
I agree with what everyone has said. Stewart's use of the Revolutionary rhetoric creates a very empowering speech. - Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
The reading by Maria Stewart is steeped with rhetoric which was used during the American Revolution. Stewart talks about "this land of freedom" that "all the nations of the earth are crying out for liberty and equality" ect. This piece also sounds like a sermon, and therefore, might have been influenced by the great awakening. For stewart, education plays an important role in the raising of black women's status in society and seems to imply that it is their right for education as much as it is their right to freedom. However, I'm wondering who her audience was exactly because that can change the way her speech is interpreted or recieved. --K. Vance<br />
<br />
When reading Lucy Stone's Marriage Protest, in Woloch's book, I found it interesting that when the couple took their vows, each partner signed a unique marriage "protest". This protest was also read as part of their ceremony! -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I really feel that Lucy Stone epitomizes the definition of a feminist, the one that will lead to our modern day definition/perception. She kept her own name, she "refused to 'obey', and challenged the system..." The protest itself is riddled with a woman's absolute independence. It takes away any traditional patriarchal "laws" and demands equality from both man and woman. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I was also interested by Lucy Stone's marriage protest, probably because it was so not what one would expect from a woman from the mid 1800s, at least I assume this was irregular. The things that she was protesting we take for advantage that we dont have to worry about them. For instance women today dont have to worry about their legal existence disappearing with marriage. But for her the things that many women seemed to just accept as their fate she rebelled against. I was also intreged that she kept her own name. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I was equally intrigued by the marriage of Lucy Stone and was curious if we know anything about how Henry Blackwell was treated after agreeing to this marriage protest. Was he ridiculed by men for not being able to "control" his wife? Was he embraced by woman for being the ideal husband for letting his wife have rights? Or was he simply ignored, as if this case was not out of the ordinary in any way?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The fact that Henry Blackwell actually agreed to sign the Marriage Protest was what surprised me. We don't see a lot of men willing to give up that kind of power over their wives before and during this time period. Was he a women's rights activist? -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I too was interested in Henry Blackwell's signing of the protest and the omission of his own social fate. It seems to me that he would be an even greater target among the men of the community. I would believe he would be seen as unable to control his wife, a crucial role in the ideal. I also wonder how their marriage was recognized. Lucy Stone and Henry Blackwell's protest has obvious parallels with one of today's greatest issues. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
--I'm another person who found Blackwell's role in the marriage protest far more interesting and worth investigating than Stone's. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
--- Although I can see why my fellow classmates might find Blackwell more interesting because he gave up traditional male power when he married Lucy Stone, I think it is interesting to see both of these individuals as they really tried to make a partnership based on something more than the idea of separate spheres. They were very forward thinking and if I ever get married I would consider acting in a similar way. (I would at least make the "obey" part of vows go both ways or strike it entirely). Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
When I read the piece, "Seduced and Abandoned," in the Woloch book, I could not help but start laughing. I understand that it is not a laughing matter that girl was abandoned by her "fiance" and had to become a prostitute, but the way in which it was written screamed propaganda. The way the innocent girl from the country was persuaded to elope by a villain from the city and then was decoyed into becoming a prostitute only until meeting up with a wholesome man from her hometown is just too unreal. It is amazing how this scenario is consistently used and tweaked to support different causes. But it really shows how the moral reform movement was determined to deliver people to the side of God and how women were at the forefront since the piece was obviously written by a woman. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly about "Seduced and Abandoned" being so blantantly propagandistic. I have read many similar stories in literature of the day. I wonder, however, how common a story this really was. I realize that it's not exactly something we can get statistics on. I'm sure that it happened quite a bit. However, it seems likely that at least some of these tales are either altered for effect or completely made up. I'm curious as to how the public perception of danger to their daughters compared with reality. --Ashley H. <br />
<br />
While reading "seduced and abandoned" all i could think about was the correlations between this piece of propaganda and the novel Charolette Temple. Each have elements of "good girls" being convinced / tricked into leaving their parents behind, traveling to a new place they'd never been and being left destitute. I find it interesting that even though there around 100+ years between the publication of the novel and this piece of propaganda, the authors are still telling the same story. What makes this story so popular? So powerful? Since the same story is being told over and over again, what does it say about the states of society?--K. Vance<br />
<br />
As much as this whole genre emerged as a clear propaganda, the desperate plight of a young woman who wasn't fully supported or who displeased her town or family in any "grievous" manner was something we don't seem to fully appreciate. I think Dr. McClurken's statistics last week suggested how many women turned to prostituion as the only way to support themselves, and I tihnk that's a serious misunderstanding for many modern American women who are paid much closer to equal wages and have ERA-esque salary protections.--A. Meyer <br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that at the end of the "Seduced and Abandoned" piece, the author pretty much blames the parents for not teaching their children about the dangers of the world. I may be mistaken, but to me this seems to contrast what we talked about on Tuesday about how "proper" women were supposed to be sheltered and were not even supposed to know that prostitution existed. - F. Cobb <br />
<br />
While it was obvious that "Seduced and Abandoned" was blatantly exaggerated for propaganda purposes, I wonder if any of it is even based on real-life occurrences. I mean, the story was supposedly related to the Advocate of Moral Reform by the girl herself. –Kaitlyn G. <br />
<br />
I was very intrigued by the Declaration of Sentiments drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The way she manipulated the Declaration of Independence is the perfect example of women using revolutionary rhetoric to get what they want. If you placed the two next to one another and asked someone to tell the difference, I think it would take quite a bit of reading (probably up until she starts blaming men for everything) before they could figure it out. Stanton proved to be very clever and I just hope there were many more women like her fighting for what they believed. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
--- I admire Elizabeth Cady Stanton's ability to use rhetoric as well, and in particular I love the way she wrote the Declaration of Sentiments. As Alex mentions below it called women as well as men to realize and address the problems facing American Women. I think her transition from the traditional rhetoric of the revolutionary period to language that is more specific towards the station of women was great and showed her radicalism, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled." --- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I think this document shows some of the legal training Stanton was exposed to, reading her father (a judge)'s law books. As dramatic and over the top as this peace is, it sets out some of the grievances and problems, which the age of enlightenment believed was a necessary firs step for any revolutionary effort. I think this document is under-appreciated. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In the Declaration of Sentiments I liked how they included that women need "to wise up" basically. They wrote that they need to no longer declare themselves satisfied with their present position or assert that they have all the rights they want. Basically, stop accepting their lot just because that's how things are and start fighting it. I don't think they realized though that some women didn't see a problem with how things were. In Sarah Josepha Hale's piece, for example, she says she is fine to not vote herself and is proud to vote by her proxies. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
When reading the Declaration of Sentiments, what struck me especially was the last passage, added exclusively by Lucretia Mott. This section was peculiar, for not only did it continue the argument for the equality between men and women, it argued for equal participation in "various trades, professions, and commerce." Basically Lucretia Mott was arguing for equal opportunity and pay in the workplace - a feat still in progress today. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
In Woloch, the "Letter to the Liberator" piece really seemed to strike at the heart of women and their role in reform. and specifically this letter addresses slavery. "Woman has a place, for she forms a part in God's created intelligent instrumentality to reform the world. God never made her to be inactive - nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man... We believe God gave woman a heart to feel - an eye to weep - a hand to work - a tongue to speak. Now let her use that tongue to speak on slavery." Those words state that is every woman's right and responsibility and duty to play an active role in reform. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the "letter to the liberator" that the author emphasizes the fact that slavery is happening here, in america. She writes that slavery isn't happening in china or india or some other far off country but within the united states. With such emphasis placed upon the idea that its happening here, I'm wondering how often people denied the practice of slavery with denial or a not in my backyard mentatlity. On another note i find it interesting that she invokes Washington as the "protector of women and a friend of equality and human rights" when Washington, himself, owned slaves for all of his life. It was only after his death that he made arrangments to free some of his slaves, but only after his wife, Martha Washington had died. On the other hand many of his slaves gained their freedom earlier than expect because Martha, fearing for her life and a slave rebellion, freed them. However, that was slighly off topic. Basically, I'm wondering if people denied the exsistence of slavery or just choose to over look it giving emery and the society a reason to explicitly write that slavery was occuring here. --K. Vance<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the rhetoric of liberty and patriotism used in the "Letter to the Liberator." Emery writes, "Is not woman abused--woman trampled upon---woman spoiled of her virtue . . . and this, not in India---not in China---not in Turkey---not in Africa---but in America . . . in the birthplace of Washington, the father of freedom, the protector of women, the friend of equality and human rights!" Emery reminds Americans of their own fight for freedom, and she calls for America to become a morally superior nation. Even the use of the phrase, "On such a creed, we base the constitution, which binds us together," feels reminiscent of the writings of the founding fathers. ---Ashley H. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read about Sojourner Truth and how she felt about the situtation and the rehtoric that she used. Up until this point the majority of women we have heard from have been white, middle-upper class women with very good educations. But here is a woman who was a slave, who cannot read or write. She was also deeply religious and I thought it was very interesting to read her speach and reading the various Biblical references that she makes to prove her point, as well as using her life story to express her belief in women's rights. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed Sojourner Truth's piece. It was interesting to see how different the two version were. The one recollection written twelve years after the actual speech is the more famous one, though the first one is probably the most accurate. Why do you think the second author made these changes? - F. Cobb <br />
<br />
It was interesting to read that when Elizabeth Cady Stanton urged women to secure the vote in the “Declaration of Sentiments” other women’s rights supporters felt it would make the “whole movement ridiculous.” I am sure that none of them could imagine that <br />
the right of suffrage would end up becoming the cornerstone of the women’s rights movement. <br />
It was really interesting that Lucy Stone decided to get married and at the same time challenged the institution of marriage which had forced women to give up their rights. I found it remarkable that she even had her husband sign a “marriage protest” and the document was published in a newspaper. We’ve read about other women who have refused to get married because they did not want to lose their rights but Mrs. Stone was the first one who challenged the marriage system of her day.-Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that securing the vote for women almost didn't appear in the Seneca Falls Convention's Declaration of Sentiments because of support issues. Now it's really the first thing anyone thinks about when they hear the word Seneca Falls Convention. Maybe people though that women would be asking for too much in too short of a time period if they included voting. Or maybe they though that it would overshadow some of the other things they were trying to accomplish. -- Jennifer Feldhaus <br />
<br />
It amazes me that almost every arguement used for or against Women's rights involved biblical references. Women arguesd God made them just as intelligent and capable as men and men, like the editor of Harper's Magazine, argued that the Women's rights movements were "opposed as it was to divine revelation, time-honored proprieties, and biblical authority." (158) I wonder what the arguements would be if God, The Creator, or religion weren't allowed to be invovled. Even though during this period the Great Awakening was peaking, I wonder what women who did not follow that movement and were less-religious thought. What were their arguements? "The American Femal More Refore Society Warns Mothers About "Solitary Vice" was to me a hysterical piece. I found it particularly funny that they called it a "body and ''soul-destroying'' sin." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I thought the article on Sojourner Truth was very interesting. It was great to get her perspective on women't rights. I agree with Mary P that her use of Biblical references were a great way to make her point and the fact that as a slave she probably worked harder everyday than a lot of white men did at the time just proved that women could do anything the men could do. <br />
I also found the Marriage Protest by Lucy Stone interesting to say the least. That is definately extreme feminism for that time. I can see why she was "ridiculed and persecuted" but if you are that against the ideas of marriage at that time why go through a marriage at all? Why not stay single and just live together? Although I don't know how radical that idea would have been at the time but at least you kept your identity. ~~ Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I found the first 2 documents in MP pages 141- 143 a bit too flowery. The woman who is addressing the other ladies paints a lovely picture of all the good that they have accomplished for the poor. It makes me wonder if they spent most of their time patting their selves on the back rather than doing foot work on the street helping out the poor. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
The two documents by Isabella Graham were a bit flowery, but it is interesting to note that she says "the men could not allow our sex the steadiness and perserverance necessary to establish such an undertaking." It is so interesting how women are really beginning to use the 'us vs. them' approach when talking about women and men. Girl Power! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I, too, enjoyed the speech by Sojourner Truth, but what I found most interesting was the inclusion of southern dialect by Frances Gage. Obviously, being that Sojourner was from a Dutch-speaking New York family, her accent would have been anything but Southern. Perhaps by making Sojourner sound like a Southern slave, Gage was trying to appeal to Southern slaveowners. When Gage wrote this version of Sojourner's speech, it was during the Civil War and at the height of the Abolitionist movement. This context obviously influenced how/what she chose to emphasize from Sojourner's speech.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the essay on Sojourner Truth. She spoke well on equal rights. Her comparisons of physical strengths and intelligence as qualifiers for equal rights should have been an eye opener for all there. She showed that women could be physically strong, intelligent and take a great amount of pain. I like when she spoke how someone had said women can’t have equal rights because Jesus wasn’t a women. I have heard similar musing before in women’s groups how all men come from women. She is a very inspiring speaker.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me about Sojourner Truth Speaks was that not only did she use biblical references in a way she seemed to be challenging the traditional held views of the church, especially when she talks about how since Eve did sin first men should stop holding women back but instead allow them a chance to make up for what "they" did. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the essay "Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement" I found all the different factors that made it more acceptable for black women to speak publicly very interesting. While female speakers are still not fully accepted by all, the need that black men saw for the abolition cause seems to temporarily out weigh gender stereotypes. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed the "Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement" piece. The three sources of hostility (anti-black feelings, anti-abolitionist sentiments, and hatred of "public" women) were interesting. There were so many obstacles they had to overcome in order to be heard and taken seriously. In addition to these obstacles, they also had several conditions to make sure not to piss people off. For example, black male leaders applauded black women speakers until they began to criticize black men, black women they were more acceptable for audiences if they exuded "feminine qualities," women writers generally only found an audience when they wrote on "feminine" subjects and black women poets and essayists were able publish works mainly only with the aid of prominent abolitionists. They had a lot working against them. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
The "Seduced and Abandoned" article portrayed the young girl in the story as kinda mindless. She is just an innocent young girl swept up by the objective evil that causes her to fall into bad things. Her rescue, is kinda odd, since the business man from her village just happened to go to the circus that one time, as a grand exception. Of course, he saves her. Such a story is in direct contrast with the other articles, such as "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" and "Reply to the Massachusetts Clergy." I certainly don't think that some girls did end up in terrible situations that they could not forsee, but I do get the sense that these grand moral reform ideas implicitly included female mindlessness. I suppose it all relates to women being the passionless, moral barometer of society who only have experience in the pure household. Of course, Sarah Grimke made the exact opposite statement when she wrote that womens displacement from equality has "introduced confusion into the world." pg 239 For her, inequality is the problem, for the minister she is responding to, it is equality. Its such a polarized mindset. I wonder if Lucy and Henry's marriage was deemed null if they signed agreements that were in direct contrast with the law regarding marriage at the time... -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
<br />
The piece “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement” touched briefly on the gender and race expectations of the time and how women reformers rebelled against these stereotypes. I know some of the pieces touched upon the idea of solidarity under the title “women,” yet pieces in both Woloch and Norton touched upon the idea of white reformers vs. black reformers. I was wondering how clear a divide there was between white and black reformers? White and black abolitionists? White and black suffragists? I know in the 1960s women’s movement, there was a great division among various ethnic lines; I’m wondering whether anyone knows if a similar race divide existed? Were black abolitionists/suffragists seeking rights different or separate from white women? Were there issues they both agreed on and fought for? --Mary Beth Dilla<br />
<br />
My question is in regards to Sojourner Truth. What I want to know is if she faced double the amount of prejudice that other women's rights activists faced since she was African American as well as a woman. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
We've spent a lot of time talking about activism and reformers and how the middle class reformer was created. Most of these women attempted to conform their lifestyles to that mold, while espousing views that radically challenged the tenets of the middle class family ideal. I'm very interested in how someone like Sojourner Truth could be so welcomed by reformers, and how this transformation to reform efforts that directly challenged the root of the reforming era because they tackled the middle class ideal. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
When reading Sarah Grimke's piece, I was really astonished about how progressive it was. I was under the impression, that even though the moral reformists and abolitionists pushed their gender roles outside their expected spheres, they still maintained relatively conservative lifestyles to todays's standard, but Grimke's rhetoric reminded me of a 1960s feminist. One part in particular that really brings the 20th century liberal movement to mind is Grimke's comment that "whatever is right for man to do, is right for woman to do," a perfect slogan for a Title 9 activist. ~Juliann Boyles</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/CommentsWeek 12 Questions/Comments2007-11-15T11:24:38Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Woloch's reading, (O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!), Maria Stewart, a black Bostonian, played a special role in public life and women's history. When the abolitionist movement began, William Lloyd Garrison published some of her essays in his antislavery journal. In her essays, I really liked how Stewart urged women to pursue self-improvement and assert their rights. A lot of her message was aimed at African American women. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie but I'd also like to point something else out about the piece "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" All throughout Maria Stewart's account, she used revolutionary rhetoric, more often than not using the word "liberty." She also consistently brought up freedoms such as the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, and it just emphasizes what we learned in class that this revolutionary rhetoric was coming back to haunt the upper and middle class white men that the rhetoric was supposed to apply to. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I thought Maris Stewart's writing was intellectual and extremely well written for a speech. In the essay, she speaks of freedom and equality to Americans. I think I understand why she would not see herself as an American- considering the awful circumstances- yet if everyone knew that the fear of the white men was that another race may not "assimilate," why would she not call herself American and attempt to be truly equal? When did the term African American come into play? These may be ignorant questions- but I am hoping someone else is in the same boat- Talya. <br />
<br />
I agree with what everyone has said. Stewart's use of the Revolutionary rhetoric creates a very empowering speech. - Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
The reading by Maria Stewart is steeped with rhetoric which was used during the American Revolution. Stewart talks about "this land of freedom" that "all the nations of the earth are crying out for liberty and equality" ect. This piece also sounds like a sermon, and therefore, might have been influenced by the great awakening. For stewart, education plays an important role in the raising of black women's status in society and seems to imply that it is their right for education as much as it is their right to freedom. However, I'm wondering who her audience was exactly because that can change the way her speech is interpreted or recieved. --K. Vance<br />
<br />
When reading Lucy Stone's Marriage Protest, in Woloch's book, I found it interesting that when the couple took their vows, each partner signed a unique marriage "protest". This protest was also read as part of their ceremony! -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I really feel that Lucy Stone epitomizes the definition of a feminist, the one that will lead to our modern day definition/perception. She kept her own name, she "refused to 'obey', and challenged the system..." The protest itself is riddled with a woman's absolute independence. It takes away any traditional patriarchal "laws" and demands equality from both man and woman. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I was also interested by Lucy Stone's marriage protest, probably because it was so not what one would expect from a woman from the mid 1800s, at least I assume this was irregular. The things that she was protesting we take for advantage that we dont have to worry about them. For instance women today dont have to worry about their legal existence disappearing with marriage. But for her the things that many women seemed to just accept as their fate she rebelled against. I was also intreged that she kept her own name. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I was equally intrigued by the marriage of Lucy Stone and was curious if we know anything about how Henry Blackwell was treated after agreeing to this marriage protest. Was he ridiculed by men for not being able to "control" his wife? Was he embraced by woman for being the ideal husband for letting his wife have rights? Or was he simply ignored, as if this case was not out of the ordinary in any way?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The fact that Henry Blackwell actually agreed to sign the Marriage Protest was what surprised me. We don't see a lot of men willing to give up that kind of power over their wives before and during this time period. Was he a women's rights activist? -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I too was interested in Henry Blackwell's signing of the protest and the omission of his own social fate. It seems to me that he would be an even greater target among the men of the community. I would believe he would be seen as unable to control his wife, a crucial role in the ideal. I also wonder how their marriage was recognized. Lucy Stone and Henry Blackwell's protest has obvious parallels with one of today's greatest issues. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
--I'm another person who found Blackwell's role in the marriage protest far more interesting and worth investigating than Stone's. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
--- Although I can see why my fellow classmates might find Blackwell more interesting because he gave up traditional male power when he married Lucy Stone, I think it is interesting to see both of these individuals as they really tried to make a partnership based on something more than the idea of separate spheres. They were very forward thinking and if I ever get married I would consider acting in a similar way. (I would at least make the "obey" part of vows go both ways or strike it entirely). Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
When I read the piece, "Seduced and Abandoned," in the Woloch book, I could not help but start laughing. I understand that it is not a laughing matter that girl was abandoned by her "fiance" and had to become a prostitute, but the way in which it was written screamed propaganda. The way the innocent girl from the country was persuaded to elope by a villain from the city and then was decoyed into becoming a prostitute only until meeting up with a wholesome man from her hometown is just too unreal. It is amazing how this scenario is consistently used and tweaked to support different causes. But it really shows how the moral reform movement was determined to deliver people to the side of God and how women were at the forefront since the piece was obviously written by a woman. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly about "Seduced and Abandoned" being so blantantly propagandistic. I have read many similar stories in literature of the day. I wonder, however, how common a story this really was. I realize that it's not exactly something we can get statistics on. I'm sure that it happened quite a bit. However, it seems likely that at least some of these tales are either altered for effect or completely made up. I'm curious as to how the public perception of danger to their daughters compared with reality. --Ashley H. <br />
<br />
While reading "seduced and abandoned" all i could think about was the correlations between this piece of propaganda and the novel Charolette Temple. Each have elements of "good girls" being convinced / tricked into leaving their parents behind, traveling to a new place they'd never been and being left destitute. I find it interesting that even though there around 100+ years between the publication of the novel and this piece of propaganda, the authors are still telling the same story. What makes this story so popular? So powerful? Since the same story is being told over and over again, what does it say about the states of society?--K. Vance<br />
<br />
As much as this whole genre emerged as a clear propaganda, the desperate plight of a young woman who wasn't fully supported or who displeased her town or family in any "grievous" manner was something we don't seem to fully appreciate. I think Dr. McClurken's statistics last week suggested how many women turned to prostituion as the only way to support themselves, and I tihnk that's a serious misunderstanding for many modern American women who are paid much closer to equal wages and have ERA-esque salary protections.--A. Meyer <br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that at the end of the "Seduced and Abandoned" piece, the author pretty much blames the parents for not teaching their children about the dangers of the world. I may be mistaken, but to me this seems to contrast what we talked about on Tuesday about how "proper" women were supposed to be sheltered and were not even supposed to know that prostitution existed. - F. Cobb <br />
<br />
While it was obvious that "Seduced and Abandoned" was blatantly exaggerated for propaganda purposes, I wonder if any of it is even based on real-life occurrences. I mean, the story was supposedly related to the Advocate of Moral Reform by the girl herself. –Kaitlyn G. <br />
<br />
I was very intrigued by the Declaration of Sentiments drafted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The way she manipulated the Declaration of Independence is the perfect example of women using revolutionary rhetoric to get what they want. If you placed the two next to one another and asked someone to tell the difference, I think it would take quite a bit of reading (probably up until she starts blaming men for everything) before they could figure it out. Stanton proved to be very clever and I just hope there were many more women like her fighting for what they believed. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think this document shows some of the legal training Stanton was exposed to, reading her father (a judge)'s law books. As dramatic and over the top as this peace is, it sets out some of the grievances and problems, which the age of enlightenment believed was a necessary firs step for any revolutionary effort. I think this document is under-appreciated. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In the Declaration of Sentiments I liked how they included that women need "to wise up" basically. They wrote that they need to no longer declare themselves satisfied with their present position or assert that they have all the rights they want. Basically, stop accepting their lot just because that's how things are and start fighting it. I don't think they realized though that some women didn't see a problem with how things were. In Sarah Josepha Hale's piece, for example, she says she is fine to not vote herself and is proud to vote by her proxies. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
When reading the Declaration of Sentiments, what struck me especially was the last passage, added exclusively by Lucretia Mott. This section was peculiar, for not only did it continue the argument for the equality between men and women, it argued for equal participation in "various trades, professions, and commerce." Basically Lucretia Mott was arguing for equal opportunity and pay in the workplace - a feat still in progress today. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
In Woloch, the "Letter to the Liberator" piece really seemed to strike at the heart of women and their role in reform. and specifically this letter addresses slavery. "Woman has a place, for she forms a part in God's created intelligent instrumentality to reform the world. God never made her to be inactive - nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man... We believe God gave woman a heart to feel - an eye to weep - a hand to work - a tongue to speak. Now let her use that tongue to speak on slavery." Those words state that is every woman's right and responsibility and duty to play an active role in reform. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the "letter to the liberator" that the author emphasizes the fact that slavery is happening here, in america. She writes that slavery isn't happening in china or india or some other far off country but within the united states. With such emphasis placed upon the idea that its happening here, I'm wondering how often people denied the practice of slavery with denial or a not in my backyard mentatlity. On another note i find it interesting that she invokes Washington as the "protector of women and a friend of equality and human rights" when Washington, himself, owned slaves for all of his life. It was only after his death that he made arrangments to free some of his slaves, but only after his wife, Martha Washington had died. On the other hand many of his slaves gained their freedom earlier than expect because Martha, fearing for her life and a slave rebellion, freed them. However, that was slighly off topic. Basically, I'm wondering if people denied the exsistence of slavery or just choose to over look it giving emery and the society a reason to explicitly write that slavery was occuring here. --K. Vance<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the rhetoric of liberty and patriotism used in the "Letter to the Liberator." Emery writes, "Is not woman abused--woman trampled upon---woman spoiled of her virtue . . . and this, not in India---not in China---not in Turkey---not in Africa---but in America . . . in the birthplace of Washington, the father of freedom, the protector of women, the friend of equality and human rights!" Emery reminds Americans of their own fight for freedom, and she calls for America to become a morally superior nation. Even the use of the phrase, "On such a creed, we base the constitution, which binds us together," feels reminiscent of the writings of the founding fathers. ---Ashley H. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read about Sojourner Truth and how she felt about the situtation and the rehtoric that she used. Up until this point the majority of women we have heard from have been white, middle-upper class women with very good educations. But here is a woman who was a slave, who cannot read or write. She was also deeply religious and I thought it was very interesting to read her speach and reading the various Biblical references that she makes to prove her point, as well as using her life story to express her belief in women's rights. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed Sojourner Truth's piece. It was interesting to see how different the two version were. The one recollection written twelve years after the actual speech is the more famous one, though the first one is probably the most accurate. Why do you think the second author made these changes? - F. Cobb <br />
<br />
It was interesting to read that when Elizabeth Cady Stanton urged women to secure the vote in the “Declaration of Sentiments” other women’s rights supporters felt it would make the “whole movement ridiculous.” I am sure that none of them could imagine that <br />
the right of suffrage would end up becoming the cornerstone of the women’s rights movement. <br />
It was really interesting that Lucy Stone decided to get married and at the same time challenged the institution of marriage which had forced women to give up their rights. I found it remarkable that she even had her husband sign a “marriage protest” and the document was published in a newspaper. We’ve read about other women who have refused to get married because they did not want to lose their rights but Mrs. Stone was the first one who challenged the marriage system of her day.-Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that securing the vote for women almost didn't appear in the Seneca Falls Convention's Declaration of Sentiments because of support issues. Now it's really the first thing anyone thinks about when they hear the word Seneca Falls Convention. Maybe people though that women would be asking for too much in too short of a time period if they included voting. Or maybe they though that it would overshadow some of the other things they were trying to accomplish. -- Jennifer Feldhaus <br />
<br />
It amazes me that almost every arguement used for or against Women's rights involved biblical references. Women arguesd God made them just as intelligent and capable as men and men, like the editor of Harper's Magazine, argued that the Women's rights movements were "opposed as it was to divine revelation, time-honored proprieties, and biblical authority." (158) I wonder what the arguements would be if God, The Creator, or religion weren't allowed to be invovled. Even though during this period the Great Awakening was peaking, I wonder what women who did not follow that movement and were less-religious thought. What were their arguements? "The American Femal More Refore Society Warns Mothers About "Solitary Vice" was to me a hysterical piece. I found it particularly funny that they called it a "body and ''soul-destroying'' sin." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I thought the article on Sojourner Truth was very interesting. It was great to get her perspective on women't rights. I agree with Mary P that her use of Biblical references were a great way to make her point and the fact that as a slave she probably worked harder everyday than a lot of white men did at the time just proved that women could do anything the men could do. <br />
I also found the Marriage Protest by Lucy Stone interesting to say the least. That is definately extreme feminism for that time. I can see why she was "ridiculed and persecuted" but if you are that against the ideas of marriage at that time why go through a marriage at all? Why not stay single and just live together? Although I don't know how radical that idea would have been at the time but at least you kept your identity. ~~ Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I found the first 2 documents in MP pages 141- 143 a bit too flowery. The woman who is addressing the other ladies paints a lovely picture of all the good that they have accomplished for the poor. It makes me wonder if they spent most of their time patting their selves on the back rather than doing foot work on the street helping out the poor. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
The two documents by Isabella Graham were a bit flowery, but it is interesting to note that she says "the men could not allow our sex the steadiness and perserverance necessary to establish such an undertaking." It is so interesting how women are really beginning to use the 'us vs. them' approach when talking about women and men. Girl Power! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I, too, enjoyed the speech by Sojourner Truth, but what I found most interesting was the inclusion of southern dialect by Frances Gage. Obviously, being that Sojourner was from a Dutch-speaking New York family, her accent would have been anything but Southern. Perhaps by making Sojourner sound like a Southern slave, Gage was trying to appeal to Southern slaveowners. When Gage wrote this version of Sojourner's speech, it was during the Civil War and at the height of the Abolitionist movement. This context obviously influenced how/what she chose to emphasize from Sojourner's speech.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the essay on Sojourner Truth. She spoke well on equal rights. Her comparisons of physical strengths and intelligence as qualifiers for equal rights should have been an eye opener for all there. She showed that women could be physically strong, intelligent and take a great amount of pain. I like when she spoke how someone had said women can’t have equal rights because Jesus wasn’t a women. I have heard similar musing before in women’s groups how all men come from women. She is a very inspiring speaker.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me about Sojourner Truth Speaks was that not only did she use biblical references in a way she seemed to be challenging the traditional held views of the church, especially when she talks about how since Eve did sin first men should stop holding women back but instead allow them a chance to make up for what "they" did. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In the essay "Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement" I found all the different factors that made it more acceptable for black women to speak publicly very interesting. While female speakers are still not fully accepted by all, the need that black men saw for the abolition cause seems to temporarily out weigh gender stereotypes. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed the "Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement" piece. The three sources of hostility (anti-black feelings, anti-abolitionist sentiments, and hatred of "public" women) were interesting. There were so many obstacles they had to overcome in order to be heard and taken seriously. In addition to these obstacles, they also had several conditions to make sure not to piss people off. For example, black male leaders applauded black women speakers until they began to criticize black men, black women they were more acceptable for audiences if they exuded "feminine qualities," women writers generally only found an audience when they wrote on "feminine" subjects and black women poets and essayists were able publish works mainly only with the aid of prominent abolitionists. They had a lot working against them. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
The "Seduced and Abandoned" article portrayed the young girl in the story as kinda mindless. She is just an innocent young girl swept up by the objective evil that causes her to fall into bad things. Her rescue, is kinda odd, since the business man from her village just happened to go to the circus that one time, as a grand exception. Of course, he saves her. Such a story is in direct contrast with the other articles, such as "O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!" and "Reply to the Massachusetts Clergy." I certainly don't think that some girls did end up in terrible situations that they could not forsee, but I do get the sense that these grand moral reform ideas implicitly included female mindlessness. I suppose it all relates to women being the passionless, moral barometer of society who only have experience in the pure household. Of course, Sarah Grimke made the exact opposite statement when she wrote that womens displacement from equality has "introduced confusion into the world." pg 239 For her, inequality is the problem, for the minister she is responding to, it is equality. Its such a polarized mindset. I wonder if Lucy and Henry's marriage was deemed null if they signed agreements that were in direct contrast with the law regarding marriage at the time... -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
<br />
The piece “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement” touched briefly on the gender and race expectations of the time and how women reformers rebelled against these stereotypes. I know some of the pieces touched upon the idea of solidarity under the title “women,” yet pieces in both Woloch and Norton touched upon the idea of white reformers vs. black reformers. I was wondering how clear a divide there was between white and black reformers? White and black abolitionists? White and black suffragists? I know in the 1960s women’s movement, there was a great division among various ethnic lines; I’m wondering whether anyone knows if a similar race divide existed? Were black abolitionists/suffragists seeking rights different or separate from white women? Were there issues they both agreed on and fought for? --Mary Beth Dilla<br />
<br />
My question is in regards to Sojourner Truth. What I want to know is if she faced double the amount of prejudice that other women's rights activists faced since she was African American as well as a woman. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
We've spent a lot of time talking about activism and reformers and how the middle class reformer was created. Most of these women attempted to conform their lifestyles to that mold, while espousing views that radically challenged the tenets of the middle class family ideal. I'm very interested in how someone like Sojourner Truth could be so welcomed by reformers, and how this transformation to reform efforts that directly challenged the root of the reforming era because they tackled the middle class ideal. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
When reading Sarah Grimke's piece, I was really astonished about how progressive it was. I was under the impression, that even though the moral reformists and abolitionists pushed their gender roles outside their expected spheres, they still maintained relatively conservative lifestyles to todays's standard, but Grimke's rhetoric reminded me of a 1960s feminist. One part in particular that really brings the 20th century liberal movement to mind is Grimke's comment that "whatever is right for man to do, is right for woman to do," a perfect slogan for a Title 9 activist. ~Juliann Boyles</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/CommentsWeek 11 Questions/Comments2007-11-08T05:12:39Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>I really enjoyed reading the account of Jannicke Saehle. She was so happy and enthusiastic in her letter to her brother. Though she was sick for four days of the voyage, she did not mind. She was so excited to be on her way to America. We discussed in class that many unmarried immigrant women suffered tremendously on their voyage over and upon their arrival. I realize this was true of most immigrant women, however, I found it refreshing to read such a positive account.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
When reading Jannicke Saehle's letter to her brother in the piece titled, "A Norwegian Immigrant in Wisconsin," I was shocked about how cheerful she was regarding her situation. She was thrilled to be making 1 dollar a week, which was strange to me, for many women mentioned in Sanger's study had made the same salary, had found it insufficient and thus decided to become prostitutes. Perhaps Saehle is so positive about her experience because she had just recently arrived in America, and had yet to encounter some of the harsh realities that other immigrants in New York faced. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I agree with Juliann. Jannicke probably was naïve to the realities of her new home. But how wonderful to be as optimistic as she seems to be.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
There is also the very real possibility that she did not want to worry her family members at home with a long list of the bad parts of her new life so she focused on the positives. If she was like the other women who left Europe for America then the conditions in her homeland were such that warranted her leaving and trying to make her own in the world. Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
When reading Xin Jin's Contract, I remembered what Dr. McClurken had said about how the Chinese were the most exploited of all the immigrant groups. Although, in the contract, it mentions that Xin Jin had volunteered in her service of prostitution to pay off her debt, more than likely, there was manipulation going on there. How can someone consent when they don't understand what is being said to them? The language barrier alone must have been a reason why so many Chinese immigrants initially had "consented" to prostitution. I was a little disturbed when I read the part in her contract where it mentions additional work time in the instances of sickness or pregnancy, in that profession, how can one expect not to face such obstacles? When reading this piece, I got the impression that prostitution was an endless reality for many of the immigrant Chinese women, one without pay or hope of successfully getting out. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
Juliann, I have actually discussed the prostitution of Chinese immigrant women in California in another history class and they were coerced into a kind of sexual slavery as far back as the 1840s and 50s (with the gold rush). They usually worked in teriible conditions. In the San Fransisco red light district they were displayed in windows of buildings in these things called cribs- where they would be in view of people on the streets while doing their business. In all it was pretty horrible but some women were able to make lots of money in this manner. --Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I was surprised at how similar all of the prostitution contracts were. Pretty much all of them referred to four or four and a half years of service, time off for the four diseases, if she is sick for more than 15 days then she works for a month extra and if she is pregnant she will serve an extra year. Was it such a regular and established practice that everyone already knew the "going rate?"--Alex K.<br />
<br />
When reading "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862," I found it interesting that the person writing this was so outraged by the soldier's rape of Indian squaws. The writer goes as far as to ask that if the Lieutenant of the soldiers was present during this rape, that his rank and position be stripped of him. I wonder if the writer would have had the same reaction had it been black women rather than Indian women who were raped.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Mrs. Green’s Account of Frontier Life in Colorado, 1887, did not surprise me how she felt about Colorado’s Great American Desert. It really is not a desert but a prairie. To a person who lived all their life in a wooded area, the prairie would look like a desert. Colorado’s prairies can actually be rather beautiful at certain times of the year. Many different kinds of wildlife inhabit the prairie especially back in the 1880s. It was too bad that Mrs. Green was too homesick and depressed to marvel at the different land that she now had a chance to experience. Though I do understand her feelings because that is how I felt when I moved from Colorado to Virginia. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Susan Shelby Magoffin seemed to have adapted to her life in Santa Fe New Mexico. I liked how she was happy to embrace the company of her family and friends. I thought her descriptions of the people she encountered were wonderful. I felt it showed just how much she enjoyed her new experiences.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I also was surprised to read such a positive account from an immigrant coming to America. Although her trip over to New York sounded very difficult she is remarkably cheerful throughout the letter and credits God for getting her through the journey. In response to Juliann’s comment I’m guessing that Ms. Saehle is pleased with her $1.00 a week wages because they were more than she would have been able to earn in Norway. At the end of her letter Ms. Saehle makes a note that she received three acres of land for her work as a servant to the Torjersen family. Was giving land to new immigrants a common way to reimburse them? This form of reimbursement seems like an excellent way to help immigrants start their new lives in America. -Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Also in regards to Jannicke Saehle's wage, I think she would be happy with the amount because she has the opportunity to earn a raise. This is probably something that wouldn't have happened in Norway. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
When reading Sanger's (Woloch) documentation of New York prostitutes I was wondering why he was so sympathetic? Perhaps it is also a reflection of Sanger's view towards women (women were too weak to resist temptation or seduction)? - F. Cobb</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/CommentsWeek 11 Questions/Comments2007-11-08T05:11:59Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>I really enjoyed reading the account of Jannicke Saehle. She was so happy and enthusiastic in her letter to her brother. Though she was sick for four days of the voyage, she did not mind. She was so excited to be on her way to America. We discussed in class that many unmarried immigrant women suffered tremendously on their voyage over and upon their arrival. I realize this was true of most immigrant women, however, I found it refreshing to read such a positive account.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
When reading Jannicke Saehle's letter to her brother in the piece titled, "A Norwegian Immigrant in Wisconsin," I was shocked about how cheerful she was regarding her situation. She was thrilled to be making 1 dollar a week, which was strange to me, for many women mentioned in Sanger's study had made the same salary, had found it insufficient and thus decided to become prostitutes. Perhaps Saehle is so positive about her experience because she had just recently arrived in America, and had yet to encounter some of the harsh realities that other immigrants in New York faced. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I agree with Juliann. Jannicke probably was naïve to the realities of her new home. But how wonderful to be as optimistic as she seems to be.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
There is also the very real possibility that she did not want to worry her family members at home with a long list of the bad parts of her new life so she focused on the positives. If she was like the other women who left Europe for America then the conditions in her homeland were such that warranted her leaving and trying to make her own in the world. Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
When reading Xin Jin's Contract, I remembered what Dr. McClurken had said about how the Chinese were the most exploited of all the immigrant groups. Although, in the contract, it mentions that Xin Jin had volunteered in her service of prostitution to pay off her debt, more than likely, there was manipulation going on there. How can someone consent when they don't understand what is being said to them? The language barrier alone must have been a reason why so many Chinese immigrants initially had "consented" to prostitution. I was a little disturbed when I read the part in her contract where it mentions additional work time in the instances of sickness or pregnancy, in that profession, how can one expect not to face such obstacles? When reading this piece, I got the impression that prostitution was an endless reality for many of the immigrant Chinese women, one without pay or hope of successfully getting out. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I was surprised at how similar all of the prostitution contracts were. Pretty much all of them referred to four or four and a half years of service, time off for the four diseases, if she is sick for more than 15 days then she works for a month extra and if she is pregnant she will serve an extra year. Was it such a regular and established practice that everyone already knew the "going rate?"--Alex K.<br />
<br />
When reading "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862," I found it interesting that the person writing this was so outraged by the soldier's rape of Indian squaws. The writer goes as far as to ask that if the Lieutenant of the soldiers was present during this rape, that his rank and position be stripped of him. I wonder if the writer would have had the same reaction had it been black women rather than Indian women who were raped.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Mrs. Green’s Account of Frontier Life in Colorado, 1887, did not surprise me how she felt about Colorado’s Great American Desert. It really is not a desert but a prairie. To a person who lived all their life in a wooded area, the prairie would look like a desert. Colorado’s prairies can actually be rather beautiful at certain times of the year. Many different kinds of wildlife inhabit the prairie especially back in the 1880s. It was too bad that Mrs. Green was too homesick and depressed to marvel at the different land that she now had a chance to experience. Though I do understand her feelings because that is how I felt when I moved from Colorado to Virginia. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Susan Shelby Magoffin seemed to have adapted to her life in Santa Fe New Mexico. I liked how she was happy to embrace the company of her family and friends. I thought her descriptions of the people she encountered were wonderful. I felt it showed just how much she enjoyed her new experiences.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I also was surprised to read such a positive account from an immigrant coming to America. Although her trip over to New York sounded very difficult she is remarkably cheerful throughout the letter and credits God for getting her through the journey. In response to Juliann’s comment I’m guessing that Ms. Saehle is pleased with her $1.00 a week wages because they were more than she would have been able to earn in Norway. At the end of her letter Ms. Saehle makes a note that she received three acres of land for her work as a servant to the Torjersen family. Was giving land to new immigrants a common way to reimburse them? This form of reimbursement seems like an excellent way to help immigrants start their new lives in America. -Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Also in regards to Jannicke Saehle's wage, I think she would be happy with the amount because she has the opportunity to earn a raise. This is probably something that wouldn't have happened in Norway. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
When reading Sanger's (Woloch) documentation of New York prostitutes I was wondering why he was so sympathetic? Perhaps it is also a reflection of Sanger's view towards women (women were too weak to resist temptation or seduction)? - F. Cobb</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/CommentsWeek 10 Questions/Comments2007-11-01T07:07:34Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>Woloch’s book--I found the reading The Cruel Mistress, to be a form of abolitionist propaganda to raise the argument about how inhumane slavery is. Angelina Grimke Weld would give great credibility to the abolitionist movement because of her observations of the southern community as she was once a southern herself. These observations are highly detailed as if it was fresh from her memories yet these accounts in her memories are at least fourteen years old. Thus it begs the question, did these mistresses really conduct themselves this way according to what Weld had witnessed? Are her memories that reliable? Or are these observations, in how mistresses treated their slaves, facts or exaggerations of the facts? –John Furner <br />
<br />
I think it is likely that these mistresses did conduct themselves in a way very similar to Weld's accounts even though a decent amount of time had passed between when she had witnessed the actions and when she recorded them for publishing. The treatment that she described I believe was very common of the slave owners to not see their slaves as fully human and therefore not treat them as such. However, the treatment that stood out most to me during this entry was how the mistress would not beat the slaves herself but have that slave's brother or sister beat them. I would think this would make them want to act out more.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
As much as I doubt Grimke was lying, as something of an expatriate from Southern society, she had reason to make the South and slavery seem worse than it was, and her own interactions were certainly not the most positive with the institution.--A. Meyer. <br />
<br />
I think we also have to remember that these accounts were used as propaganada while, Grimke might not be lying, she could be emphasizing specific parts and down playing others to get her point across that slavery is inhumane and turns even women, who are suppose to be always loving and nurturing and supportive into the cruelest of misstresses. -Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I think another interesting aspect of Weld reading was that the "Cruel Mistress" was a very devoutly religious person and was actively Christian. Though this seems to be contradictory, it just shows (as previously mentioned) that slave owners did not view their slaves as people. The Cruel Mistress did not feel that her Christian charity included African Americans, only white people. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
I agree with both the points made about “The Cruel Mistress.” I definitely agree about it seeming like a propaganda piece. As Andrea said, Weld probably wasn’t lying, but I think that since she was a Southern expatriate, she certainly could have been spicing up her observations in order to further her cause. I was also stricken by the religious aspect that Weld brings up and agree with the point that F. Cobb makes about the Mistress only thinking of white people as human beings. It seems to me that people are always talking about how God loves everyone equally in church. If this was the case back then, I feel like The Cruel Mistress probably would not have been treating her slaves so harshly. -- Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
Donald Matthew's Religion in the Old South discusses this idea of the cruel owner, and even the owner in general as a person practicing cruel activities who is so religious, and the hypocrisy. Matthews develops the idea that the slaves are being "saved" and it's the duty of the Southerners, who are in a unique position to be trying to help their slaves, which the North "can't" understand. I think "The Cruel Mistress" fits very nicely with his ideas about how frustrated Southerners were. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book I was intreged by Sarah Haynesworth Gayle's diary entries. She sounded hurt by the actions of her slaves, as if she considered them to be her wayward children in a way. It goes back to what we discussed in class about the idea that slaveowners believed they were "helping" their slaves and that the slaves owed their masters for that. She sounded very disappointed for instance when some of her slaves started slacking off in their tasks as it were, and then she had to sell one of her favorite slaves because of it. I guess it is one thing to hear it in class and another in writing from the time the idea that they couldnt understand why the slaves would be unhappy. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mary, I was pretty bewildered by Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves. She says "it will not pain me now to part with the negroes... excessive indulgence has ruined them - they are idle yet full of complaints... I doubt if any of them would not believe a change of ownership could benefit them." She seems pretty annoyed at their behavior with this statement. She's almost getting sick of their attitude - and that leads me to what we discussed in class about white thoughts of slaves being like children. Gayle is getting sick of their attitude and is two seconds away from putting them in a time-out; it's just in this case the time-out is being sold to a different owner. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Continuing with what Vanessa and Mary have said, I thought that Gayle's entries excellently demonstrated the seemingly-contradictory attitudes towards slaves as both children and property. Vanessa compares Gayle to a mother frustrated with her wayward children, yet most mothers would still be pained by permanently parting with even the most disagreeable child. It's interesting to see how Gayle goes back and forth between affection and dismissal of her slaves depending on the circumstances. I also noticed that Gayle found some of her own self-worth in the respect of her slaves. She wrote, "I no longer feel confident that my orders will be obeyed, and often when they are the obedience is accompanied by murmuring, sour looks, and often surly language, that almost put me beside myself." She seems to be questioning her own abilities as a result of the slaves' disobedience. What did other people think about this? --Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I would like to build off of what Ashley wrote. I recall that in this reading Gayle was very concerned about having her salves obey her because of how her parents raised her and the slaves. When she was growing up her parents were very strict on the slaves. However, when she became the owner of these slaves she seems to think that they are constantly "testing" her. She sounds like a frustrated preschool teacher. -- Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
I agree with Mary, I think that it was interesting that Sarah Haynesworth Gayle was shocked that her slaves would rebell against her because it reflects the ideas we talked about in class where the masters would believe they were helping the slaves and they should be greatful. What also surprised me about this excerpt was that it shows that personal attachments between masters slaves did happen. Maybe these are just superficial attachments that don't really count as friendships, but it's closer than I would have initally thought possible. She made it seem like she cared about her slave Mike and thought about him long after he had gone. This is probably rare, but this shows that it did happen. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I feel as though Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves were originally somewhat atypical. She seemed to really care about her slaves and not really want seem like the overbearing plantation mistress. However, when the slaves began to rebel in minor ways, like we learned in class, I believe her feelings became just. I know this sounds kind of awful, but really, what's the point of having domestic help if they're not going to do anything? Gayle even mentions that her servants were driving her crazy because for about four months they have done absolutely nothing. It kind of shows that shift towards the rebellious nature of slaves and the way they affected their masters in minor ways instead of an all out revolt. - Kelly W <br />
<br />
As Kelly pointed out, you can definitely see a form of slave resistance in the diary of Sarah Haynesworth Gayle. She notes that she doesn't know if her orders will be obeyed, and if they are, they are typically accompanied with murmuring and sour looks. Also, they were sluggish and inattentive. As we've learned through Prof McClurken's lectures, this was a way for a slave to maintain some form of dignity and self-respect.- Lisa W <br />
<br />
In "The Cruel Mistress" by Angelina Weld, I found it shocking how slave adults and children were treated the same when it came to punishment. From a slaveowner's point of view, it would make sense to me that if someone was your "property" that you would want to keep that "property" in the best shape possible, because then from a business perspective, you could get the most use out of "it". This makes me wonder why such drastic beating occurred for minor offenses? Flogging a slave until he/she can't work doesn't help anything. The master would lose money for the time the slave could not work and had to recover from the harsh beating. It is implied that children were severly whipped and harshly scolded, as well. Again, this does not make sense. You would want your "property" to grow big and strong, not take a chance at beating him/her to a bloody pulp and risk killing off such a valuable investment.- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
Woloch’ Book—Reading Louisa S. Cheeves McCord attack on Stowe was a bit difficult to swallow. It seems to me that she plays right into the Patriarchal system of having to assume the role to take care of those less fortunate. Otherwise, she attempts to give credence to southern white man’s burden for the purpose to have slaves. I find it amusing when she writes, “We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless.” (219) Why I find this amusing is that she believes the white race must assume a god like status in the care of the less fortunate, thereby the less fortunate group could only prosper in a civilized world, if they were enslaved by the white race; white man’s burden. However, if the white race were so godlike or given providence as she claims, then why are southern slave owners dependant on slaves for their very existence?—John Furner<br />
<br />
When I read that quote by McCord I immediately thought of paternalism in that they truly believed they were helping the less fortunate who could not care for themselves. She goes on to say that "slavery, even in his own land, is his destiny and his refuge from extinction." --Alex K. <br />
<br />
Alex, that's a really interesting quote and i think it emphasizes that the planters really believed that enslaving these people was right, that they were saving them from a horrible fate. I wonder how the idea of their slaves as not really human comes into play in this mentality. -Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I had a hard time understanding McCord's arguments. She put forth a conservative viewpoint that did not necessarily match her own power. McCord was educated, managed her own plantation with 200 slaves (until her marriage) and had a public forum for her opinions. She received most of her education in the North. Knowing how deep racism was ingrained in the southern lifestyle, I still expected a more enlightened view from a woman of such independence. -- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I thought that is was interesting that McCord argued about how slavery is the fundamental purpose of Africans and African-Americans. Therefore McCord was claiming that Stowe, in wanting to free these people, was not only ignorant of the reason for these people's existence she was also going against nature. -- Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
In this week’s readings we see the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse and sexual exploitation of black women. Even whites were morally opposed to the institution of slavery as seen by Mary Chestnut’s diary. I was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women. I knew it was a practice, however I was under the impression that slave breeding was not very popular, and mostly masters relied on natural reproduction. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of slave breeding? In the essay by Jennings, she explicitly discusses the role of white, slave owners in the sexual abuse of women. Did masters rape and abuse women simply because they could or did the sexual stereotypes of African American women of the time (“animal – like”, foreign, African queens, exotic, sexually aggressive, etc.) play into it? How did mistresses react to the relationships between masters and female slaves and illegitimate children? Are there examples of mistresses mistreating a woman she suspected was sleeping with her husband (I know Weld discusses the “cruel mistress” but I did not get the impression that her violence was deemed inappropriate or based on accusations of infidelity). Was there any advantage(s) to sleeping with the master? -Mary Beth D.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mary Beth, having to do with the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse of black men...I too was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women, and thought it was less popular than portrayed in the reading. It was a bit of a surprise to me...-Katie D.<br />
<br />
In regards to slave breeding, I think the white masters forced it upon their slaves for purely economic reasons. Slaves were expensive to buy and they wouldn't have to buy them if they were born into slavery. They wanted the "strong, stoutly" slaves to reproduce with one another so they would have strong children to work for them. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
In Rose William's Story, that deals with an important issue of the extent to which slave owners interfered in slave familty life and encouraged slaves to reproduce...I enjoyed reading how it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children, and child bearing increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the liklihood of her sale and separation from family members. It was in the owners interest to encourage reproduction and thereby increase the extent of his slave property.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
I know that this is going to sound horrible and in many ways wrong, but the slave holders viewed their slaves as property, almost on the same grounds as cattle, right? That being said, maybe in thier minds they saw the breeding of slaves as nothing more then a farmer would see breeding cattle. Making sure the bloodlines were such that the product of the union will be of value and also insuring a certain number of offspring being born. As I said it sounds horrible but who knows what they might have been thinking, wrong thinking seems to be common place for slaveholders. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary. Slave owners did consider their slaves as livestock. If he manages to get a good breeding pair, it would save him a lot of money. If I were Rose, I would have felt sorely tempted to run that hot poker through the master and than Rufus. I admire the fact that Rose can be quite an understanding person. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I personally admired Rose for sticking up for herself as much as she did. She refused to be bullied by Rufus, and even waited until her master told her personally that he wanted her to have children to accept her fate. She talked to the mistress and still waited for further conformation. I realize she had no choice but to be with the man her master choose but kudos to her for trying to stick up for herself. -- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
Rose's story was indeed a very good example of how slave owners envisioned slaves as a very good investment and that the female slaves would indeed reproduce and, in turn, increase the number of slaves on one owner's property without the owner having to pay anything more. I felt bad that the master manipulated Rose, however, but I can completely understand how she felt she owed her master in return for keeping her with her family. It seemed like a very bizarre situation and it makes me wonder, was this typical? Were slaves normally made to feel guilty in order to obey their master, aside from the usual whipping or beating? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
Before I read Rose's account, I had no idea that slave women were bred like cattle. If a woman cannot even control her sexual fate, then she is stripped of all her dignity. I can understand why Rose would never want to be with another man, for as a young girl she was stripped of all her ability to trust and appreciate the goodness of loving relationships. An experience, such as Rose's, can really harden the soul, especially when you are too young to even fully understand.~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I was saddened by Rose's story for a variety of reasons, but I particularly noticed her choice never to marry because "one 'sperience am 'nough for dis nigger. After what I does for de massa, I's never wants no truck with any man." I wonder if it was common for women used in such a way at a young age to avoid sexual relations permanently. --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's comment, I was amazed at how Rose's master, who she identified as one of the good ones, could be so manipulative to force an innocent girl into an unwanted sexual relationship. Just reading these accounts really puts some things into perspective. Although we discussed the paternalism in southern society, when it comes down to it, these slaves were not even treated as well as children, but rather were on the same level as dogs. Despite this debasement of humanity, enslavement was all most of them knew, which is why I was not too surprised when I read Lucinda's request to be re-enslaved in VA. It is the same reason that so many slaves stayed on after the war as sharecroppers. Slavery was as much an important part of their way of life as it was to the white southerners who owned them. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
<br />
In the readings one of the things that stood out the most to me was in Modern Problems the article by Mrs. Virgina Hayes Shepard when she mentions Diana. I was surprised to see that when the master went to Diana to have sexual relations with her Diana actually went to her mistress for help. I thought that white mistresses would react badly to the idea that their husbands would be sleeping with the slaves but in DIana's case the mistress sympathized instead of becoming angry. It is stated that in part this is because she was also afraid of her husband. Is it possible that this is more common than we know because both the slave women and the mistresses were scared to bring it up?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I think that Diana would be the exception to the rule. In class we talked about how severe racial hierarchy was and while both women and African Americans were oppressed they did not form a bond. I think that white women more frequently used slaves to exercise the limited power to which they had access (like in Cruel Mistress). -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I thought the document titled "Lucinda, a Free Woman, Asks to Be Reenslaved" was really interesting. She probably thought about what her life would be like for her as a free Black woman, and she probably realized that there weren't that she wouldn't have a very good life. Her life as a slave might be slightly better than her life as a free Black woman because as a slave she was with her husband, had a small place to live and got some food. Her situation is similar to the situation of some criminals today. Sometimes criminals who have just been released from jail want to go right back to jail, because they might have a better life in jail than out of it. In jail, they at least have a roof over their head and food to eat. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I too was intrigued with Lucinda's plea to be reenslaved. I'm not sure I would say that she thought life would be "better" for her in slavery but rather perhaps she understood that in slvary she would find some sense of security. She would be reunited with her husband but at the same time there was no telling that he wouldn't be sold to another owner at some later point in time. I think it's difficult to understand or identitfy what Lucinda's rationing was in asking to be reenslaved other than the fact that she would be reunited with her husband.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I agree with Katherine. Lucinda probably felt like life would be too difficult for her in a state she wasn't familiar with and with people she didn't know. It would be difficult and scary to leave behind everything you know. It is also interesting to see a relationship of obvious affection if not love between slaves on different farms. However, why doesn't the book tell us what happens? I think the decision made by the commonwealth would be really interesting to read. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
I have a question - Lucinda petitioned to be reenslaved so that she could be with her husband; she didn't want to be sent off somewhere so she could be free and leave him where he was. How typical was this? Is this an abnormal situation or were emancipated slaves really asking for this sort of treatment regularly? I feel as though this would be somewhat bizarre but I could be wrong. Thoughts? Answers? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this answers your question Kelly, but I seem to remember reading that the freed blacks in the area had to move either out of the area or out of the state. I am not sure if this was common or even reinforced but I think that is why she had to petition to get back into slavery.-- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I thought Lucinda’s story was pretty intriguing too. Here she is with a chance for freedom, but is asking to be re-enslaved. I guess you guys have already said it all, but I guess the sense of security outweighed the appeal of freedom for her. I just found the whole thing to be interesting because there was no guarantee that her husband would not be sold to another farm or plantation. I wonder if there are any other records about this case. --Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I realize this may be a dumb question but here it goes anyway, why are there such discrepancies among masters and their treatment of slaves? Are there any similiarities or connections among slave owners who were "kinder" to their slaves or among those masters who were unbearable? Were some more religious than others, did the age of the master play a role, the location, etc.? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was rather intrigued by the contrasting essays on freed black women, in Major Problems in American Women’s History. The first essay that should the devotion and love a freed slave had for her husband was very heart warming. She was willing to give up freedom in order to be with her love. Then there are the next two essays that inspire free slave women to rally together and free all the slaves. These last two essays cause me to believe that these women were highly educated because of the language they use to inspire others.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Wow. The essay that "Implores Other Free Black Women" to sign a petition to end slavery in D.C. is not so much imploring as yelling. I felt ashamed and lazy just reading it! This is really powerful writing and it is really very different from what I would have expected. The writer is obviously well educated, especially since they claim to be not only a woman but black as well. --Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison. The woman who wrote this obviously well educated, and she practically accuses all readers that they are slaves themselves - "a slave to hardness of heart." She's got some powerful words coming into play in this essay but she almost gets to the point of offensive. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Thelma Jennings essay, "The Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women," really hits home all the major points of this topic we discussed in class. Like the idea of female slaves having a tougher life than male slaves because not only did they have to do the work equal of men, but they also had to bear and raise children and also "cope with sexual abuse" by their masters. And the idea of "slave breeding" affected the family life too - it "made it very difficult for couples to establish family relationships." The whole female gender role system we often place on women of modern times and white women of the period is completely disrupted and destroyed for black slave women. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I was a bit confused by something in the reading that seemed contradictory. In the author's description of the "Rose William's Story" piece, he explains that it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children because it increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the likelihood of her sale and separation from family members. Then in the essay by Thelma Jennings she talks about women who practiced crude methods of birth control and abortion and inducing miscarriages as a form of passive resistance. She explains that this was common in a time when childbirth was dangerous and children could be sold at the master's whim. So which is it? Can it be both? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
The pros and cons of childbirth were weighed differently by different women. While one woman might view having a child as extra security, another might view childbirth, especially in the case of breeding, as further oppression. Forcing pregnancy on a woman against her will is a violation of the inalienable human right to choose your sexual partner, so some women would silently rebel through birth control methods. Although most women could not prevent a forced sexual encounter, they could, to some degree control the fate of that encounter. To successfully survive, a woman needed to learn how to exert some control over her future. As Alex pointed out, the method of control varied with the experience of the woman. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
Its interesting to see the distinction between religious life of slaves and free-blacks. Rose Williams stated, "Church? Shucks, we-uns don't know what that means." Whereas for Mary Still, organized religion is a big deal. It was also interesting to see how "A Colored Woman" calls people slaves -slaves to their hard hearts. Although I think her condemnation of many who seem apathetic is maybe a bit out of place. Those free-blacks probably had a pretty good sense that their freedom was not necessarily set in stone, and if by some unfortunate circumstance they were to be enslaved, I don't think there would have been much of an investigation. At the same time, her sense of urgency and power, though, are probably necessary to get people to act. -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
In Sarah Haynesworth Gayle’s diary I wonder what “excessive indulgences” she was referring to that had made her slaves lazy, full of complaints, and defensive. Sarah later blames her parents for her slaves disobeying her twenty-five years later because as a child her parents prevented her from abusing them. When Sarah describes how she was unfairly treated by her parents compared to the slaves she sounds like a child who is jealous of an older sibling. Sarah Gayle also seems to have less control over her life than other women we’ve read about. For instance in another diary entry she writes about being too afraid to ask her husband where they are going to move and seems to accept the fact that he will make the decision without her input. -Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Reading Rose William's story in Woloch made me wonder how it would feel to produce a child knowing that it was to be born into a life of slavery. It is almost certain that your child will suffer their whole life under that cruel system, so it was interesting to hear the motivations placed behind it to try and make it desirable. For many slaves, I would imagine this as the hardest decision they were to make in their lives. --Robert Kopp</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/CommentsWeek 10 Questions/Comments2007-11-01T06:53:44Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>Woloch’s book--I found the reading The Cruel Mistress, to be a form of abolitionist propaganda to raise the argument about how inhumane slavery is. Angelina Grimke Weld would give great credibility to the abolitionist movement because of her observations of the southern community as she was once a southern herself. These observations are highly detailed as if it was fresh from her memories yet these accounts in her memories are at least fourteen years old. Thus it begs the question, did these mistresses really conduct themselves this way according to what Weld had witnessed? Are her memories that reliable? Or are these observations, in how mistresses treated their slaves, facts or exaggerations of the facts? –John Furner <br />
<br />
I think it is likely that these mistresses did conduct themselves in a way very similar to Weld's accounts even though a decent amount of time had passed between when she had witnessed the actions and when she recorded them for publishing. The treatment that she described I believe was very common of the slave owners to not see their slaves as fully human and therefore not treat them as such. However, the treatment that stood out most to me during this entry was how the mistress would not beat the slaves herself but have that slave's brother or sister beat them. I would think this would make them want to act out more.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
As much as I doubt Grimke was lying, as something of an expatriate from Southern society, she had reason to make the South and slavery seem worse than it was, and her own interactions were certainly not the most positive with the institution.--A. Meyer. <br />
<br />
I think we also have to remember that these accounts were used as propaganada while, Grimke might not be lying, she could be emphasizing specific parts and down playing others to get her point across that slavery is inhumane and turns even women, who are suppose to be always loving and nurturing and supportive into the cruelest of misstresses. -Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I think another interesting aspect of Weld reading was that the "Cruel Mistress" was a very devoutly religious person and was actively Christian. Though this seems to be contradictory, it just shows (as previously mentioned) that slave owners did not view their slaves as people. The Cruel Mistress did not feel that her Christian charity included African Americans, only white people. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
I agree with both the points made about “The Cruel Mistress.” I definitely agree about it seeming like a propaganda piece. As Andrea said, Weld probably wasn’t lying, but I think that since she was a Southern expatriate, she certainly could have been spicing up her observations in order to further her cause. I was also stricken by the religious aspect that Weld brings up and agree with the point that F. Cobb makes about the Mistress only thinking of white people as human beings. It seems to me that people are always talking about how God loves everyone equally in church. If this was the case back then, I feel like The Cruel Mistress probably would not have been treating her slaves so harshly. -- Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
Donald Matthew's Religion in the Old South discusses this idea of the cruel owner, and even the owner in general as a person practicing cruel activities who is so religious, and the hypocrisy. Matthews develops the idea that the slaves are being "saved" and it's the duty of the Southerners, who are in a unique position to be trying to help their slaves, which the North "can't" understand. I think "The Cruel Mistress" fits very nicely with his ideas about how frustrated Southerners were. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book I was intreged by Sarah Haynesworth Gayle's diary entries. She sounded hurt by the actions of her slaves, as if she considered them to be her wayward children in a way. It goes back to what we discussed in class about the idea that slaveowners believed they were "helping" their slaves and that the slaves owed their masters for that. She sounded very disappointed for instance when some of her slaves started slacking off in their tasks as it were, and then she had to sell one of her favorite slaves because of it. I guess it is one thing to hear it in class and another in writing from the time the idea that they couldnt understand why the slaves would be unhappy. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mary, I was pretty bewildered by Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves. She says "it will not pain me now to part with the negroes... excessive indulgence has ruined them - they are idle yet full of complaints... I doubt if any of them would not believe a change of ownership could benefit them." She seems pretty annoyed at their behavior with this statement. She's almost getting sick of their attitude - and that leads me to what we discussed in class about white thoughts of slaves being like children. Gayle is getting sick of their attitude and is two seconds away from putting them in a time-out; it's just in this case the time-out is being sold to a different owner. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Continuing with what Vanessa and Mary have said, I thought that Gayle's entries excellently demonstrated the seemingly-contradictory attitudes towards slaves as both children and property. Vanessa compares Gayle to a mother frustrated with her wayward children, yet most mothers would still be pained by permanently parting with even the most disagreeable child. It's interesting to see how Gayle goes back and forth between affection and dismissal of her slaves depending on the circumstances. I also noticed that Gayle found some of her own self-worth in the respect of her slaves. She wrote, "I no longer feel confident that my orders will be obeyed, and often when they are the obedience is accompanied by murmuring, sour looks, and often surly language, that almost put me beside myself." She seems to be questioning her own abilities as a result of the slaves' disobedience. What did other people think about this? --Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I would like to build off of what Ashley wrote. I recall that in this reading Gayle was very concerned about having her salves obey her because of how her parents raised her and the slaves. When she was growing up her parents were very strict on the slaves. However, when she became the owner of these slaves she seems to think that they are constantly "testing" her. She sounds like a frustrated preschool teacher. -- Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
I agree with Mary, I think that it was interesting that Sarah Haynesworth Gayle was shocked that her slaves would rebell against her because it reflects the ideas we talked about in class where the masters would believe they were helping the slaves and they should be greatful. What also surprised me about this excerpt was that it shows that personal attachments between masters slaves did happen. Maybe these are just superficial attachments that don't really count as friendships, but it's closer than I would have initally thought possible. She made it seem like she cared about her slave Mike and thought about him long after he had gone. This is probably rare, but this shows that it did happen. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I feel as though Gayle's attitudes towards her slaves were originally somewhat atypical. She seemed to really care about her slaves and not really want seem like the overbearing plantation mistress. However, when the slaves began to rebel in minor ways, like we learned in class, I believe her feelings became just. I know this sounds kind of awful, but really, what's the point of having domestic help if they're not going to do anything? Gayle even mentions that her servants were driving her crazy because for about four months they have done absolutely nothing. It kind of shows that shift towards the rebellious nature of slaves and the way they affected their masters in minor ways instead of an all out revolt. - Kelly W <br />
<br />
As Kelly pointed out, you can definitely see a form of slave resistance in the diary of Sarah Haynesworth Gayle. She notes that she doesn't know if her orders will be obeyed, and if they are, they are typically accompanied with murmuring and sour looks. Also, they were sluggish and inattentive. As we've learned through Prof McClurken's lectures, this was a way for a slave to maintain some form of dignity and self-respect.- Lisa W <br />
<br />
In "The Cruel Mistress" by Angelina Weld, I found it shocking how slave adults and children were treated the same when it came to punishment. From a slaveowner's point of view, it would make sense to me that if someone was your "property" that you would want to keep that "property" in the best shape possible, because then from a business perspective, you could get the most use out of "it". This makes me wonder why such drastic beating occurred for minor offenses? Flogging a slave until he/she can't work doesn't help anything. The master would lose money for the time the slave could not work and had to recover from the harsh beating. It is implied that children were severly whipped and harshly scolded, as well. Again, this does not make sense. You would want your "property" to grow big and strong, not take a chance at beating him/her to a bloody pulp and risk killing off such a valuable investment.- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
Woloch’ Book—Reading Louisa S. Cheeves McCord attack on Stowe was a bit difficult to swallow. It seems to me that she plays right into the Patriarchal system of having to assume the role to take care of those less fortunate. Otherwise, she attempts to give credence to southern white man’s burden for the purpose to have slaves. I find it amusing when she writes, “We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless.” (219) Why I find this amusing is that she believes the white race must assume a god like status in the care of the less fortunate, thereby the less fortunate group could only prosper in a civilized world, if they were enslaved by the white race; white man’s burden. However, if the white race were so godlike or given providence as she claims, then why are southern slave owners dependant on slaves for their very existence?—John Furner<br />
<br />
When I read that quote by McCord I immediately thought of paternalism in that they truly believed they were helping the less fortunate who could not care for themselves. She goes on to say that "slavery, even in his own land, is his destiny and his refuge from extinction." --Alex K. <br />
<br />
Alex, that's a really interesting quote and i think it emphasizes that the planters really believed that enslaving these people was right, that they were saving them from a horrible fate. I wonder how the idea of their slaves as not really human comes into play in this mentality. -Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I had a hard time understanding McCord's arguments. She put forth a conservative viewpoint that did not necessarily match her own power. McCord was educated, managed her own plantation with 200 slaves (until her marriage) and had a public forum for her opinions. She received most of her education in the North. Knowing how deep racism was ingrained in the southern lifestyle, I still expected a more enlightened view from a woman of such independence. -- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
In this week’s readings we see the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse and sexual exploitation of black women. Even whites were morally opposed to the institution of slavery as seen by Mary Chestnut’s diary. I was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women. I knew it was a practice, however I was under the impression that slave breeding was not very popular, and mostly masters relied on natural reproduction. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of slave breeding? In the essay by Jennings, she explicitly discusses the role of white, slave owners in the sexual abuse of women. Did masters rape and abuse women simply because they could or did the sexual stereotypes of African American women of the time (“animal – like”, foreign, African queens, exotic, sexually aggressive, etc.) play into it? How did mistresses react to the relationships between masters and female slaves and illegitimate children? Are there examples of mistresses mistreating a woman she suspected was sleeping with her husband (I know Weld discusses the “cruel mistress” but I did not get the impression that her violence was deemed inappropriate or based on accusations of infidelity). Was there any advantage(s) to sleeping with the master? -Mary Beth D.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mary Beth, having to do with the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse of black men...I too was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women, and thought it was less popular than portrayed in the reading. It was a bit of a surprise to me...-Katie D.<br />
<br />
In regards to slave breeding, I think the white masters forced it upon their slaves for purely economic reasons. Slaves were expensive to buy and they wouldn't have to buy them if they were born into slavery. They wanted the "strong, stoutly" slaves to reproduce with one another so they would have strong children to work for them. - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
In Rose William's Story, that deals with an important issue of the extent to which slave owners interfered in slave familty life and encouraged slaves to reproduce...I enjoyed reading how it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children, and child bearing increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the liklihood of her sale and separation from family members. It was in the owners interest to encourage reproduction and thereby increase the extent of his slave property.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
I know that this is going to sound horrible and in many ways wrong, but the slave holders viewed their slaves as property, almost on the same grounds as cattle, right? That being said, maybe in thier minds they saw the breeding of slaves as nothing more then a farmer would see breeding cattle. Making sure the bloodlines were such that the product of the union will be of value and also insuring a certain number of offspring being born. As I said it sounds horrible but who knows what they might have been thinking, wrong thinking seems to be common place for slaveholders. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary. Slave owners did consider their slaves as livestock. If he manages to get a good breeding pair, it would save him a lot of money. If I were Rose, I would have felt sorely tempted to run that hot poker through the master and than Rufus. I admire the fact that Rose can be quite an understanding person. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Rose's story was indeed a very good example of how slave owners envisioned slaves as a very good investment and that the female slaves would indeed reproduce and, in turn, increase the number of slaves on one owner's property without the owner having to pay anything more. I felt bad that the master manipulated Rose, however, but I can completely understand how she felt she owed her master in return for keeping her with her family. It seemed like a very bizarre situation and it makes me wonder, was this typical? Were slaves normally made to feel guilty in order to obey their master, aside from the usual whipping or beating? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
Before I read Rose's account, I had no idea that slave women were bred like cattle. If a woman cannot even control her sexual fate, then she is stripped of all her dignity. I can understand why Rose would never want to be with another man, for as a young girl she was stripped of all her ability to trust and appreciate the goodness of loving relationships. An experience, such as Rose's, can really harden the soul, especially when you are too young to even fully understand.~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I was saddened by Rose's story for a variety of reasons, but I particularly noticed her choice never to marry because "one 'sperience am 'nough for dis nigger. After what I does for de massa, I's never wants no truck with any man." I wonder if it was common for women used in such a way at a young age to avoid sexual relations permanently. --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's comment, I was amazed at how Rose's master, who she identified as one of the good ones, could be so manipulative to force an innocent girl into an unwanted sexual relationship. Just reading these accounts really puts some things into perspective. Although we discussed the paternalism in southern society, when it comes down to it, these slaves were not even treated as well as children, but rather were on the same level as dogs. Despite this debasement of humanity, enslavement was all most of them knew, which is why I was not too surprised when I read Lucinda's request to be re-enslaved in VA. It is the same reason that so many slaves stayed on after the war as sharecroppers. Slavery was as much an important part of their way of life as it was to the white southerners who owned them. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
<br />
In the readings one of the things that stood out the most to me was in Modern Problems the article by Mrs. Virgina Hayes Shepard when she mentions Diana. I was surprised to see that when the master went to Diana to have sexual relations with her Diana actually went to her mistress for help. I thought that white mistresses would react badly to the idea that their husbands would be sleeping with the slaves but in DIana's case the mistress sympathized instead of becoming angry. It is stated that in part this is because she was also afraid of her husband. Is it possible that this is more common than we know because both the slave women and the mistresses were scared to bring it up?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I think that Diana would be the exception to the rule. In class we talked about how severe racial hierarchy was and while both women and African Americans were oppressed they did not form a bond. I think that white women more frequently used slaves to exercise the limited power to which they had access (like in Cruel Mistress). -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I thought the document titled "Lucinda, a Free Woman, Asks to Be Reenslaved" was really interesting. She probably thought about what her life would be like for her as a free Black woman, and she probably realized that there weren't that she wouldn't have a very good life. Her life as a slave might be slightly better than her life as a free Black woman because as a slave she was with her husband, had a small place to live and got some food. Her situation is similar to the situation of some criminals today. Sometimes criminals who have just been released from jail want to go right back to jail, because they might have a better life in jail than out of it. In jail, they at least have a roof over their head and food to eat. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I too was intrigued with Lucinda's plea to be reenslaved. I'm not sure I would say that she thought life would be "better" for her in slavery but rather perhaps she understood that in slvary she would find some sense of security. She would be reunited with her husband but at the same time there was no telling that he wouldn't be sold to another owner at some later point in time. I think it's difficult to understand or identitfy what Lucinda's rationing was in asking to be reenslaved other than the fact that she would be reunited with her husband.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I agree with Katherine. Lucinda probably felt like life would be too difficult for her in a state she wasn't familiar with and with people she didn't know. It would be difficult and scary to leave behind everything you know. It is also interesting to see a relationship of obvious affection if not love between slaves on different farms. However, why doesn't the book tell us what happens? I think the decision made by the commonwealth would be really interesting to read. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
I have a question - Lucinda petitioned to be reenslaved so that she could be with her husband; she didn't want to be sent off somewhere so she could be free and leave him where he was. How typical was this? Is this an abnormal situation or were emancipated slaves really asking for this sort of treatment regularly? I feel as though this would be somewhat bizarre but I could be wrong. Thoughts? Answers? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I thought Lucinda’s story was pretty intriguing too. Here she is with a chance for freedom, but is asking to be re-enslaved. I guess you guys have already said it all, but I guess the sense of security outweighed the appeal of freedom for her. I just found the whole thing to be interesting because there was no guarantee that her husband would not be sold to another farm or plantation. I wonder if there are any other records about this case. --Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I realize this may be a dumb question but here it goes anyway, why are there such discrepancies among masters and their treatment of slaves? Are there any similiarities or connections among slave owners who were "kinder" to their slaves or among those masters who were unbearable? Were some more religious than others, did the age of the master play a role, the location, etc.? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was rather intrigued by the contrasting essays on freed black women, in Major Problems in American Women’s History. The first essay that should the devotion and love a freed slave had for her husband was very heart warming. She was willing to give up freedom in order to be with her love. Then there are the next two essays that inspire free slave women to rally together and free all the slaves. These last two essays cause me to believe that these women were highly educated because of the language they use to inspire others.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Wow. The essay that "Implores Other Free Black Women" to sign a petition to end slavery in D.C. is not so much imploring as yelling. I felt ashamed and lazy just reading it! This is really powerful writing and it is really very different from what I would have expected. The writer is obviously well educated, especially since they claim to be not only a woman but black as well. --Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison. The woman who wrote this obviously well educated, and she practically accuses all readers that they are slaves themselves - "a slave to hardness of heart." She's got some powerful words coming into play in this essay but she almost gets to the point of offensive. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Thelma Jennings essay, "The Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women," really hits home all the major points of this topic we discussed in class. Like the idea of female slaves having a tougher life than male slaves because not only did they have to do the work equal of men, but they also had to bear and raise children and also "cope with sexual abuse" by their masters. And the idea of "slave breeding" affected the family life too - it "made it very difficult for couples to establish family relationships." The whole female gender role system we often place on women of modern times and white women of the period is completely disrupted and destroyed for black slave women. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I was a bit confused by something in the reading that seemed contradictory. In the author's description of the "Rose William's Story" piece, he explains that it was in a woman slave's self-interest to have children because it increased her value as a slave and thereby diminished the likelihood of her sale and separation from family members. Then in the essay by Thelma Jennings she talks about women who practiced crude methods of birth control and abortion and inducing miscarriages as a form of passive resistance. She explains that this was common in a time when childbirth was dangerous and children could be sold at the master's whim. So which is it? Can it be both? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
The pros and cons of childbirth were weighed differently by different women. While one woman might view having a child as extra security, another might view childbirth, especially in the case of breeding, as further oppression. Forcing pregnancy on a woman against her will is a violation of the inalienable human right to choose your sexual partner, so some women would silently rebel through birth control methods. Although most women could not prevent a forced sexual encounter, they could, to some degree control the fate of that encounter. To successfully survive, a woman needed to learn how to exert some control over her future. As Alex pointed out, the method of control varied with the experience of the woman. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
Its interesting to see the distinction between religious life of slaves and free-blacks. Rose Williams stated, "Church? Shucks, we-uns don't know what that means." Whereas for Mary Still, organized religion is a big deal. It was also interesting to see how "A Colored Woman" calls people slaves -slaves to their hard hearts. Although I think her condemnation of many who seem apathetic is maybe a bit out of place. Those free-blacks probably had a pretty good sense that their freedom was not necessarily set in stone, and if by some unfortunate circumstance they were to be enslaved, I don't think there would have been much of an investigation. At the same time, her sense of urgency and power, though, are probably necessary to get people to act. -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
In Sarah Haynesworth Gayle’s diary I wonder what “excessive indulgences” she was referring to that had made her slaves lazy, full of complaints, and defensive. Sarah later blames her parents for her slaves disobeying her twenty-five years later because as a child her parents prevented her from abusing them. When Sarah describes how she was unfairly treated by her parents compared to the slaves she sounds like a child who is jealous of an older sibling. Sarah Gayle also seems to have less control over her life than other women we’ve read about. For instance in another diary entry she writes about being too afraid to ask her husband where they are going to move and seems to accept the fact that he will make the decision without her input. -Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Reading Rose William's story in Woloch made me wonder how it would feel to produce a child knowing that it was to be born into a life of slavery. It is almost certain that your child will suffer their whole life under that cruel system, so it was interesting to hear the motivations placed behind it to try and make it desirable. For many slaves, I would imagine this as the hardest decision they were to make in their lives. --Robert Kopp</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/CommentsWeek 9 Questions/Comments2007-10-25T11:21:01Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>I’m rather amazed with the strict order imposed on a middle class housewife, as read in Catharine Beecher’s “System and Order”. Each day of the week is filled with a specific chore that is repeated the following week. It seems like such a lifestyle would become repetitious and mundane, yet Beecher refers to this “taste for regularity” as a “blessing”. How come?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I also found the piece “System and Order” by Catharine Beecher very interesting. The idea of a system for household duties and turning the house into a well-functioning, successful entity I think is reflective of the shifts going on in society. The shift from home production to office/factory production, the shift from agricultural, home-made/imported goods to finished goods made in factories, and the shift of men outside the home are all reflected in this piece. This piece reminded me of another piece I read in another class about time and how the introduction of clocks and watches placed an added stress to productivity both in factories and in the home. Similarly, women were expected to budget their time, assigning a specific amount of time per task. Beecher recommends dividing the tasks, spreading them throughout the week, and using children as a means to be more productive. Do these self-help manuals place more stress on women to live up to an ideal? Do you think Beecher’s advice intimidates women? How often was this advice practiced or did it remain an ideal? Do we see any similarities between Beecher’s advice and modern day life? –Mary Beth Dillane <br />
<br />
In regards to Mary Beth's question, I do think self-help manuals put more stress on women. Beecher's writing makes it seem that if there are any problems in the home than it is the woman's fault. According to Beecher, all a woman has to do is follow her "habit of system and order" and all should be fine. However, this obviously will not work for everyone. The proliferation of these self help manuals just perpetuates the notion of the idealized family. - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
When reading "System and Order", I found it very intersting when they said that "the success of democratic institutions all depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the mass of the people...It is equally conceded that the formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand...Let the woman of a country be made virtuous and intelligent, and the men will certainly be the same. The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a women, and the interests of a whole family are secured..." This is quite the assumption here.--Katie D.<br />
<br />
Did these strict definitions of womens' duties and the expectations of an intensely ordered household reflect an effort to balance the deferential wife? How much of the intense strictures on order attempted to show the strength and power of women because they were so limited to this realm of the domestic? Or, were those expectations of the idealized perfect home following order simply intensified when the home became the woman's sphere?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
When reading Catherine Beecher's system and order one quote really stood out to me, "It is impossible for a conscientious woman to secure that peaceful mind, and cheerful enjoyment of life, which all should seek, who is constantly finding her dutings jarring with each other, and much remaining undone, which she feels that she ought to do..." This really shocked me because it is a very woman who is saying that it is natural for women to want to do these kind of things, thats what they are best at, and thats whats best for the good of the country. Also, when she gives the weekly schedule and talks about how children should be given tasks and schedules so that daughters will know how to act when they are married, I found this again reiterated in The Rules for the School. Number 10 states "Nothing can be well done with out proper attention to regularity..." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
When reading the “Reports on Western Schools” letters from two teachers to Catharine Beecher, it is interesting to see the stark contrast of experiences. The first teacher seems to have zero amenities. She uses a “single board for a writing desk, a few bricks for andirons, and a stick of wood for shovel and tongs”. Some of her students are so poor they cannot afford shoes. She makes subtle hints that she is in need of money for purchasing suitable books, maps, slates, pencils, and paper, but we never read if she ever received any assistance. The other teacher had a new schoolhouse built for her which included writing desks and a black board. It is obvious that she is fairly well off in her new surroundings. Surprisingly, we find out that she has received some money from Mrs. Beecher which she used to purchase soap, candles, and a privacy screen. What would provoke Mrs. Beecher to give money to one of her pupils to spend personally while her other pupil is struggling to afford necessities to develop a decent school?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting, in "Reports on Western Schools", to see such a contrast in these teachers experiences. I too was wondering, along with Lisa,...if one teacher had very little ameneties, and the other was so well off...why did Mrs. Beecher give money to the teacher that was well off,to spend personally, when the other teacher was struggling to provide even a descent school?--Katie D.<br />
<br />
In regards to Katie's comment, I think Mrs. Beecher gave money to the well off teacher because of personal bias. Mrs. Beecher could have favored one teacher over another. What I also want to know about that document is why did all these women go out West on the frontier to teach, if the conditons out there were so bad? Did these women go out West for adventure and not realize what life on the frontier was like? ~K. Stinson~<br />
<br />
Catharine M. Sedgwick's journal entry "First to None" seemed much more personal than journal entries we have used as sources for this class. For example, contrasting this to Martha Ballards "diary" seems impossible because they read like two different types of sources, though they both have the same name (journal or diary). Is Sedgwick's very personal writing a sign of her affinity towards writing and bottled up private dissatisfaction, or is this more personal style of journal writing a trend in the nineteenth century?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly in the fact that Catherine Sedgwick journal is personal. She shows how deeply she feels towards her family. It seems to me that she has some regret in not getting married. Her brothers have replaced her as women of the house with their wives. She has lost her status as the house maiden. I get the feeling that she may even be jealous of the affections shown by her brothers to their wives. It must have been hard to go from being the adored sister to the old spinster.---Cheryl<br />
<br />
Going along with Kelly and Cheryl, this very personal journal really struck me. It's almost refreshing to read Sedgwick's experiences and feelings and emotions compared to some of the others we've read. She's almost allows for us to be able to relate to her more. Sometimes, for me at least, it's easy to read historical accounts and be completed disconnected from what I'm reading. But pieces like this one, as cheesy as it sounds, gives life to these people. Sedgwick's regret and maybe even jealousy, as Cheryl suggested, is something we can all relate to, even if indirectly. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
In this journal entry I really felt that this woman regretted her life and all that she had accomplished seemed to mean nothing to her. I know from another class that Sedgwick was a very popular writer in her time. Instead of reveling in her success, she dwells on what she did not have in life. I am sure that if she were to marry she would have been disappointed because just by reading this I can tell she has very high standards. --Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
In her letter from Lowell Harriet Farley writes about the "Yankee spirit" of the women in the mills. She writes using the rhetoric of the revolution (like we discussed in class) using terms like independence and freedom. It seems that the community of women provided a safe and affirming place for women to further develop and voice their beliefs. --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
Although Farley's letter was supposed to defend mill work, it seems to me that Farley was not that happy. She writes that "the girls here are not contented," her feet ache and swell, and that a woman's right hand becomes larger than her left. Maybe this life would still seem better to women who were used to working on farms? - Fiona Cobb<br />
<br />
When I read Farley's piece I thought of it as propaganda for the mill work. Since the journal it was published in was funded by mill owners themselves and this piece was a fictional correspondence. I felt like they had to include some of the negative aspects about mill life (such as their feet ache and swell) to make the piece seem more credible and realistic but the overall message was to defend the work. Any time they said something negative about the work, it was always countered with a positive that outweighed the bad point. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
While it was a step forward in the fact that some able women were able to leave the farms and work in mills and plants such as the one in Lancaster, I think it is important to remember that it was men who controlled these operations. The rules of the houses were quite rigid as to how quiet a woman must be upon entering the house, where a woman was to sit at the table, and how a woman was to behave at meal times, etc. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Reading the petition of the Cherokee women was upsetting. The women ask the chiefs and warriors of the council to reconsider parting the land which they once owned before the US government overtook it. The women do not understand what else they must do to be accepted into white culture. They express their advances from a "savage" nation to a "civilized" one. To hear them use those terms while speaking of themselves was hard to read. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Emma Willard's letter to her sister is really pretty amusing. It sounds like a really horrible thing to say to a sister about to get married, but on the other hand it doesn't sound that different than what a lot of newly divorced people would say today. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
Emma Willard shows herself as a very caring older sister who wants to protect her younger sister from getting hurt. I like the way Emma tries to soften her blows to Mr. L’s character but at the same time makes it plain to her sister that a marriage to him would be a mistake.--- Cheryl<br />
<br />
I agree Allison. I thought the letter was pretty interesting, especially after reading that Emma herself married someone who gambled away her money later on in life. It seems that she needed to follow her own advice. As far as the letter goes, I suppose it was a good thing to go into a marriage with some form of skepticism since a woman’s reputation was such a key factor in determining her place in society.—Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I too thought that Emma Willard's letter was amusing, considering that she ranted on about marriage and men, especially that she had not even met the guy yet. It sounded to me a lot like some women today's views on men and matrimony. I thought that, amusing though it was, it said a lot about the unhappiness of Emma's marriage and the changing ideas of family and marriage. In most of the letters we had read previously the center pieces in the writer's mind were her children and husband. Emma only briefly mentions her husband and child and the husband only in a complaining sort of way. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
My favorite part of the letter was that she wanted to meet the guy, I think she said something about having him come visit while her sister was there bu then she was concerned about the propriety of such an action. However, I do see this as an attempt to help her sister, it could be possible that she was just returning the favor I bet her younger sister passed judgment on the doctor before Emma married him. -- Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
It is so amazing that Amelia Knight crossed the Oregon Trail, and faced all the tribulations that this included, while pregnant! She cared for the children, walked long distances, and kept a fairly useful log of there trip with only a few mentions of being "sick." Also I really found her comments about the "romantic" hills covered with snow amusing. She can't help but put a little of her personality into this log while most of the diaries we have read have been fairly dry. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I thought Knight's log of her journey was quite fascinating as well, and I was totally surprised to find out that she was pregnant at the end! What a trooper. However, throughout the whole thing, I could not help but think that the next entry was going to say “Your oxen have died while fording the river” or “You have died of dysentery.” I suppose it’s fortunate for Amelia that my weird sense of humor didn’t play out and that she made it to Oregon after what was as her log describes as a tiresome, grueling journey. –Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I loved Knight's diary! I thought it was a unique perspective on what we know and learn about the Oregon Trail. I know everyone played that game when they were little, and that obviously aided our understanding of the dangerous trip, so reading about what this woman actually went through was fascinating. I'm astonished that this woman, after being so "sick" throughout the entire trip and after caring for all of her other children, was able to survive and give birth to an eighth kid. Now that's girl power. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In Catherine Beecher’s housekeeping manual she discusses the virtue of “system and order” and urges housewives to devote separate days of the week for specific household tasks such as Tuesdays for washing and Wednesday for ironing etc. I was first struck by the wide array of household tasks women were expected to perform and it is clear that maintaining the house was a full time job. While there were many comments on how these advice manuals would add more stress to women’s lives I think they would help women learn how to run their households more efficiently. Beecher emphasizes that women should delegate more tasks to their children and learn how to organize their household items. Women today still seek the same advice on how to stay organized and delegate chores to family members in order to carve out more alone time for themselves. For instance an article I just read in this month’s Self magazine gave 30 tips for how women can get more organized. <br />
After reading Sarah Ayer’s journal entries describing having to uproot her life and move to Massachusetts to live with her husband’s relatives when she became a widow I was surprised that the wife of a physician would have to go through all of this. I assume that Sarah’s husband left no will and she was not put in charge of the estate because it seemed like her only choice was to move in with her husband’s relatives which she was not happy to do. –Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I thought that Sarah Ayer's journal and life were really sad. She lost her first four children, then later her husband, then her home, was separated from her children (who gave her more grief, especially Samuel), moved in with her husbands relatives who she didnt want to live with and all at the age of 40. Then she and her youngest child would die of scarlet fever! Two things were interesting to me though, outside of everything else. Why did she keep moving from house to house? Did no one family want her for very long? Also what happened to the idea of sons being in some way responsible for their widowed mother? If he was old enough to leave home he was old enough to help her. Also what was Sarah doing, why was she away from home? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Mary, I agree with you about how sad this journal was. You could see how far she fell when her husband died. She had to give her home and move back and forth. I think the reason she went from house to house was because she wanted to put off her journey away from her home of 11 years but she also didn't want to be a burden on her friends. I was also wondering about the will, you would think that a doctor would make the needed precautions to care for his wife and family. -- Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
Woloch mentions the new ideal of romantic love as the reason to marry made some more hesitant to marry. From my family class last semester we learned that many nineteenth-century women went through a “marriage trauma,” worrying about what would happen if a spouse did not live up to their hopes and high ideals. Because of this singlehood therefore rose, the insistence that marriage should be based on love implied that it's immoral to marry for other reasons and that marriage based on love/companionship spurred some to call for more liberal divorce laws. Maybe this was a bit later in the century though. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
If a person today were to ask the common middle class wife during the early 1800s about the 'equality of the sexes,' I wonder if her response would be like Beecher's, who wrote"THe discussion of the question of the equality of the sexes, in intellectual capacity, seems both frivolous and useless, not only because it can never be decided, but because there would be no possible advantage in the decision." (pg 148). I guess people were discussing this topic, albeit in an 'intellectual capacity,' but to what extent were people discussing it, and where? I assume they just entertained the idea as a sort of fiction, or dream-like possibility. Its interesting to see that she would write there would be no possible advantage in an equality, certainly it tells me that the conception of a society of equality really didn't make much sense to her. Also, in the intro to her section, there was slight discussion of the 'professionalisation' of being a housewife, a notion that is occasionally seen today. I've heard some people trying to estimate how much money a modern housewife would earn if she was paid, and its always some high amount. Harriet Farley made an interesting observation about life in the mill: "You ask if the girls are contented here: I ask you, ifyou now of any one who is perfectly contented." (pg 179). I guess thats all she knows, and for her, there might not be much point in imagining it to be any better. -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
Just a quick thought to the question of to what extent people where discussing "equality of the sexes" and where, I think that perhaps they did it in a similar fashion that we saw in the letters of Abigail Adams. As Christopher says, entertaining the idea as sort of fiction, toying with the idea but not necessarily having substance behind the discussion. But in the same matter, I'd also like to think that there were those revolutionaries who took it, or wanted to take it, that one step further into a serious discussion. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
The excerpt from Caroline Gilman's novel was one of the few accounts I've read which is specifically about adjusting to married life. I particularly enjoyed her advice for dealing with men: "How clear it is, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy." What struck me as interesting is that many women today would give similar advice to young brides. Today, however, it is typically made clear that selective feminine submission can be used as a source of power. For example, think about how often, both in real life and in film and television, references are made to the necessity of humoring men to let them think they are in control.-- Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I thought that document entitled "A Choctaw Mission School" was very interesting. The teachers seemed very kind and caring towards the Indian students and did not try to force the students to forget their native ways. I also noticed that Indian students quickly picked up the ways of Christianity and became concerned about their family members who were not Christian. What I want to know is how these girls fit back in with their families after they finished at this school. They had experienced something their family members had not and I wonder if these girls felt that they were now somehow better than their family because they had been to a "white school". ~K. Stinson~<br />
<br />
The woman I felt bad for was Mary Ballou. Reading her account of life out in the Gold Rush territory sounded awful. She was far away from her loved ones and laboring in a boarding house. It just did not seem like the life that anyone traveling out west to get rich would be expecting and I couldn't help but feel sorry for the poor woman. I was also intrigued as to how often she referenced her faith and how "no one but her maker knows her feelings." It must have been absolutely terrible. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Maybe I was just seeing it tonight, but so many of these women seemed so miserable and trapped in their situations. I've always known women's lives were difficult and unhappy, but that was the big theme I'm taking away from all of this. Emma Willard seemed very unhappy with the marriage situation, Catharine Sedgwick seemed lost and miserable as a single woman, Sarah Ayer's suffering was evident in the list of deaths alone but she describes crying as she writes, the girls in the Choctaw school--especially Hannah Bradshaw and her sister Frutilla Townsley seemed miserable and sad. The author writing in the Lowell Offering carefully dodges her friend's question about contentedness, claiming no one is content because she cannot write she is content, and admits that the work "tried her patience" until she became numb to it. I'm not expecting a rose garden, but this was the theme I was seeing.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I also noticed that in the readings this week many of the women were feeling miserable, trapped or useless (useless such as the Cherokee Women resisting removal and failing in their attempts). I was wondering if maybe they are feeling more miserable because they are seeing the changes going on around them but the changes aren't always necessarily working to their advantage?- Elizabeth Frank <br />
<br />
I found the Sioux Tale "A Woman who Kills her Daughter" very interesting. However, I'm curious has to how it fits with the rest of these stories. I understand that the evil mother gets what she deserves for her feels for her son in law and killing her daughter over it, but it seems sort of out of place among the rest of the entries.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Not necessarily in response, I think "A Woman Kills Her Daughter" provides a general exaggerated moral lesson. While being unrealistic, the story imparts a warning against lust and betrayal of family bonds. As we have read throughout the semester, it is interesting to see the similarities between Native American society and that of the colonies. It seems that while the methods of spreading information were rather different, the moral teachings can be closely related. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
I found the diary of Sarah Ayer unique and extremely revealing of the reality of a widow in this era. The diary did show the dependence of a wife on her husband, yet it showed more of a companionship destructed by death. Sarah never had it easy. Her first four children died, and then she was left alone without her “partner.” The diary really did show the notion of honest love and friendship. Ayer never wrote of the little rights she was given as a widow, she was upset that her children would never see their father again. The excerpt where she discussed her last walk through of the house was heart breaking. I am sure it is devastating in this era, but in my opinion, Sarah was completely alone. She says she is alone in her diary. She turns to religion. This could be a factor in the importance of religion in education. Women are expected to study and turn to religion in schools. Maybe this because in the end, when a husband dies, the only partnership left is between the widow and G-d. There is an air of burden that comes with the widow, and it can be seen in Sarah’s journal. Every day she goes and visits a new person. Not only a burden the host, it must be depressing to be a nomadic widow, because there is no one else to go home to. – T Halpern.</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T11:21:59Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in ''Women Alone: Property and Personalism'' how women expressed their displeasure with family members openly in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance. Meanwhile men, when writing their wills, adhered to a basic format. I liked how the author made clear that even though women were limited in their influence and power in legal and political rights, they asserted their power through their wills. - Elizabeth Frank <br />
<br />
I too though it was very interesting how women openly expressed their displeasure in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance, and as for the men, they just followed a simple format. These women finally got the change to assert their power through their wills, something that they never got the chance to do before...as far as political and legal rights are concerned. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
The women of Petersburg seemed to be self-sufficient. I was surprised to hear women wrote a great many of the wills. When it was mentioned how they highly personalized their wills, it reminded me of how a grandmother of mine use to threaten her relations about leaving them out of her will. This same grandmother also had good control of the family finances. I think she was pretty unique. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
It is sort of understandable that a woman would choose favorites, since the patriarch of a family would probably be treated with respect by all members of the family, but a matriarch? I am sure that many family members treated her like she was incompetent and unsuited to lead the family. Would the son-in-law have left that same clause reprimanding Bolling's husband, had he been alive? I doubt it. I wouldn't leave them anything either! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, Malefactors and Complainants, Women were very active participants in the New England county courts, where they appeared in several capacities. It was interesting to me that occasionally wives served as attorneys for their husbands;colonies that accepted this practice did so on the grounds that the wife was legally an extension of her husband. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
It doesn't really make sense to me why the wives were able to serve as attorneys for their husbands though if in other capacities women were not thought to be rational or logical or capable of higher thought. Why then would the men put their "fate" in their wives hands? Or did an attorney have a more limited role then, or have a different meaning? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
When I was reading the first part of the Women Alone essay I was wondering if these women (specifically Mary Bolling)told their potential heirs about the possibility of getting left out of a will. It also looked like she openly favored her daughters and granddaughters was this because she knew that her sons and grandsons would be well provided for by their fathers? Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
<br />
I gathered from the reading in Woloch that the fame sol traders were not major players but rather women for one reason or another needed to earn a living. The laws passed were to both protect the feme sol traders from being taken advantage of and keep them from taking advantage of others. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly interesting that in some cases women need to the approval of their husbands to take advantage of the Feme Sole Trader Acts. What would the reasons for needing her husbands advice? Was it simply because it was still a patriarchal society and women supposibly needed permision from their husbands to do anything that wasn't domestic. or was it largely to do with the fact that the image of a married woman working would imply that the husband was not able to take care of his wife and therefore reflect poorly on him? ~Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
In Woloch we are shown that in New England it was easier for women to receive a divorce from the courts than it was in the Chesapeake region. I actually found this surprising. Because New England was formed around strict religious ideals I expected that divorce would be harder to get approved of. I understand that divorce was given based on if a woman was abused, if adultery was committed or if a wife or husband was left for an extended period without contact from the other. HOWEVER, why was it less difficult to get a divorce in a region with such strong foundations in religion? I feel like I'm missing a connection someplace in there.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Maybe this is due to the layout of towns in New England verses the Chesapeake. Towns are more prevelant in the north and, perhaps because of this, courts and town councils seem to be more prevelant as well. When you live in an isolated area, probably far removed from the courts and your neighbors, it would be harder to go to the court for anything at all so something like a domestic dispute would be hard to take to court. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
Also, keep in mind that in New England it was seen that the household reflected the status of the larger community and was referred to as "the little commonwealth". This implies that to have a well governed commonwealth of Mass. the households and family life need to be running smoothly. Therefore, it makes sense that divorce would be granted more often because neighbors would be concerned about others domestic concerns becuase if a family is having issues, not only would it reflect poorly on the family, but it would also affect the larger affairs of the village and/or common wealth. Peace and a smooth running government was the goal in new England and it seems that the goverment was willing to grant women divorce if it was going to benifit the greater commmunitiy. -Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment, I was wondering how varying views of marriage may have affected divorce rates in New England and the Chesapeake region. I think we've read that the Puritans viewed marriage more as a civil union than a sacred bond, so it may not actually be contradictory for them to allow divorce. What type of religion, if any, flourished in the Chesapeake? -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
Elizabeth I think it would be interesting to study how many cases were brought to court and how many divorces were actually approved. While we see New England as strange for allowing divorce in such a strict, Puritan society we are not fully aware of how common the practice was or how easy of a time an abused or neglected woman had winning her case. Another section in Woloch I found fascinating was this idea of Feme Sole Traders which allowed married women to engage in businesses. I thought it was interesting how South Carolina had more "liberal laws." What could be a motive for that? Did a particular trade lend itself to this idea of Feme Sole Traders? How common was the practice? Was it socially unacceptable to take economic matters into one's own hands and not leave it up to the man? --Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I also was amazed with the section on the Feme Sole Traders. I thought it was unacceptable for women to be able to take on such economic matters, especially after what happened in the Dutch Colonies when the English arrived. Was this practice of the woman being a major player economically really that common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's comment-- It seems that few things in early American history are ever quite as strict as we assume they are. When I started the reading I had similar thoughts but I have been corrected a few times this semester as to my assumptions about the strict rules of history. I wonder how common these Femme Sole statuses were and how did women decide to get into trading if they had little to no experience in the profession. Did they learn from their husbands or fathers or maybe mothers? I also wonder if there was a social stigma for these women. Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
While I was familiar with the rules of coverture and femme sole, along with the history of women taking nontraditional gender roles and serving as traders, I did not realize colonies like South Carolina actually had laws regarding coverture and giving women recognized legal status for trading purposes. I was fascinated by this law.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In another class I have taken it was mentioned that while married women in New England had few legal rights they were more able to divorce because of the Puritan idea of what a home and familiy and patriarchal household. If a marriage was not the ideal marriage or if a man was not upholding his patriarchal responsibilities a woman was within her rights to divorce him. However, who knows what other motives New England law makers might have had. Also on the Feme Sole Traders, the question on a particular trade is a good one. If I had to take a guess I would say whatever trade she might want to get involved in, but also maybe not a trade that was of a masculine sort, like selling men's clothes or something like that. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I'm curious about how sentencing for crimes may have been affected by gender.For example, the reading mentions that Mary Chelson was whipped and had to pay a fee for "committing of fornication.... and having a bastard childe." In the trial Chelson named the father of her child, what would his punishment have been?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I was also interested in the sentencing for crimes and its relationship to gender. I found it interesting that on one occassion, the "Backway Sentenced", the man got whipped five more times for the woman for committing fornication before marriage. Why did the amount of whipping for fornication change? It seems like for the most part the charge was 15 slashes (even if a bastard child is involved). However, it fluctuates based on the case, sometimes 10 and a small monetary payment, sometimes 20. Why is this? Were some charged less because they were deemed "better" citizens? Fornication is fornication. How can you say one case is worse than another?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I found the excert about the sentencing of crimes very interesting. I was amazed at some of the things that people were charged for. For example the people who were fined for fornication before thier marriage. SInce there were a lot of fornication cases in this piece I probably shouldnt have been surprised, but they were MARRIED. Who should care that they had "fornicated" before marriage. And why did they tell people anyway, that seemed silly. Also what was up with that one lady, Margaret Brewster, who disguised herself and came to meeting? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Maybe it wasn't that they told people about the fornication but that they were caught fornicating when, or where, they shouldn't have been. This is the best explaination I can come up with because you're right that it would be silly for them to admit to committing fornication before marriage. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with the comments about the fornication before marriage and the punishments of such, but when taking a look at their society that they lived in, it certainly correlates. I studied in another class that these activities and others that demonstrated individualistic tendencies or independence or even anything that was outside the community norm were severely "frowned upon" and punishment was necessary. Anything to keep the community cohesive and respected. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I believe that, in this deeply religious society, confessing to fornication was essentially confessing to a sin, with the thought process being to repent and accept the punishment. Perhaps reasoning for this was to ensure a Christian afterlife or to prevent a "bastard child" from being ostracized by the surrounding community.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I thought that there wasn't a problem with premarital sex. There would only be a problem if it resulted in a child and the two - didn't marry. Maybe I am wrong? - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading the different court cases but they brought up a lot of questions. For instance, were men punished for being drunk also? Also, what does "imprisoned for unclean carriages with.." If women knew what would happen if they confessed to fornication why did they do, was it because they thought the confession would save them? If being an elect was predetermined then what would confessing do for you? Brewster Whip'ts case was very different and I'm not quite sure I actually understand what she did (seem to offend religion) but whatever she did her punishment seemed the harshest. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I was just amazed, in general, that women were allowed to leave wills and have some say in what happened with property after someone's death. I didn't realize that women were allowed to have this much power in the relationship, was this a new ideology? Or had this always been common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was also intrigued by the section on wills. In particular, the law that required a man to leave his wife at least a life interest in one third of his real estate. Were these women then given control over the money? To me this contradicts the view of women as completely financially dependent upon men. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
I too was surprised that women were able to have a say in what happened to their property after their death. I also found it interesting that through antenuptial contracts, women could retain come control over their property. I thought that when a woman married, she became the property of her husband.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Right, when a woman married she did become the property of her husband, but if the husband died first, I believe she was entitled to 1/3 of the assests. I also noticed that much of the stuff women left to people in their wills was movable property so it wasn't like the women were dealing with the larger issues, like property. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
I looked at the wills in a different way. Everyone is talking about how surprised they were with how much a woman was left after her husband died. Well to be frank, I am not surprised; I would be surprised if it was not the case. Even though women were considered "property" of the husband's "government," we cannot forget that they were spouses, there was a connection, and I am sure more often than not there was dedication and devotion. I don't mean to sound juvinile, it is just that isn't it the norm for a wife to be in the will somewhere? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
When reading an Antenuptial Contract, I couldn't help but notice the similarity to today's pre-nuptial contract. I thought this was a modern invention....I had no idea that they dated back to the 17th century. I always thought that these types of contracts depreciated the overall meaning of marriage, operating on a cynical notion, which is why it is odd to see women, in the 17th cnntury, already contemplating their situation after the end of their marriage.~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I was surprised at the Tennison Decision portion of "A Separation Decision" in Wolock. Many of the other divorces or separations seemed to be granted for desertion, and in these cases it makes economic sense to allow a woman to remarry so she does not become a drain on the community. However, in this case John Tennisson was willing to support his wife under his own roof, but she was granted a legal separation because "he could never entertain that love and respect for his said wife . . . as is properly due" (75). Loveless marriages couldn't have been that uncommon; I have to wonder what was going on behind the scenes that made this relationship worse than others. ---Ashley H.<br />
<br />
When reading Suzanne Lebsock's article, I was interested in the fact that white women sometimes left money and other provisions to their slaves when writing their wills. More women than men gave slaves their freedom through their wills. One woman's provisions for her slaves were written with more love and detail than were her provisions for her son and grandchildren according to Lebsock. I think this empahsizes the importance and effect of individual relationships that some white women had with their slaves.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was fascinated reading the Lebsock's article. I did a research paper several years ago about the subject of women and the wills they left behind and it was really common to see where one child would get either everything or most everything. Then when the census records were looked at as well you could see where the woman had several children but some got nothing. That to me was really interesting to see how women divided up their property.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Question in response to Mary Beth's comment: Why is that so? Were women leaving their property to the one child that was the favorite? Or just the oldest child? And why exclude some of them from getting anything at all? Men seemed to have certain guidelines that dictated who got what (i.e. oldest son got most or all of the inheritance) but women did not necessarily have those guidelines. So is this an example of a freedom they had, giving their property to whomever they choose? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
It says on page 79 in Woloch that Goodwife Amee was "presented by the grandjury for absenting her selfe from the publique worship of God." Does this mean that she was brought to court because she left a public display of worship on the Sabbath (Sunday?)? I'm confused about the antenuptial contracts, didn't the wife loose her legal standing when she became married, or was this more of a colonial-time period thing? If it was, how did it change and why? It seems like such a beneficial thing to men, and giving women's limited legal standing anyways, I'm at a loss to explain the change. The end of the blackboard article notes that women were more sensitive to people in precarious economic positions, or their tendency to reward their 'favorite' people, which I found interesting in how that is such a contrast to the tendencies of men. An obvious explanation might be that women could easily sympathize with a slave since, perhaps, they saw their own position in a similar light? -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In the Wolock reading, under the Divorce in New England section, the most common reason for granting a divorce was abandonment by the husband. I'm sure there are varied reasons why these men left their wives but none of the court records state why any of them left. It's probably hard to tell, but did the courts know why these men were leaving? Did the wives? What was the most common reason for abandonment?-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also wondered why abandonment was the most common reason for divorce in New England because I assumed it would be abuse. Were all these men running off and starting other families or did they leave their wives because they felt they could set up a better life for themselves somewhere else?<br />
In the Woloch piece on “Divorce in New England” it was interesting to read that of the thirteen colonies only Massachusetts and Connecticut offered absolute divorce. Even though absolute divorce existed in the 17th century a women could only petition the court for divorce in cases of adultery, desertion, or an absence of seven years. I wonder what the court’s reasoning was behind making a women wait seven years before petitioning the court for a divorce. Seven years seems like a very long time for a woman to have to live by herself and care for her family without her husband’s support. <br />
When Elizabeth Griswould petitioned the court to have sole custody of her children it was interesting to see the court ordering the children’s father to pay child support payments. I was not aware that courts ordered parents to pay child support as early as the seventeenth century.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Like Caitlin, I was also struck by the court decision concerning Elizabeth Griswould in "Divorce in New England." What struck me was how uncommon this situation must have been, dealing with child custody. Since most divorces were granted as a result of abandonment, I couldn't imagine the male being a consideration in the custody of his children, as he is presumed dead. In the case of Elizabeth Griswould, the divorce must have been granted for another reason, perhaps adultery. This small piece referenced religion in the court's decision of child custody, which leads me to wonder what might have happened if the father were an upstanding Christian. Was it common, as it is today to favor the mother in custody battles? Or are these situations too rare to try to attempt to identify the normality? Like Caitlin, I was also a little surprised to see some of our legal customs, such as child support, performed in 17th century Puritan society.~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I found the whole abandonment issue really interesting too. And like you Caitlin, I had no idea that courts could order a man to pay child support in the 17th century. In that part of the passage, I also thought it was really interesting that Elizabeth was also using her maiden name as opposed to Rogers.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
As I was reading the document “Divorce in New England” in Woloch, I was wondering if you were looked down upon by the other members of the community if you got a divorce. Did you become the subject of town gossip and become sort of ostracized from everyone else? I also want to know how common it was for someone to get divorced, I expect that it would not be as common as it is today, but I think it was fairly common because there are a lot of court documents pertaining to the subject. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I am sure that those who went through a divorce were gossiped about often. But that is all that women had- the control to talk about eachother. I would not know how often, however I am sure it was a complete and utter last resort. For most of the divorces, it is sad to see it is due to disertion. The women need to be able to be divorced in an attempt to find a new husband to gain economic stature. -- Talya Halpern.<br />
<br />
I agree with Talya. I definitely don't think that divorce was seen as the norm, but it was necessary. I mean, if a husband has vanished for six or seven years, doesn't that leave a wife in pretty dire straits financially? At that point, it seems to me that it’s time to move on.--Kaitlyn G. <br />
<br />
South Carolina's acts on Feme Sole Traders were quite interesting. It is astonishing women were allowed such rights during this period, but also surprising that it took 32 years between the passing of the two acts. The first act allowed the debts to be brought upon the trader herself, but until the second act she was not able to pursue justice in her own name. I wonder if this meant that before the second act it was her husband who must bring suit for her, or if she was simply unable to seek retribution. Regardless of the limitations, being able to engage in open trade offered a vastly increased source of income to the women of the colonies. I also wonder who's hands the money they earned often ended up in, their's or their husband's. --Robert Kopp</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T11:21:27Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in ''Women Alone: Property and Personalism'' how women expressed their displeasure with family members openly in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance. Meanwhile men, when writing their wills, adhered to a basic format. I liked how the author made clear that even though women were limited in their influence and power in legal and political rights, they asserted their power through their wills. - Elizabeth Frank <br />
<br />
I too though it was very interesting how women openly expressed their displeasure in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance, and as for the men, they just followed a simple format. These women finally got the change to assert their power through their wills, something that they never got the chance to do before...as far as political and legal rights are concerned. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
The women of Petersburg seemed to be self-sufficient. I was surprised to hear women wrote a great many of the wills. When it was mentioned how they highly personalized their wills, it reminded me of how a grandmother of mine use to threaten her relations about leaving them out of her will. This same grandmother also had good control of the family finances. I think she was pretty unique. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
It is sort of understandable that a woman would choose favorites, since the patriarch of a family would probably be treated with respect by all members of the family, but a matriarch? I am sure that many family members treated her like she was incompetent and unsuited to lead the family. Would the son-in-law have left that same clause reprimanding Bolling's husband, had he been alive? I doubt it. I wouldn't leave them anything either! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, Malefactors and Complainants, Women were very active participants in the New England county courts, where they appeared in several capacities. It was interesting to me that occasionally wives served as attorneys for their husbands;colonies that accepted this practice did so on the grounds that the wife was legally an extension of her husband. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
It doesn't really make sense to me why the wives were able to serve as attorneys for their husbands though if in other capacities women were not thought to be rational or logical or capable of higher thought. Why then would the men put their "fate" in their wives hands? Or did an attorney have a more limited role then, or have a different meaning? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
When I was reading the first part of the Women Alone essay I was wondering if these women (specifically Mary Bolling)told their potential heirs about the possibility of getting left out of a will. It also looked like she openly favored her daughters and granddaughters was this because she knew that her sons and grandsons would be well provided for by their fathers? Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
<br />
I gathered from the reading in Woloch that the fame sol traders were not major players but rather women for one reason or another needed to earn a living. The laws passed were to both protect the feme sol traders from being taken advantage of and keep them from taking advantage of others. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly interesting that in some cases women need to the approval of their husbands to take advantage of the Feme Sole Trader Acts. What would the reasons for needing her husbands advice? Was it simply because it was still a patriarchal society and women supposibly needed permision from their husbands to do anything that wasn't domestic. or was it largely to do with the fact that the image of a married woman working would imply that the husband was not able to take care of his wife and therefore reflect poorly on him? ~Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
In Woloch we are shown that in New England it was easier for women to receive a divorce from the courts than it was in the Chesapeake region. I actually found this surprising. Because New England was formed around strict religious ideals I expected that divorce would be harder to get approved of. I understand that divorce was given based on if a woman was abused, if adultery was committed or if a wife or husband was left for an extended period without contact from the other. HOWEVER, why was it less difficult to get a divorce in a region with such strong foundations in religion? I feel like I'm missing a connection someplace in there.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Maybe this is due to the layout of towns in New England verses the Chesapeake. Towns are more prevelant in the north and, perhaps because of this, courts and town councils seem to be more prevelant as well. When you live in an isolated area, probably far removed from the courts and your neighbors, it would be harder to go to the court for anything at all so something like a domestic dispute would be hard to take to court. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
Also, keep in mind that in New England it was seen that the household reflected the status of the larger community and was referred to as "the little commonwealth". This implies that to have a well governed commonwealth of Mass. the households and family life need to be running smoothly. Therefore, it makes sense that divorce would be granted more often because neighbors would be concerned about others domestic concerns becuase if a family is having issues, not only would it reflect poorly on the family, but it would also affect the larger affairs of the village and/or common wealth. Peace and a smooth running government was the goal in new England and it seems that the goverment was willing to grant women divorce if it was going to benifit the greater commmunitiy. -Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment, I was wondering how varying views of marriage may have affected divorce rates in New England and the Chesapeake region. I think we've read that the Puritans viewed marriage more as a civil union than a sacred bond, so it may not actually be contradictory for them to allow divorce. What type of religion, if any, flourished in the Chesapeake? -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
Elizabeth I think it would be interesting to study how many cases were brought to court and how many divorces were actually approved. While we see New England as strange for allowing divorce in such a strict, Puritan society we are not fully aware of how common the practice was or how easy of a time an abused or neglected woman had winning her case. Another section in Woloch I found fascinating was this idea of Feme Sole Traders which allowed married women to engage in businesses. I thought it was interesting how South Carolina had more "liberal laws." What could be a motive for that? Did a particular trade lend itself to this idea of Feme Sole Traders? How common was the practice? Was it socially unacceptable to take economic matters into one's own hands and not leave it up to the man? --Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I also was amazed with the section on the Feme Sole Traders. I thought it was unacceptable for women to be able to take on such economic matters, especially after what happened in the Dutch Colonies when the English arrived. Was this practice of the woman being a major player economically really that common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's comment-- It seems that few things in early American history are ever quite as strict as we assume they are. When I started the reading I had similar thoughts but I have been corrected a few times this semester as to my assumptions about the strict rules of history. I wonder how common these Femme Sole statuses were and how did women decide to get into trading if they had little to no experience in the profession. Did they learn from their husbands or fathers or maybe mothers? I also wonder if there was a social stigma for these women. <br />
<br />
While I was familiar with the rules of coverture and femme sole, along with the history of women taking nontraditional gender roles and serving as traders, I did not realize colonies like South Carolina actually had laws regarding coverture and giving women recognized legal status for trading purposes. I was fascinated by this law.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In another class I have taken it was mentioned that while married women in New England had few legal rights they were more able to divorce because of the Puritan idea of what a home and familiy and patriarchal household. If a marriage was not the ideal marriage or if a man was not upholding his patriarchal responsibilities a woman was within her rights to divorce him. However, who knows what other motives New England law makers might have had. Also on the Feme Sole Traders, the question on a particular trade is a good one. If I had to take a guess I would say whatever trade she might want to get involved in, but also maybe not a trade that was of a masculine sort, like selling men's clothes or something like that. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I'm curious about how sentencing for crimes may have been affected by gender.For example, the reading mentions that Mary Chelson was whipped and had to pay a fee for "committing of fornication.... and having a bastard childe." In the trial Chelson named the father of her child, what would his punishment have been?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I was also interested in the sentencing for crimes and its relationship to gender. I found it interesting that on one occassion, the "Backway Sentenced", the man got whipped five more times for the woman for committing fornication before marriage. Why did the amount of whipping for fornication change? It seems like for the most part the charge was 15 slashes (even if a bastard child is involved). However, it fluctuates based on the case, sometimes 10 and a small monetary payment, sometimes 20. Why is this? Were some charged less because they were deemed "better" citizens? Fornication is fornication. How can you say one case is worse than another?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I found the excert about the sentencing of crimes very interesting. I was amazed at some of the things that people were charged for. For example the people who were fined for fornication before thier marriage. SInce there were a lot of fornication cases in this piece I probably shouldnt have been surprised, but they were MARRIED. Who should care that they had "fornicated" before marriage. And why did they tell people anyway, that seemed silly. Also what was up with that one lady, Margaret Brewster, who disguised herself and came to meeting? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Maybe it wasn't that they told people about the fornication but that they were caught fornicating when, or where, they shouldn't have been. This is the best explaination I can come up with because you're right that it would be silly for them to admit to committing fornication before marriage. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with the comments about the fornication before marriage and the punishments of such, but when taking a look at their society that they lived in, it certainly correlates. I studied in another class that these activities and others that demonstrated individualistic tendencies or independence or even anything that was outside the community norm were severely "frowned upon" and punishment was necessary. Anything to keep the community cohesive and respected. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I believe that, in this deeply religious society, confessing to fornication was essentially confessing to a sin, with the thought process being to repent and accept the punishment. Perhaps reasoning for this was to ensure a Christian afterlife or to prevent a "bastard child" from being ostracized by the surrounding community.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I thought that there wasn't a problem with premarital sex. There would only be a problem if it resulted in a child and the two - didn't marry. Maybe I am wrong? - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading the different court cases but they brought up a lot of questions. For instance, were men punished for being drunk also? Also, what does "imprisoned for unclean carriages with.." If women knew what would happen if they confessed to fornication why did they do, was it because they thought the confession would save them? If being an elect was predetermined then what would confessing do for you? Brewster Whip'ts case was very different and I'm not quite sure I actually understand what she did (seem to offend religion) but whatever she did her punishment seemed the harshest. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I was just amazed, in general, that women were allowed to leave wills and have some say in what happened with property after someone's death. I didn't realize that women were allowed to have this much power in the relationship, was this a new ideology? Or had this always been common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was also intrigued by the section on wills. In particular, the law that required a man to leave his wife at least a life interest in one third of his real estate. Were these women then given control over the money? To me this contradicts the view of women as completely financially dependent upon men. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
I too was surprised that women were able to have a say in what happened to their property after their death. I also found it interesting that through antenuptial contracts, women could retain come control over their property. I thought that when a woman married, she became the property of her husband.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Right, when a woman married she did become the property of her husband, but if the husband died first, I believe she was entitled to 1/3 of the assests. I also noticed that much of the stuff women left to people in their wills was movable property so it wasn't like the women were dealing with the larger issues, like property. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
I looked at the wills in a different way. Everyone is talking about how surprised they were with how much a woman was left after her husband died. Well to be frank, I am not surprised; I would be surprised if it was not the case. Even though women were considered "property" of the husband's "government," we cannot forget that they were spouses, there was a connection, and I am sure more often than not there was dedication and devotion. I don't mean to sound juvinile, it is just that isn't it the norm for a wife to be in the will somewhere? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
When reading an Antenuptial Contract, I couldn't help but notice the similarity to today's pre-nuptial contract. I thought this was a modern invention....I had no idea that they dated back to the 17th century. I always thought that these types of contracts depreciated the overall meaning of marriage, operating on a cynical notion, which is why it is odd to see women, in the 17th cnntury, already contemplating their situation after the end of their marriage.~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I was surprised at the Tennison Decision portion of "A Separation Decision" in Wolock. Many of the other divorces or separations seemed to be granted for desertion, and in these cases it makes economic sense to allow a woman to remarry so she does not become a drain on the community. However, in this case John Tennisson was willing to support his wife under his own roof, but she was granted a legal separation because "he could never entertain that love and respect for his said wife . . . as is properly due" (75). Loveless marriages couldn't have been that uncommon; I have to wonder what was going on behind the scenes that made this relationship worse than others. ---Ashley H.<br />
<br />
When reading Suzanne Lebsock's article, I was interested in the fact that white women sometimes left money and other provisions to their slaves when writing their wills. More women than men gave slaves their freedom through their wills. One woman's provisions for her slaves were written with more love and detail than were her provisions for her son and grandchildren according to Lebsock. I think this empahsizes the importance and effect of individual relationships that some white women had with their slaves.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was fascinated reading the Lebsock's article. I did a research paper several years ago about the subject of women and the wills they left behind and it was really common to see where one child would get either everything or most everything. Then when the census records were looked at as well you could see where the woman had several children but some got nothing. That to me was really interesting to see how women divided up their property.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Question in response to Mary Beth's comment: Why is that so? Were women leaving their property to the one child that was the favorite? Or just the oldest child? And why exclude some of them from getting anything at all? Men seemed to have certain guidelines that dictated who got what (i.e. oldest son got most or all of the inheritance) but women did not necessarily have those guidelines. So is this an example of a freedom they had, giving their property to whomever they choose? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
It says on page 79 in Woloch that Goodwife Amee was "presented by the grandjury for absenting her selfe from the publique worship of God." Does this mean that she was brought to court because she left a public display of worship on the Sabbath (Sunday?)? I'm confused about the antenuptial contracts, didn't the wife loose her legal standing when she became married, or was this more of a colonial-time period thing? If it was, how did it change and why? It seems like such a beneficial thing to men, and giving women's limited legal standing anyways, I'm at a loss to explain the change. The end of the blackboard article notes that women were more sensitive to people in precarious economic positions, or their tendency to reward their 'favorite' people, which I found interesting in how that is such a contrast to the tendencies of men. An obvious explanation might be that women could easily sympathize with a slave since, perhaps, they saw their own position in a similar light? -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In the Wolock reading, under the Divorce in New England section, the most common reason for granting a divorce was abandonment by the husband. I'm sure there are varied reasons why these men left their wives but none of the court records state why any of them left. It's probably hard to tell, but did the courts know why these men were leaving? Did the wives? What was the most common reason for abandonment?-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also wondered why abandonment was the most common reason for divorce in New England because I assumed it would be abuse. Were all these men running off and starting other families or did they leave their wives because they felt they could set up a better life for themselves somewhere else?<br />
In the Woloch piece on “Divorce in New England” it was interesting to read that of the thirteen colonies only Massachusetts and Connecticut offered absolute divorce. Even though absolute divorce existed in the 17th century a women could only petition the court for divorce in cases of adultery, desertion, or an absence of seven years. I wonder what the court’s reasoning was behind making a women wait seven years before petitioning the court for a divorce. Seven years seems like a very long time for a woman to have to live by herself and care for her family without her husband’s support. <br />
When Elizabeth Griswould petitioned the court to have sole custody of her children it was interesting to see the court ordering the children’s father to pay child support payments. I was not aware that courts ordered parents to pay child support as early as the seventeenth century.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Like Caitlin, I was also struck by the court decision concerning Elizabeth Griswould in "Divorce in New England." What struck me was how uncommon this situation must have been, dealing with child custody. Since most divorces were granted as a result of abandonment, I couldn't imagine the male being a consideration in the custody of his children, as he is presumed dead. In the case of Elizabeth Griswould, the divorce must have been granted for another reason, perhaps adultery. This small piece referenced religion in the court's decision of child custody, which leads me to wonder what might have happened if the father were an upstanding Christian. Was it common, as it is today to favor the mother in custody battles? Or are these situations too rare to try to attempt to identify the normality? Like Caitlin, I was also a little surprised to see some of our legal customs, such as child support, performed in 17th century Puritan society.~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
I found the whole abandonment issue really interesting too. And like you Caitlin, I had no idea that courts could order a man to pay child support in the 17th century. In that part of the passage, I also thought it was really interesting that Elizabeth was also using her maiden name as opposed to Rogers.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
As I was reading the document “Divorce in New England” in Woloch, I was wondering if you were looked down upon by the other members of the community if you got a divorce. Did you become the subject of town gossip and become sort of ostracized from everyone else? I also want to know how common it was for someone to get divorced, I expect that it would not be as common as it is today, but I think it was fairly common because there are a lot of court documents pertaining to the subject. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I am sure that those who went through a divorce were gossiped about often. But that is all that women had- the control to talk about eachother. I would not know how often, however I am sure it was a complete and utter last resort. For most of the divorces, it is sad to see it is due to disertion. The women need to be able to be divorced in an attempt to find a new husband to gain economic stature. -- Talya Halpern.<br />
<br />
I agree with Talya. I definitely don't think that divorce was seen as the norm, but it was necessary. I mean, if a husband has vanished for six or seven years, doesn't that leave a wife in pretty dire straits financially? At that point, it seems to me that it’s time to move on.--Kaitlyn G. <br />
<br />
South Carolina's acts on Feme Sole Traders were quite interesting. It is astonishing women were allowed such rights during this period, but also surprising that it took 32 years between the passing of the two acts. The first act allowed the debts to be brought upon the trader herself, but until the second act she was not able to pursue justice in her own name. I wonder if this meant that before the second act it was her husband who must bring suit for her, or if she was simply unable to seek retribution. Regardless of the limitations, being able to engage in open trade offered a vastly increased source of income to the women of the colonies. I also wonder who's hands the money they earned often ended up in, their's or their husband's. --Robert Kopp</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T11:12:04Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in ''Women Alone: Property and Personalism'' how women expressed their displeasure with family members openly in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance. Meanwhile men, when writing their wills, adhered to a basic format. I liked how the author made clear that even though women were limited in their influence and power in legal and political rights, they asserted their power through their wills. - Elizabeth Frank <br />
<br />
I too though it was very interesting how women openly expressed their displeasure in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance, and as for the men, they just followed a simple format. These women finally got the change to assert their power through their wills, something that they never got the chance to do before...as far as political and legal rights are concerned. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
The women of Petersburg seemed to be self-sufficient. I was surprised to hear women wrote a great many of the wills. When it was mentioned how they highly personalized their wills, it reminded me of how a grandmother of mine use to threaten her relations about leaving them out of her will. This same grandmother also had good control of the family finances. I think she was pretty unique. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
It is sort of understandable that a woman would choose favorites, since the patriarch of a family would probably be treated with respect by all members of the family, but a matriarch? I am sure that many family members treated her like she was incompetent and unsuited to lead the family. Would the son-in-law have left that same clause reprimanding Bolling's husband, had he been alive? I doubt it. I wouldn't leave them anything either! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, Malefactors and Complainants, Women were very active participants in the New England county courts, where they appeared in several capacities. It was interesting to me that occasionally wives served as attorneys for their husbands;colonies that accepted this practice did so on the grounds that the wife was legally an extension of her husband. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
It doesn't really make sense to me why the wives were able to serve as attorneys for their husbands though if in other capacities women were not thought to be rational or logical or capable of higher thought. Why then would the men put their "fate" in their wives hands? Or did an attorney have a more limited role then, or have a different meaning? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
When I was reading the first part of the Women Alone essay I was wondering if these women (specifically Mary Bolling)told their potential heirs about the possibility of getting left out of a will. It also looked like she openly favored her daughters and granddaughters was this because she knew that her sons and grandsons would be well provided for by their fathers? Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
<br />
I gathered from the reading in Woloch that the fame sol traders were not major players but rather women for one reason or another needed to earn a living. The laws passed were to both protect the feme sol traders from being taken advantage of and keep them from taking advantage of others. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly interesting that in some cases women need to the approval of their husbands to take advantage of the Feme Sole Trader Acts. What would the reasons for needing her husbands advice? Was it simply because it was still a patriarchal society and women supposibly needed permision from their husbands to do anything that wasn't domestic. or was it largely to do with the fact that the image of a married woman working would imply that the husband was not able to take care of his wife and therefore reflect poorly on him? ~Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
In Woloch we are shown that in New England it was easier for women to receive a divorce from the courts than it was in the Chesapeake region. I actually found this surprising. Because New England was formed around strict religious ideals I expected that divorce would be harder to get approved of. I understand that divorce was given based on if a woman was abused, if adultery was committed or if a wife or husband was left for an extended period without contact from the other. HOWEVER, why was it less difficult to get a divorce in a region with such strong foundations in religion? I feel like I'm missing a connection someplace in there.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Maybe this is due to the layout of towns in New England verses the Chesapeake. Towns are more prevelant in the north and, perhaps because of this, courts and town councils seem to be more prevelant as well. When you live in an isolated area, probably far removed from the courts and your neighbors, it would be harder to go to the court for anything at all so something like a domestic dispute would be hard to take to court. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
Also, keep in mind that in New England it was seen that the household reflected the status of the larger community and was referred to as "the little commonwealth". This implies that to have a well governed commonwealth of Mass. the households and family life need to be running smoothly. Therefore, it makes sense that divorce would be granted more often because neighbors would be concerned about others domestic concerns becuase if a family is having issues, not only would it reflect poorly on the family, but it would also affect the larger affairs of the village and/or common wealth. Peace and a smooth running government was the goal in new England and it seems that the goverment was willing to grant women divorce if it was going to benifit the greater commmunitiy. -Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment, I was wondering how varying views of marriage may have affected divorce rates in New England and the Chesapeake region. I think we've read that the Puritans viewed marriage more as a civil union than a sacred bond, so it may not actually be contradictory for them to allow divorce. What type of religion, if any, flourished in the Chesapeake? -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
Elizabeth I think it would be interesting to study how many cases were brought to court and how many divorces were actually approved. While we see New England as strange for allowing divorce in such a strict, Puritan society we are not fully aware of how common the practice was or how easy of a time an abused or neglected woman had winning her case. Another section in Woloch I found fascinating was this idea of Feme Sole Traders which allowed married women to engage in businesses. I thought it was interesting how South Carolina had more "liberal laws." What could be a motive for that? Did a particular trade lend itself to this idea of Feme Sole Traders? How common was the practice? Was it socially unacceptable to take economic matters into one's own hands and not leave it up to the man? --Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I also was amazed with the section on the Feme Sole Traders. I thought it was unacceptable for women to be able to take on such economic matters, especially after what happened in the Dutch Colonies when the English arrived. Was this practice of the woman being a major player economically really that common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
While I was familiar with the rules of coverture and femme sole, along with the history of women taking nontraditional gender roles and serving as traders, I did not realize colonies like South Carolina actually had laws regarding coverture and giving women recognized legal status for trading purposes. I was fascinated by this law.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In another class I have taken it was mentioned that while married women in New England had few legal rights they were more able to divorce because of the Puritan idea of what a home and familiy and patriarchal household. If a marriage was not the ideal marriage or if a man was not upholding his patriarchal responsibilities a woman was within her rights to divorce him. However, who knows what other motives New England law makers might have had. Also on the Feme Sole Traders, the question on a particular trade is a good one. If I had to take a guess I would say whatever trade she might want to get involved in, but also maybe not a trade that was of a masculine sort, like selling men's clothes or something like that. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I'm curious about how sentencing for crimes may have been affected by gender.For example, the reading mentions that Mary Chelson was whipped and had to pay a fee for "committing of fornication.... and having a bastard childe." In the trial Chelson named the father of her child, what would his punishment have been?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I was also interested in the sentencing for crimes and its relationship to gender. I found it interesting that on one occassion, the "Backway Sentenced", the man got whipped five more times for the woman for committing fornication before marriage. Why did the amount of whipping for fornication change? It seems like for the most part the charge was 15 slashes (even if a bastard child is involved). However, it fluctuates based on the case, sometimes 10 and a small monetary payment, sometimes 20. Why is this? Were some charged less because they were deemed "better" citizens? Fornication is fornication. How can you say one case is worse than another?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I found the excert about the sentencing of crimes very interesting. I was amazed at some of the things that people were charged for. For example the people who were fined for fornication before thier marriage. SInce there were a lot of fornication cases in this piece I probably shouldnt have been surprised, but they were MARRIED. Who should care that they had "fornicated" before marriage. And why did they tell people anyway, that seemed silly. Also what was up with that one lady, Margaret Brewster, who disguised herself and came to meeting? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Maybe it wasn't that they told people about the fornication but that they were caught fornicating when, or where, they shouldn't have been. This is the best explaination I can come up with because you're right that it would be silly for them to admit to committing fornication before marriage. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with the comments about the fornication before marriage and the punishments of such, but when taking a look at their society that they lived in, it certainly correlates. I studied in another class that these activities and others that demonstrated individualistic tendencies or independence or even anything that was outside the community norm were severely "frowned upon" and punishment was necessary. Anything to keep the community cohesive and respected. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I believe that, in this deeply religious society, confessing to fornication was essentially confessing to a sin, with the thought process being to repent and accept the punishment. Perhaps reasoning for this was to ensure a Christian afterlife or to prevent a "bastard child" from being ostracized by the surrounding community.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I thought that there wasn't a problem with premarital sex. There would only be a problem if it resulted in a child and the two - didn't marry. Maybe I am wrong? - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading the different court cases but they brought up a lot of questions. For instance, were men punished for being drunk also? Also, what does "imprisoned for unclean carriages with.." If women knew what would happen if they confessed to fornication why did they do, was it because they thought the confession would save them? If being an elect was predetermined then what would confessing do for you? Brewster Whip'ts case was very different and I'm not quite sure I actually understand what she did (seem to offend religion) but whatever she did her punishment seemed the harshest. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I was just amazed, in general, that women were allowed to leave wills and have some say in what happened with property after someone's death. I didn't realize that women were allowed to have this much power in the relationship, was this a new ideology? Or had this always been common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was also intrigued by the section on wills. In particular, the law that required a man to leave his wife at least a life interest in one third of his real estate. Were these women then given control over the money? To me this contradicts the view of women as completely financially dependent upon men. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
I too was surprised that women were able to have a say in what happened to their property after their death. I also found it interesting that through antenuptial contracts, women could retain come control over their property. I thought that when a woman married, she became the property of her husband.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Right, when a woman married she did become the property of her husband, but if the husband died first, I believe she was entitled to 1/3 of the assests. I also noticed that much of the stuff women left to people in their wills was movable property so it wasn't like the women were dealing with the larger issues, like property. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
I looked at the wills in a different way. Everyone is talking about how surprised they were with how much a woman was left after her husband died. Well to be frank, I am not surprised; I would be surprised if it was not the case. Even though women were considered "property" of the husband's "government," we cannot forget that they were spouses, there was a connection, and I am sure more often than not there was dedication and devotion. I don't mean to sound juvinile, it is just that isn't it the norm for a wife to be in the will somewhere? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
I was surprised at the Tennison Decision portion of "A Separation Decision" in Wolock. Many of the other divorces or separations seemed to be granted for desertion, and in these cases it makes economic sense to allow a woman to remarry so she does not become a drain on the community. However, in this case John Tennisson was willing to support his wife under his own roof, but she was granted a legal separation because "he could never entertain that love and respect for his said wife . . . as is properly due" (75). Loveless marriages couldn't have been that uncommon; I have to wonder what was going on behind the scenes that made this relationship worse than others. ---Ashley H.<br />
<br />
When reading Suzanne Lebsock's article, I was interested in the fact that white women sometimes left money and other provisions to their slaves when writing their wills. More women than men gave slaves their freedom through their wills. One woman's provisions for her slaves were written with more love and detail than were her provisions for her son and grandchildren according to Lebsock. I think this empahsizes the importance and effect of individual relationships that some white women had with their slaves.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was fascinated reading the Lebsock's article. I did a research paper several years ago about the subject of women and the wills they left behind and it was really common to see where one child would get either everything or most everything. Then when the census records were looked at as well you could see where the woman had several children but some got nothing. That to me was really interesting to see how women divided up their property.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Question in response to Mary Beth's comment: Why is that so? Were women leaving their property to the one child that was the favorite? Or just the oldest child? And why exclude some of them from getting anything at all? Men seemed to have certain guidelines that dictated who got what (i.e. oldest son got most or all of the inheritance) but women did not necessarily have those guidelines. So is this an example of a freedom they had, giving their property to whomever they choose? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
It says on page 79 in Woloch that Goodwife Amee was "presented by the grandjury for absenting her selfe from the publique worship of God." Does this mean that she was brought to court because she left a public display of worship on the Sabbath (Sunday?)? I'm confused about the antenuptial contracts, didn't the wife loose her legal standing when she became married, or was this more of a colonial-time period thing? If it was, how did it change and why? It seems like such a beneficial thing to men, and giving women's limited legal standing anyways, I'm at a loss to explain the change. The end of the blackboard article notes that women were more sensitive to people in precarious economic positions, or their tendency to reward their 'favorite' people, which I found interesting in how that is such a contrast to the tendencies of men. An obvious explanation might be that women could easily sympathize with a slave since, perhaps, they saw their own position in a similar light? -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In the Wolock reading, under the Divorce in New England section, the most common reason for granting a divorce was abandonment by the husband. I'm sure there are varied reasons why these men left their wives but none of the court records state why any of them left. It's probably hard to tell, but did the courts know why these men were leaving? Did the wives? What was the most common reason for abandonment?-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also wondered why abandonment was the most common reason for divorce in New England because I assumed it would be abuse. Were all these men running off and starting other families or did they leave their wives because they felt they could set up a better life for themselves somewhere else?<br />
In the Woloch piece on “Divorce in New England” it was interesting to read that of the thirteen colonies only Massachusetts and Connecticut offered absolute divorce. Even though absolute divorce existed in the 17th century a women could only petition the court for divorce in cases of adultery, desertion, or an absence of seven years. I wonder what the court’s reasoning was behind making a women wait seven years before petitioning the court for a divorce. Seven years seems like a very long time for a woman to have to live by herself and care for her family without her husband’s support. <br />
When Elizabeth Griswould petitioned the court to have sole custody of her children it was interesting to see the court ordering the children’s father to pay child support payments. I was not aware that courts ordered parents to pay child support as early as the seventeenth century.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I found the whole abandonment issue really interesting too. And like you Caitlin, I had no idea that courts could order a man to pay child support in the 17th century. In that part of the passage, I also thought it was really interesting that Elizabeth was also using her maiden name as opposed to Rogers.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
As I was reading the document “Divorce in New England” in Woloch, I was wondering if you were looked down upon by the other members of the community if you got a divorce. Did you become the subject of town gossip and become sort of ostracized from everyone else? I also want to know how common it was for someone to get divorced, I expect that it would not be as common as it is today, but I think it was fairly common because there are a lot of court documents pertaining to the subject. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I am sure that those who went through a divorce were gossiped about often. But that is all that women had- the control to talk about eachother. I would not know how often, however I am sure it was a complete and utter last resort. For most of the divorces, it is sad to see it is due to disertion. The women need to be able to be divorced in an attempt to find a new husband to gain economic stature. -- Talya Halpern.<br />
<br />
I agree with Talya. I definitely don't think that divorce was seen as the norm, but it was necessary. I mean, if a husband has vanished for six or seven years, doesn't that leave a wife in pretty dire straits financially? At that point, it seems to me that it’s time to move on.--Kaitlyn G. <br />
<br />
South Carolina's acts on Feme Sole Traders were quite interesting. It is astonishing women were allowed such rights during this period, but also surprising that it took 32 years between the passing of the two acts. The first act allowed the debts to be brought upon the trader herself, but until the second act she was not able to pursue justice in her own name. I wonder if this meant that before the second act it was her husband who must bring suit for her, or if she was simply unable to seek retribution. Regardless of the limitations, being able to engage in open trade offered a vastly increased source of income to the women of the colonies. I also wonder who's hands the money they earned often ended up in, their's or their husband's. --Robert Kopp</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_7_Questions/CommentsWeek 7 Questions/Comments2007-10-10T23:03:32Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I thought it was great how Martha didn't even begin her career until age 42,had six kids,and had several careers such as a housewife, slaughtered livestock, spun flax, produced candles and soap, knitted cloathing, pieced quilts, raised chickens, milked cows, fed pigs, and grew vegetables. Martha also ran a buisy local practice as a healer and midwife, and did much more! This was a remarkable women in my eyes.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I liked how her diary was at once a professional log, a family record, and a community record, because of her continual involvement with clients, neighbors, and local happenings.- Katie D.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting too how her diary did cover all points of her life, not just about her being a good wife or a good mother or a good midwife or what have you. That was one aspect of her diary that stood out from the diaries we have looked at previously. The diaries from the other periods seemed more concerned with making the writer look like a good Christian or the proper woman of the time, like she wrote it because she knew that it would be read some day and that she wanted to make sure her decendants knew what a wonderful person she was. While Martha Ballard may have had the same intention it also seems as though she wanted to keep the record more for herself and her children then to show how good she was. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In her diary, Martha Ballard mentions a man by the name of Mr. Ballard a couple of times, which I’m assuming is her husband. I was curious as to how much control he actually had over her life. I got the impression that midwives were usually widows or were unattached to a man. Does that make her case unusual? She is very independent and very busy, and she seems to do a lot of her healing and midwife duties on her own. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer about Mr. Ballard, who I too assume is her husband, I suppose that he had as much control over some aspects of her life as most men did over their wives. But I also got the impression that he is not always/not often at home. Frequently she wrote about him being off surveying somewhere. But also Martha was an older woman, who had already given birth to children, who did have a vocation and so she did have probably slightly more control then most. At the same time however, she is still known as Mrs. Martha Ballard and her role as a housewife and mother and grandmother takes presidence over her role as a midwife. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I think Martha uses the name Mr. Ballard, who I am sure is her husband, out of respect and love for her husband as the provider and business man that he is. I know when I was young it was not uncommon for couple who were elderly at that time to refer to themselves as Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith. Also couples who were business people tended to call each other by their formal names. I am a big fan of the old T.V. series The Walton’s. The Godseys were characters in the show that called each other Mr. Godsey and Mrs. Godsey. They didn’t often use their first name when they where addressing each other. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
While reading over Martha's diary online, I was surprised to read the section about Martha's son and eventual daughter-in-law. The couple had a child out of wedlock but the courts were less concerned with their immoral behavior but rather identifying the father so that the community would not be responsible for supporting the mother and child. Is this evidence of the ongoing shift from a religious to a secular society ? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
When reading Martha's diary dated the 9th of July 1806, I was appalled when reading of the Purrinton murders. I was shocked in the sense that one does not usually attribute such horrific behavior to that time. Many people today blame suicide-homicides on the society in which we live. I found it intersting and horrifying that such atrocities did happen even two hundred years ago.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I have been reading a lot of medical history lately and I found Martha’s diary passages in the winter very interesting in the fact that she gives good details on her ailments. The details are so good it makes me wonder if the fact there are many times during the winter when they are feeling fatigued and colicky that maybe it might be due to lack of a completely balanced diet. Often in the 1700s and 1800s fruits and vegetables are not very abundant. This food items are very high in various vitamins and minerals our body needs. Some of the symptoms Martha wrote about fit some of the vitamin deficiency diseases I am studying. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
What I would like to know is how Martha Ballard had the time to run her own household and take care of her own family as well as be a busy midwife. She seemed to be on call all the time and at the end of the diary entry in the Woloch book, she said she lost 42 nights of sleep that year! ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In Woloch's excerpt, I noticed that though the year she delivered 28 babies and 17 of them were "daughters" that is a lot of female babies. Was there something in this town's water that made them all girls? I also would have liked to read about how many of these babies survived the year, and how their mothers were doing. Why did she tell us the number of daughters? Does that show us that she values girl babies over boy babies? Could it be that she was just using short hand and telling us how many of one sex is easier than how many of both? -- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
<br />
I also would like to comment on how cool that website was that had her entire diary. It provided an excellent way of seeing the source first hand while still making it understandable. -- Julie Castanien</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/CommentsWeek 6 Questions/Comments2007-10-04T12:27:53Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading by Eve Korkfield titled Judith Sargent Murray: The Story of Margaretta, I thought it was interesting, while tracing her education, that Mr. Vigillius's wife pronounced her to be "a perfect mistress; her knowledge of the English, and French tongues, was fully adequate to her years; and her manner of reading had peculiar charms; her handwriting was neat and easy; she was a good accomptant...and much more. Margaretta was quite the accomplisher! - Katie D.<br />
<br />
Eve Korkfields Judith Sergeant Mary was very interesting in the fact that her parents’ idea of education sounded like a basic training for future sophisticated wives. I am sure young Mary would have no problem procuring a wealth husband with all of her learned refinements.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Going along with that same reading, I don't quite know what I think or how I feel about the following lines:<br />
<br />
~"I think the propriety of circumscribing the education of a female, within such narrow bounds as are frequently assigned, is at least problematical."<br />
<br />
~"The accomplished, the liberally accomplished female, if she is destined to move in the line of competency, will be regarded as a pleasing and instructive companion." <br />
<br />
~"We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta."<br />
<br />
These lines just really caught my eye and wondered if they caught anyone else's eye. They all, to me, seem to run with the themes/ideas we've discussed in class. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Vanessa, I agree with your comments that these few selections do somewhat contradict what we know about the role education played in the lives of pre-Revolutionary women. However when we fast forward to the post-war period, it seems like the idea of women receiving an education change with regards to "public virtue" and "republican motherhood". Women could receive an education if it a)made them a better companion to their husband or b)helped them to better teach their sons/the next generation of American citizens morals and genteel manners.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The line "We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta" also caught my eye and it ties in perfectly with the one that really stuck out to me, "and when the mind is judiciously balanced, it renders the possessor not only more valuable but also more amiable, and more generally useful." I'm kind of amused that the education of women was merely to make them more useful, and better yet, more useful to men. Their job was, as we learned in the lecture on Tuesday, to be able to teach men how to properly run the country and teach girls how to assist those men in whatever way possible. I can't decipher, though, whether or not this story was meant to be somewhat satirical since it was written by a woman pretending to be a man. I kind of got the feeling she was criticizing the education system. Thoughts? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the Murray reading, I found the following sentence particularly interesting: "No, Mr. Pedant, she was not unfitted for her proper sphere; and your stomach, however critical it may be, never digested finer puddings than those which I, with an uncommon zest, have partook, as knowing they were the composition of her fair hand--- yes, in the receipts of cookery she is thoroughly versed; she is in every respect the complete housewife" (136). After listing all her accomplishments, Murray's narrator, Mr. Vigillius, seems to feel it is necessary to assure the reader that Margaretta possesses the necessary feminine skills as well. This passage almost reads like an advertisement of Margaretta's suitability for marriage. -Ashley H. <br />
<br />
In regards to the Murray reading I would just like to say that I found it rather enjoyable and could imagine while reading it that people during the time in which it was written would also have derived some sort of entertainment from it. That said, I thought it was really interesting what Kelly mentioned, that it was written by a woman through the point of view of a man. Did people of the time know it was written by a woman or did she use a pseudonym? Also I was wondering if she was trying to be satirical as well. Another question, did this happen often, the taking in of orphans to educate them, was it like a trend or something, or was this rare and was it more common to do this with boys or with girls? There is just so much fictional literature about adopting children and educating them I wondered. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary. This was written by a woman , appearing as a man. I do believe that this was somewhat obviously sarcastic. But towards who? It could be the female author belittling her own sex to stand up, or it could be the female author belittling and poking fun at the arrogant male sex. I do not think people really knew that the author was a woman. If so, do you really think that this entertainment would be published? How could anyone believe it came from a woman!?- Talya Halpern . <br />
<br />
I find Rowson's biography rather odd. For a woman known as an actress, how did she achieve the respectability to open a popular girls' school in a town as straitlaced as Boston? How did did she manage to publish under her own name and achieve such success? Does it seem to anyone else that she borrowed details from her own life to write with?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In the reading from Catherine Scholten, it was interesting to me how during the colonial period pregnant women were commonly thought of as "breeding" and "teeming", though theologians attributed dignity to carrying the "living soul" of a child. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie D. the vocabulary used to explain a pregnant women is very interesting, as is the way theologians viewed women's pregnancies. I just wonder if this "living soul" ideology was prevelant through the colonies at this time or not because it seems to go against the theological ideas that women were suppose to suffer in childbirth because they were tainted with original sin. I just wonder if they believed women were the cause of sin and evil and therefore suffered in child birth, why would they choose to say then say women were the carriers of a "living soul" and were "blessed among women"? Doesn't this idea seem a little off and contradictory? --Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
In Catherine Scholten's account of the change that took place in childbirth procedures I had a question occur to me. While obviously the new medical science allowed doctors to help reduce the pain and risk of childbirth, why did they not let women train in this new medically accepted field? I understand that men thought that women wouldn't be able to understand all the technical terms and the sciences that the training would occur, but at the same time, women had been delivering the children through midwifery long before men came into the field. Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply train the women who already knew a great deal about birthing in the new sciences so that the woman giving birth would still be comfortable and the death rates in birth would go down?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth, while I understand that men thought women perhaps were not as capable to understand the science of it, I found it crazy that they had to do almost everything blindly because women were nervous about the male doctors seeing their privates. Another thing that struck me was that while this showed the intrusion of men in the womens sphere (I believe it proves the mens of that time superiority complex) it also showed some progress. Men saw it as their duty to protect women through child brith and "... women could now reasonably look to men for safety in the "perilous conditions" of childbirth." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
<br />
I still find it very odd that women were able to be convinced that men--who had no experience with women's bodies or the childbearing process--were their superiors when it came to childbirth. Furthermore, because midwives first started calling doctors for difficult births, I wonder how that changed doctors' perceptions of childbirth. Did it cause male doctors to think childbirth was more dangerous than it really was, leading to some of the 19th century emphasis on not wearing out a woman's body? Why did the change to male doctors seem to coincide with an increased emphasis on smaller families and reserving energy and resources? I find Scholten's report on NY laws requiring midwives not to discuss their business and women's bodies in front of men (except in emergencies) very interesting. It makes me wonder how much male doctors lost out on, because midwives wouldn't discuss it in front of them. It also makes me wonder how female midwives became desperate and concerned enough about science that they were willing to bring in male doctors, when the feelings against talking about childbearing in front of men were so strong--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Andrea's comments are really thought provoking. I wonder if even though men pushed women out of midwifery perhaps some women benefited by having men more involved in childbirth. The men would see how painful and dangerous it was first hand and maybe encourage birth control to help women. As midwives' voices were not heard as much as medical doctors. However, there are also obvious issues with women's loss of knowledge about their own bodies and how to deal with pregnancy. -Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
I agree, Andrea. I found myself getting annoyed that women seemed to be so easily convinced that men had such a better knowledge of childbearing and child birth than midwives. It seems to me that women would have placed more trust into the hands of someone who had actually gone through the experience. I think the questions you raise are definitely valid, and I found myself thinking about some of the same things as I was reading.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I agree with both Andrea and Kaitlyn. However, I wonder how this change came about. How did the doctors convince women that they were better, or more skilled in the ways of childbirth than a midwife who'd been helping deliver children her whole life? Where their pamphlets and articles that were circulated to help make this switch? How was is that these elite women placed so much faith in these doctors who couldn't even look and see what they were doing. By not seeing what they were doing couldn't they do more harm than good? ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I think that what might have aided womens acceptance of the shift to men physicians instead of midwifes may have just been as simple as they were the ones with medical training. Plus they were men and supposedly had more reason than women. Also it wasn't an immediate switch to men, it was more gradual. At first, the men worked with the midwives or were only called in emergencies. Then it was because they were able to ease the pain and had the tools to help pull out the child. The fact that many medical schools devoted at least one professor to solely focus on midwifery speaks to societies view of the necessity of proper training and the male focus of all things medical. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
While I understand that it can be seen that men usurped women's place in the birthing room, I agree with Alex. These men were trained. At this time women doctors were virtually unheard of, as far as I know anyway, but these men had the tools and the training necessary to potentially save both the mother and her child. They were called in cases of emergency, when whatever it was that the midwife was doing just wasnt working. I have never given birth but I would like to think that in that situation I would call whoever I could think of, do anything, that could by some miracle help save my life or the life of my child.--Mary P. <br />
<br />
I think that there was so much guessing and mysticism in the practices of giving birth in both efforts of doctors and midwifes. I would imagine that their training for these professions highlighted different things, which would create a totally different experience for women giving birth. <br />
--Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
Two things really stuck out to me when I was reading about the childbirth differences in the post Revolution era. Since the birthing process itself changed did the after birth process change? Did women have as much time, more, or less time to recooperate? As soon as the baby was born did women take on the role of caring for the woman, nursing, etc. or did the care of the baby continue with the doctor? Another question I had was regard to the change from birth being a pain women had to endure thanks to Eve to something to be uplifted, how did this happen? Was there a shift in religious beliefs or new interpretations of Eve and childbirth that emerged at the time that would lend itself to explaining this shift? I'm not sure of the religious and social context but maybe someone could lend some light on the idea. -- Mary Beth D. <br />
<br />
In the excerpt from Susanna Rowson’s: “Charlotte. A Tale of Truth” she writes about the tragic story of a young girl who leaves her family and friends behind for an Army Lieutenant she falls in love with. In the preface Rowson explains that she wrote the novel to warn parents about what could happen to their daughters as well as for young women who could find themselves in a situation similar to Charlottes. I really enjoyed reading this piece because even though Rowson wrote it in 1794 I found it easy to relate to the dilemma Charlotte was having over wanting to please her parents but at the same time trying to follow her heart. It is interesting to see that women today still feel many of the same pressures Charlotte felt in the 1790s. For instance many women are still concerned about choosing a husband who is accepted by their friends and family and it can split families apart when a woman defies her parents and marries someone who they find unsuitable. Many men today are also careful about respecting the wishes of their future in-laws by asking her father for permission to marry.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
<br />
In regards to "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth", the preface says it's somewhat based on a true story. Despite its romanticized points, it makes me wonder if it was a common occurrence for men to take women to the colonies against their will. Also, if they did come here and were unhappy, why couldn't they write back to their fathers and tell them they were virtually kidnapped? I know my daddy would fork up any amount to get me back home. Seeing Charlotte's father's undying love for her, I'm sure he would have done the same.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Maybe Charlotte was ashamed of abandoning and having disappointed her family and felt she could not reach out for their help. Or maybe she felt it was her duty to her now husband to obey him or at least stay with him. Also, Rowson writes, "Sometimes, indeed, he (Charlottes husband) would steal out at the close of evening, and pass a few hours with her; and then so much was she attached to him, that all her sorrows were forgotten while blest with his society." So even though was usually miserable, her intense love for him kept pulling her back to him. --Alex<br />
<br />
I also found "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" interesting but what I found most interesting was the image that was shown of the Army Lieutenant. Susanna Rowson writes his character as a less than wonderful man, after all Charlotte told him she wouldn't go with him because of her duty to her parents but he picked her up and took her anyway, at this point it seemed to be against her will. And once in America he left her alone the majority of the time and in the end instead of dying in the arms of her "love" she died in the arms of her dad (which was still very touching). Was Susanna warning girls against dishonoring her parents or keeping an eye out for men who would tell them what they wanted to hear in order to achieve their goals? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In my history of the book seminar, we were required to read Charlotte Temple in its entirety. I really enjoyed reading the book then, and i liked rereading a couple of chapters for this weeks reading. The story itself, as other have suggested revolves around Charolette who is torn between love and duty to both her parents and her supposed lover. What is really interesting about the novel is that there are places where the author, a female author at that, speaks directly to the reader and either explains or apologizes for the actions of the characters or warns the reader away from what she sees as dangerous to young women. What is also very interesting is that this book was the first "bestseller" in the unites states. What does the books subject and popularity tell us about the readers and society during the late 18th century? ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
"Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" was a very touching piece. I found it interesting that the idea of not wanting to disappoint her father mattered greatly to Charlotte. As she was dying, all Charlotte wanted was to see her father one last time and receive his blessing. It almost seems to reemphasize the beloved American concept of "Daddy's little girl." --E.Hufford<br />
<br />
That was also how I felt with this piece. But let's not get caught up with this story that I feel has been extremely romanticized to make a point to the people reading it. This was for young women not to go astray, and to obvioulsy make it clear that a father's decision and opinion was extremely important and crucial. - Talya Halpern. <br />
<br />
I was very taken with the story about Charlotte. I feel pretty certain that Rowson wrote this story to discourage young women to give into passions of love. I thought the way she depicted Montraville, fit the descriptions of a seducer to a tee. Charlotte’s act of giving her baby to her father and then dying in his arms was a dramatic way to drive home the message that young women should listen to their parents’ advice. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I think another aspect of "Charlotte A Tale of Truth" is that it was probably a response to the fact that girls could now make decisions about who they chose to marry. Their marriages were no longer arranged or forced to as great of an extent as they used to be so I'm led to believe that this piece was possibly a response to the idea that children, especially daughters, should still take their parents' advice when it comes to matters of the heart. Marriage is a big decision and parents only want the best for their children, be that economic gain or just to make sure they're with someone that will truly love them. - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I thought Rowson's piece reflected the different stereotypes attributed to women during this time. There was Charlotte, the helpless rich girl who is indecisive and weak; the promiscuous Mademoiselle, and the wise Madame Du Pont trying to steer Charlotte in the right direction. Furthermore, Rowson didn't believe these characters could change. Mademoiselle was bad in the beginning and bad in the end, Charlotte was always helpless. -F. Cobb<br />
<br />
So while reading Scholten's piece, I decided that had I lived during that time, I strongly doubt I would have had children. Childbirth is hard enough today with the pain and anxiety surrounding it. Add the thought of dying and the need to be spiritually prepared as John Oliver so kindly pointed out in his "A Present for Teeming Women," and there is no doubt many women today would probably have been scared out of childbearing (myself included). -- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I totally agree. The examples and excerpts from literature given to pregnant women of the day were a bit much. Especially those from A Present for Teeming American Women, like you said. The comparison of a warm chamber to a grave was a little too freaky, but I suppose that was sort of the point.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
In response to E. Hufford, I was thinking that childbirth would be difficult, but the only certain way to avoid pregancy would be to remain unmarried. With the limited opportunities available to women, I think many women would rather risk childbirth than a poor spinsterhood. What kind of social stigma was attached to women who chose to remain unmarried or those who were unable to have children?-- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I was a little confused by Murray's piece, "The Story of Margaretta." Apparently Murray wrote the series under the name of Mr. Vigillius. Therefore, she is pretending to be a man writing about the education of a woman, though she really is a woman. Why would she use the pen name? What it because she wanted to be taken seriously? - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
Murray probably thought that using a pen name gave her more credibility. Murray might have assumed that if she wrote as a woman her views would be brushed aside. --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly and I would also like to add that there may have been a negative stereotype of women who write during this period. I also found the comments F. Cobb made about the pen name she choose was interesting. For some reason I didn't notice that when I was reading. Maybe Murray wanted the story to be more realistic by claiming the characters were real. -Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
The question I had in my head while reading Scholten's article was, "why didn't women want men in there?" The article mentions prejudice as the cause, which seems ridiculously simple but obvious. Its interesting for me to see how the interpretation of the Bible seemed to follow the presence of male midwifery. Maybe its just the organization of the article, but does suggest that in America, social change precedes and causes a change in religion? Is this a common trend? The very fact that men are actually entering the profession of midwifery seems to be the flat reason for it being accepted. The need for professionals in times of emergencies ultimately gave way to just a general need when people realized that these people knew what they were doing (relatively) and that their tools wouldn't actually harm the child. On a different topic, I found this quote from Murray really interesting: "Her person, the symmetry of her features, the rose and lily of her complexion....these are the endowments of nature --while the artificial accomplishments with which she is invested...confer upon her no real or intrinsic merit." pg 137. Maybe I'm misreading that, but is that say her looks are more 'valuable' than the 'artificial' accomplishments of character? <br />
-Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed reading Rowson's story about Charlotte. I think it is interesting how things that were written about back then can still be things we are dealing with today. Like when she talked about how women liked a man in uniform : "A man of an indifferent appearance, will, when arrayed in a military habit, shew to advantage..."(194) and the fact that even though Charlotte wanted to do the right thing she let her "boyfriend" talk her into something she did not want to. That is something that young women today still deal with. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I agree with the opinions posted before on Scholten's article. From our lectures in class, I find it odd that men would want to exert dominance over birth. With the establishment of the concept of motherhood, this reversal seems odd. Perhaps in concerns of medical science, though, a woman could not be allowed to have that knowledge. This idea makes me wonder at what point does one gender role win out above others; what is the most important gendered difference of the period. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
In response to F. Cobb's comment about Murray using a man's name in her writings, she probably did that so that her writings would actually get published. Also, at that time, if people saw that something was written by a woman, people, specifically men, would probably not take her or her writings seriously. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/CommentsWeek 6 Questions/Comments2007-10-04T12:15:44Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading by Eve Korkfield titled Judith Sargent Murray: The Story of Margaretta, I thought it was interesting, while tracing her education, that Mr. Vigillius's wife pronounced her to be "a perfect mistress; her knowledge of the English, and French tongues, was fully adequate to her years; and her manner of reading had peculiar charms; her handwriting was neat and easy; she was a good accomptant...and much more. Margaretta was quite the accomplisher! - Katie D.<br />
<br />
Eve Korkfields Judith Sergeant Mary was very interesting in the fact that her parents’ idea of education sounded like a basic training for future sophisticated wives. I am sure young Mary would have no problem procuring a wealth husband with all of her learned refinements.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Going along with that same reading, I don't quite know what I think or how I feel about the following lines:<br />
<br />
~"I think the propriety of circumscribing the education of a female, within such narrow bounds as are frequently assigned, is at least problematical."<br />
<br />
~"The accomplished, the liberally accomplished female, if she is destined to move in the line of competency, will be regarded as a pleasing and instructive companion." <br />
<br />
~"We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta."<br />
<br />
These lines just really caught my eye and wondered if they caught anyone else's eye. They all, to me, seem to run with the themes/ideas we've discussed in class. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Vanessa, I agree with your comments that these few selections do somewhat contradict what we know about the role education played in the lives of pre-Revolutionary women. However when we fast forward to the post-war period, it seems like the idea of women receiving an education change with regards to "public virtue" and "republican motherhood". Women could receive an education if it a)made them a better companion to their husband or b)helped them to better teach their sons/the next generation of American citizens morals and genteel manners.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The line "We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta" also caught my eye and it ties in perfectly with the one that really stuck out to me, "and when the mind is judiciously balanced, it renders the possessor not only more valuable but also more amiable, and more generally useful." I'm kind of amused that the education of women was merely to make them more useful, and better yet, more useful to men. Their job was, as we learned in the lecture on Tuesday, to be able to teach men how to properly run the country and teach girls how to assist those men in whatever way possible. I can't decipher, though, whether or not this story was meant to be somewhat satirical since it was written by a woman pretending to be a man. I kind of got the feeling she was criticizing the education system. Thoughts? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the Murray reading, I found the following sentence particularly interesting: "No, Mr. Pedant, she was not unfitted for her proper sphere; and your stomach, however critical it may be, never digested finer puddings than those which I, with an uncommon zest, have partook, as knowing they were the composition of her fair hand--- yes, in the receipts of cookery she is thoroughly versed; she is in every respect the complete housewife" (136). After listing all her accomplishments, Murray's narrator, Mr. Vigillius, seems to feel it is necessary to assure the reader that Margaretta possesses the necessary feminine skills as well. This passage almost reads like an advertisement of Margaretta's suitability for marriage. -Ashley H. <br />
<br />
In regards to the Murray reading I would just like to say that I found it rather enjoyable and could imagine while reading it that people during the time in which it was written would also have derived some sort of entertainment from it. That said, I thought it was really interesting what Kelly mentioned, that it was written by a woman through the point of view of a man. Did people of the time know it was written by a woman or did she use a pseudonym? Also I was wondering if she was trying to be satirical as well. Another question, did this happen often, the taking in of orphans to educate them, was it like a trend or something, or was this rare and was it more common to do this with boys or with girls? There is just so much fictional literature about adopting children and educating them I wondered. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary. This was written by a woman , appearing as a man. I do believe that this was somewhat obviously sarcastic. But towards who? It could be the female author belittling her own sex to stand up, or it could be the female author belittling and poking fun at the arrogant male sex. I do not think people really knew that the author was a woman. If so, do you really think that this entertainment would be published? How could anyone believe it came from a woman!?- Talya Halpern . <br />
<br />
I find Rowson's biography rather odd. For a woman known as an actress, how did she achieve the respectability to open a popular girls' school in a town as straitlaced as Boston? How did did she manage to publish under her own name and achieve such success? Does it seem to anyone else that she borrowed details from her own life to write with?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In the reading from Catherine Scholten, it was interesting to me how during the colonial period pregnant women were commonly thought of as "breeding" and "teeming", though theologians attributed dignity to carrying the "living soul" of a child. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie D. the vocabulary used to explain a pregnant women is very interesting, as is the way theologians viewed women's pregnancies. I just wonder if this "living soul" ideology was prevelant through the colonies at this time or not because it seems to go against the theological ideas that women were suppose to suffer in childbirth because they were tainted with original sin. I just wonder if they believed women were the cause of sin and evil and therefore suffered in child birth, why would they choose to say then say women were the carriers of a "living soul" and were "blessed among women"? Doesn't this idea seem a little off and contradictory? --Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
In Catherine Scholten's account of the change that took place in childbirth procedures I had a question occur to me. While obviously the new medical science allowed doctors to help reduce the pain and risk of childbirth, why did they not let women train in this new medically accepted field? I understand that men thought that women wouldn't be able to understand all the technical terms and the sciences that the training would occur, but at the same time, women had been delivering the children through midwifery long before men came into the field. Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply train the women who already knew a great deal about birthing in the new sciences so that the woman giving birth would still be comfortable and the death rates in birth would go down?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth, while I understand that men thought women perhaps were not as capable to understand the science of it, I found it crazy that they had to do almost everything blindly because women were nervous about the male doctors seeing their privates. Another thing that struck me was that while this showed the intrusion of men in the womens sphere (I believe it proves the mens of that time superiority complex) it also showed some progress. Men saw it as their duty to protect women through child brith and "... women could now reasonably look to men for safety in the "perilous conditions" of childbirth." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
<br />
I still find it very odd that women were able to be convinced that men--who had no experience with women's bodies or the childbearing process--were their superiors when it came to childbirth. Furthermore, because midwives first started calling doctors for difficult births, I wonder how that changed doctors' perceptions of childbirth. Did it cause male doctors to think childbirth was more dangerous than it really was, leading to some of the 19th century emphasis on not wearing out a woman's body? Why did the change to male doctors seem to coincide with an increased emphasis on smaller families and reserving energy and resources? I find Scholten's report on NY laws requiring midwives not to discuss their business and women's bodies in front of men (except in emergencies) very interesting. It makes me wonder how much male doctors lost out on, because midwives wouldn't discuss it in front of them. It also makes me wonder how female midwives became desperate and concerned enough about science that they were willing to bring in male doctors, when the feelings against talking about childbearing in front of men were so strong--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I agree, Andrea. I found myself getting annoyed that women seemed to be so easily convinced that men had such a better knowledge of childbearing and child birth than midwives. It seems to me that women would have placed more trust into the hands of someone who had actually gone through the experience. I think the questions you raise are definitely valid, and I found myself thinking about some of the same things as I was reading.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I agree with both Andrea and Kaitlyn. However, I wonder how this change came about. How did the doctors convince women that they were better, or more skilled in the ways of childbirth than a midwife who'd been helping deliver children her whole life? Where their pamphlets and articles that were circulated to help make this switch? How was is that these elite women placed so much faith in these doctors who couldn't even look and see what they were doing. By not seeing what they were doing couldn't they do more harm than good? ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I think that what might have aided womens acceptance of the shift to men physicians instead of midwifes may have just been as simple as they were the ones with medical training. Plus they were men and supposedly had more reason than women. Also it wasn't an immediate switch to men, it was more gradual. At first, the men worked with the midwives or were only called in emergencies. Then it was because they were able to ease the pain and had the tools to help pull out the child. The fact that many medical schools devoted at least one professor to solely focus on midwifery speaks to societies view of the necessity of proper training and the male focus of all things medical. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
While I understand that it can be seen that men usurped women's place in the birthing room, I agree with Alex. These men were trained. At this time women doctors were virtually unheard of, as far as I know anyway, but these men had the tools and the training necessary to potentially save both the mother and her child. They were called in cases of emergency, when whatever it was that the midwife was doing just wasnt working. I have never given birth but I would like to think that in that situation I would call whoever I could think of, do anything, that could by some miracle help save my life or the life of my child.--Mary P. <br />
<br />
I think that there was so much guessing and mysticism in the practices of giving birth in both efforts of doctors and midwifes. I would imagine that their training for these professions highlighted different things, which would create a totally different experience for women giving birth. <br />
--Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
Two things really stuck out to me when I was reading about the childbirth differences in the post Revolution era. Since the birthing process itself changed did the after birth process change? Did women have as much time, more, or less time to recooperate? As soon as the baby was born did women take on the role of caring for the woman, nursing, etc. or did the care of the baby continue with the doctor? Another question I had was regard to the change from birth being a pain women had to endure thanks to Eve to something to be uplifted, how did this happen? Was there a shift in religious beliefs or new interpretations of Eve and childbirth that emerged at the time that would lend itself to explaining this shift? I'm not sure of the religious and social context but maybe someone could lend some light on the idea. -- Mary Beth D. <br />
<br />
In the excerpt from Susanna Rowson’s: “Charlotte. A Tale of Truth” she writes about the tragic story of a young girl who leaves her family and friends behind for an Army Lieutenant she falls in love with. In the preface Rowson explains that she wrote the novel to warn parents about what could happen to their daughters as well as for young women who could find themselves in a situation similar to Charlottes. I really enjoyed reading this piece because even though Rowson wrote it in 1794 I found it easy to relate to the dilemma Charlotte was having over wanting to please her parents but at the same time trying to follow her heart. It is interesting to see that women today still feel many of the same pressures Charlotte felt in the 1790s. For instance many women are still concerned about choosing a husband who is accepted by their friends and family and it can split families apart when a woman defies her parents and marries someone who they find unsuitable. Many men today are also careful about respecting the wishes of their future in-laws by asking her father for permission to marry.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
<br />
In regards to "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth", the preface says it's somewhat based on a true story. Despite its romanticized points, it makes me wonder if it was a common occurrence for men to take women to the colonies against their will. Also, if they did come here and were unhappy, why couldn't they write back to their fathers and tell them they were virtually kidnapped? I know my daddy would fork up any amount to get me back home. Seeing Charlotte's father's undying love for her, I'm sure he would have done the same.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Maybe Charlotte was ashamed of abandoning and having disappointed her family and felt she could not reach out for their help. Or maybe she felt it was her duty to her now husband to obey him or at least stay with him. Also, Rowson writes, "Sometimes, indeed, he (Charlottes husband) would steal out at the close of evening, and pass a few hours with her; and then so much was she attached to him, that all her sorrows were forgotten while blest with his society." So even though was usually miserable, her intense love for him kept pulling her back to him. --Alex<br />
<br />
I also found "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" interesting but what I found most interesting was the image that was shown of the Army Lieutenant. Susanna Rowson writes his character as a less than wonderful man, after all Charlotte told him she wouldn't go with him because of her duty to her parents but he picked her up and took her anyway, at this point it seemed to be against her will. And once in America he left her alone the majority of the time and in the end instead of dying in the arms of her "love" she died in the arms of her dad (which was still very touching). Was Susanna warning girls against dishonoring her parents or keeping an eye out for men who would tell them what they wanted to hear in order to achieve their goals? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In my history of the book seminar, we were required to read Charlotte Temple in its entirety. I really enjoyed reading the book then, and i liked rereading a couple of chapters for this weeks reading. The story itself, as other have suggested revolves around Charolette who is torn between love and duty to both her parents and her supposed lover. What is really interesting about the novel is that there are places where the author, a female author at that, speaks directly to the reader and either explains or apologizes for the actions of the characters or warns the reader away from what she sees as dangerous to young women. What is also very interesting is that this book was the first "bestseller" in the unites states. What does the books subject and popularity tell us about the readers and society during the late 18th century? ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
"Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" was a very touching piece. I found it interesting that the idea of not wanting to disappoint her father mattered greatly to Charlotte. As she was dying, all Charlotte wanted was to see her father one last time and receive his blessing. It almost seems to reemphasize the beloved American concept of "Daddy's little girl." --E.Hufford<br />
<br />
That was also how I felt with this piece. But let's not get caught up with this story that I feel has been extremely romanticized to make a point to the people reading it. This was for young women not to go astray, and to obvioulsy make it clear that a father's decision and opinion was extremely important and crucial. - Talya Halpern. <br />
<br />
I was very taken with the story about Charlotte. I feel pretty certain that Rowson wrote this story to discourage young women to give into passions of love. I thought the way she depicted Montraville, fit the descriptions of a seducer to a tee. Charlotte’s act of giving her baby to her father and then dying in his arms was a dramatic way to drive home the message that young women should listen to their parents’ advice. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I think another aspect of "Charlotte A Tale of Truth" is that it was probably a response to the fact that girls could now make decisions about who they chose to marry. Their marriages were no longer arranged or forced to as great of an extent as they used to be so I'm led to believe that this piece was possibly a response to the idea that children, especially daughters, should still take their parents' advice when it comes to matters of the heart. Marriage is a big decision and parents only want the best for their children, be that economic gain or just to make sure they're with someone that will truly love them. - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I thought Rowson's piece reflected the different stereotypes attributed to women during this time. There was Charlotte, the helpless rich girl who is indecisive and weak; the promiscuous Mademoiselle, and the wise Madame Du Pont trying to steer Charlotte in the right direction. Furthermore, Rowson didn't believe these characters could change. Mademoiselle was bad in the beginning and bad in the end, Charlotte was always helpless. -F. Cobb<br />
<br />
So while reading Scholten's piece, I decided that had I lived during that time, I strongly doubt I would have had children. Childbirth is hard enough today with the pain and anxiety surrounding it. Add the thought of dying and the need to be spiritually prepared as John Oliver so kindly pointed out in his "A Present for Teeming Women," and there is no doubt many women today would probably have been scared out of childbearing (myself included). -- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I totally agree. The examples and excerpts from literature given to pregnant women of the day were a bit much. Especially those from A Present for Teeming American Women, like you said. The comparison of a warm chamber to a grave was a little too freaky, but I suppose that was sort of the point.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
In response to E. Hufford, I was thinking that childbirth would be difficult, but the only certain way to avoid pregancy would be to remain unmarried. With the limited opportunities available to women, I think many women would rather risk childbirth than a poor spinsterhood. What kind of social stigma was attached to women who chose to remain unmarried or those who were unable to have children?-- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I was a little confused by Murray's piece, "The Story of Margaretta." Apparently Murray wrote the series under the name of Mr. Vigillius. Therefore, she is pretending to be a man writing about the education of a woman, though she really is a woman. Why would she use the pen name? What it because she wanted to be taken seriously? - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
Murray probably thought that using a pen name gave her more credibility. Murray might have assumed that if she wrote as a woman her views would be brushed aside. --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly and I would also like to add that there may have been a negative stereotype of women who write during this period. I also found the comments F. Cobb made about the pen name she choose was interesting. For some reason I didn't notice that when I was reading. Maybe Murray wanted the story to be more realistic by claiming the characters were real. -Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
The question I had in my head while reading Scholten's article was, "why didn't women want men in there?" The article mentions prejudice as the cause, which seems ridiculously simple but obvious. Its interesting for me to see how the interpretation of the Bible seemed to follow the presence of male midwifery. Maybe its just the organization of the article, but does suggest that in America, social change precedes and causes a change in religion? Is this a common trend? The very fact that men are actually entering the profession of midwifery seems to be the flat reason for it being accepted. The need for professionals in times of emergencies ultimately gave way to just a general need when people realized that these people knew what they were doing (relatively) and that their tools wouldn't actually harm the child. On a different topic, I found this quote from Murray really interesting: "Her person, the symmetry of her features, the rose and lily of her complexion....these are the endowments of nature --while the artificial accomplishments with which she is invested...confer upon her no real or intrinsic merit." pg 137. Maybe I'm misreading that, but is that say her looks are more 'valuable' than the 'artificial' accomplishments of character? <br />
-Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed reading Rowson's story about Charlotte. I think it is interesting how things that were written about back then can still be things we are dealing with today. Like when she talked about how women liked a man in uniform : "A man of an indifferent appearance, will, when arrayed in a military habit, shew to advantage..."(194) and the fact that even though Charlotte wanted to do the right thing she let her "boyfriend" talk her into something she did not want to. That is something that young women today still deal with. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I agree with the opinions posted before on Scholten's article. From our lectures in class, I find it odd that men would want to exert dominance over birth. With the establishment of the concept of motherhood, this reversal seems odd. Perhaps in concerns of medical science, though, a woman could not be allowed to have that knowledge. This idea makes me wonder at what point does one gender role win out above others; what is the most important gendered difference of the period. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
In response to F. Cobb's comment about Murray using a man's name in her writings, she probably did that so that her writings would actually get published. Also, at that time, if people saw that something was written by a woman, people, specifically men, would probably not take her or her writings seriously. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/CommentsWeek 5 Questions/Comments2007-09-27T04:23:20Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>"Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights" left me wondering if his comments would have helped or hindered women in the eighteenth century. Paine states grievances against women while projecting them to be weak and fragile. He praises their contributions and advocates for recognition of female accomplishment, while belittling women with allusions to their inability to care for themselves. Paine's claims seem to be overwhelmingly contradictory. So, my question is-- Could Paine be considered an early feminist? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
When reading "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights", I also was a bit confused to where Paine was coming from. His claim's were infact very contradictory with one another. After reading Kelly's question,this leads me to believe that he could be a considered an early feminist in some ways. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I also found "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have some Rights" very interesting in that he contradicts himself in saying women are weak but have a great deal of courage for putting up with oppression throughout time and the world. Though this article did make me wonder what men's reaction to his article would have been. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Well, I too was a little confused. But looking at it in context- this is all propoganda. Is this not to just gather more patriots for the "cause"? His soft side of defending women could gather more support from the women, yet his ideas of the mascline chivalry could win the support of men. - Talya Halpern. <br />
<br />
<br />
Paine's comments on the rights of women almost assumes a certain amount of kindness or mercy is required to be offered by the conqueror, victor, or elite, almost like the deference offered in the patriarchal system of Virginia. It would be interesting to compare Paine's work with the work of Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women.Is there any information on what prompted Paine to write this essay?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Paine wrote much on how women are oppressed and loved by men at the same time but I fail to see where he talks about the rights of women. He highlighted the plight of women but didn't offer any suggestions for helping them unless you consider the fact that he recognized their plight and urged other men to think about it advocating for rights. The document that followed Paine's actually did ask readers to remember the revolution and perhaps repeat it to gain liberties for women as well. --Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
<br />
When reading the essay "A Carolina Patriot" in Woloch's book, there was an excerpt found from Eliza Wilkerson's wartime letters to an unspecified friend. I found it intersting that she said "For my part, "I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery"(p.123). Throughout this excerpt Eliza seems to be "inventing" herself - adopting the pose appropriate to a "female patriot". -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I found the letter that Katie D. mentioned to be very interesting and I would agree with the statement that she seems to be "inventing" herself. Everything that she wrote is apparently saturated with patriotic thoughts and feelings. I am curious however just how common an attitude towards politics at the time was Eliza Wilkerson's or were more women inclined to have more of the feelings of Grace Galloway (starting on page 124). Grace Galloway's diary entries are such a total opposite to the letter of ELiza Wilkerson that a reader is battered with very strong opposing views. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In regards to Katie and Mary's comments, I am also curious about how a different audience would have altered Eliza Wilkerson's statements. How might her opinions or framing of opinions have been altered if voiced to a man? Would Eliza have the same feeling of invention? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I really liked these two letters. They seem to encompass the two extremes of the time period, the "female patriot" and the loyalist. However, i think its interesting that just from the one letter included in our reading from Galloway, we don't get a sense of her true poltical standpoint. She's mad and frankly pissed off because the patriots are coming in and forcefully removing her from her house. Wouldn't you be against someone who was so keen on taking your things away? What's interesting about comparing the two letters is that Locke's ideology of the right to personal liberties comes up in both of them. A lot of the termonology for the Revolution came from the work of John Locke who stated the idea that people had a right to "life, libery and property." One of the majoy ideas which fueled the revolution was this idea that the colonies were becoming enslaved to Britian because Parliment was taking away their property, among other things. Its interesting that this enslavement is brought up in Wilkinson's letter, in the section discussed by Maj. Moore, at which Wilkinson rejoices at the prospect of liberty. However, the idea of enslavement, or that lose of personal property is also vividly illustrated in Galloway's letter where she is being robbed of her liberty, her property by the very same people who are fighting to defend thier rights to property. ---Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
I was interested in how the political atmosphere and/or personal political leanings would have affected Wilkerson's and Galloway's varying views on politics and the war. For example, while Wilkerson seems idealistic and interested in politics, would she have had the same enthusiasm as a Loyalist? Would Galloway have been merely irritated with the intrusion of politics in her life if her husband's Loyalist stance hadn't caused her to lose her home? --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
Good question, I was actually wondering the same thing. I wonder what Galloway, herself believed. I wonder if given the oppurtunity, would she have wanted / been able to seperate her political opinions from her husbands? Are their accounts of husbands and wifes taking different sides of the politcal spectrum? I wonder if Galloway ever had the oppurtunity, while her husband was away, to assert herself as a woman with patriot leanings, and therefore avoid the scene of her being almost dragged from her house. --Katelynn Vance.<br />
<br />
In regards to Eliza’s letter, I was also struck by her quote, “I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery.” It certainly paints a pretty bold picture. However, I always find it ironic when plantation owners, who are presumably slave owners, make comparisons to how wickedly they are being treated by others, when they themselves own slaves. Essentially saying, “It’s okay to treat someone else like that, just as long as it’s not me.”- Lisa Wilkerson <br />
<br />
This could be totally wrong, but in the context of the letter, I don't think Maj. Moore is talking about slavery as we understand it today. He is probably referring to the seizing of property by the British government (i.e. what the colonists saw as tyranny though the Stamp Act and other laws passsed by Parliament at that time). Now, if I had not attended Prof. Hudgins’s American Revolution class yesterday, I totally would have thought the same thing. Yay for classes overlapping!--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I agree with Lisa! This attitude makes just as much sense as a bunch of slaveholders writing a Constitution about equality and liberty. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
Another thing I found interesting was when Eliza Wilkinson's wrote,"I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy...." She was so "progressive" in her views and how much she spoke out for the inclusion of women in areas beside domestic labor and yet she still fell victim to some gender stereotyping. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
Perhaps Eliza was just appeasing the male ego when she wrote the above quote. I mean, men were in charge so it would be important not to ruffle too many feathers. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
While reading Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts Upon Female Education" I was struck by the change in the views concerning female education that we have come upon in just this short span that we have discussed. Where as before women were taught to read mostly so that they could read the Bible, now men are encouraged to promote the education of their daughters for the sake of their property, for women were often left as stewards of property and business during a husbands absence, but also, and from Rush's continuing mention of it importantly, the fact that these daughters will be growing up and getting married and having children, particularly sons, and they will have the task of educating these sons in a manner befitting their status and learning. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Mary, do not forget the part in that same document where Rush wrote about how important it was for women to read the Bible everyday. It does seem as though expectations and allowances for women's education grew in a short amount of time but let's keep in mind who these women were that Rush was writing about, I think he is addressing a certain class of woman not all women. --Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
I agree with Mary regarding Rush's lecture on female education. Girls were actually going to be challenged academically in all of the subjects they formerly were kept away from. What intrigued me about this lecture, however, is that it was aimed towards men in the audience and not actually the girls who would be undergoing this new academic change. And not only was it directed at men, but at men of a much higher social class who would be in charge of allowing this change to happen. It really shows how the elite were coming into play and actually becoming a threat to the rest of the colonists. (I also enjoy that he refused to let students study French, but that's a bit off-topic) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I though that it was interesting how in Esther DeBerdt's "Sentiments of an American Woman", she freely admits that women have "...feeble hands..." (115). I would have thought that a comment like that would be more likely to come from a man of that time and not a woman. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I felt that the way Mary Jemison described the Native Americans in the article "The War for Independence...", made them seem very materialistic. It seemed that all the Native Americans cared about were the goods they were going to receive from the British and nothing else. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading "An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights." I found it interesting that this woman flat out said that many women would do whatever they could to help the revolution during this time when many men felt like women wouldn't want to give up their luxuries to help the cause. I also enjoyed how she compared american women to the women of antiquity who helped save their nations. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading "An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights." I am the sap that this stuff was written for- I immediately felt like I could go dig a trench or build a wall to help our good ole' boys. I thought it was an excellent propoganda piece and could serve to get women who are not interested in politics involved in the fight for America's independence.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Agreeing with Lisa, "An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights" is a terrific piece of propaganda. I don't think anything else could have persuaded women more during the revolution to give up their luxuries like tea and fine textiles like another woman "just like them" telling them to do so. This piece did nothing but emphasize how important women could be and it is a great way to get women involved in supporting the revolution, especially if they were not the kind to immediately do so. - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading Esther DeBerdt Reed's piece. By showing examples of past women who struggled on behalf of their own nations, Esther bolsters her argument. I like the fact that she did not try to argue in passive manner. She asserts herself and her fellow women who want to do more to serve their nation. Her sentiments are much more convincing and empowering due to the manner in which she presented herself. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Esther DeBert's piece was made even more interesting by the fact that she says that "women have been seen forgeting the weakness of their sex." This definitely makes it seem like DeBerdt does not see women as nearly as weak as they are usually portrayed. Some of the other readings went on about how weak women were-- they could help, but they were still weak. DeBert on the other hand shows women leaving their perceived weakness behind. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
When reading Abigail Adams' correspondence with her husband John and friend Mercy, I found myself sympathizing with Abigail. Her frustration with John when he wrote. "As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh" must have been great. Reading her letter to Mercy about John's repsonse seems as though it could have been written by a woman today to a friend complaining about her husband's actions.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I agree with those thoughts on the letters of Abigail Adams. And I find it revealing in John Adams' character. He's a historically important figure in our nations history and we hold him on a high pedestal for that. But he still thinks typical thoughts of the time period with regards to women and their "rights." His comments not only include the "I cannot but laugh comment" but even to say "We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems." We can continue to think of John Adams as a great man and important to the founding of our nation, but we must recognize his averageness in his thoughts. If that made any sense at all. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I agree that it is important to note that John Adam's thoughts were typical of the time period. However, it was a bit surprising that he put his wife in the same category as children, apprentices, Indians, and slaves. He knew she was well educated but the fact that she was a woman was the overriding factor. - Fiona Cobb <br />
<br />
I felt that Phillis Wheatley's address to George III was an amazing piece of literature. I think it was so clever to include the words free and equal into her poem. Wheatley was treated a lot differently from most slaves . She was educated among white children, and was even sent to Europe to progress is studies and writing. Did her owners really read her poem? I am sure they were delighted for her--and them because they own her. But did they hear it? Did anyone else see those underlying messages for freedom from slavery? Did anyone agree with her underlying tones of the poem? - Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
I am sure that people saw the underlying themes of Wheatley's poems, or else the political ones not have been excluded from her book. I'm wondering if people just dismissed her underlying theme of freedom as something they'd expect from a female enslaved. However, its also possible that they didn't see the themes or didn't want to because they assumbed that slavery was a good thing and africans were not fully human, therefore didn't have the same need for freedom and property. Wheatley was very much the exception to the rule, which is why she was paraded around so much and expected to share her poetry because she brought attention and probably prestige to the Wheatley family. Although, on a completely different thought...When should we stop analyzing poetry, how do we as historians know we've taken our interpretatons too far. How should we walk the fine line of interpretting the poem for its historical content without completely turning our back on the message the author intended their readers to understand. How can historians ensure that they're not missing the point of the authors work by picking apart a poem line by line for possible historical signifigance? ----Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I have to agree with Talya that Wheatley was very clever and I think it's possible she was underestimated by those around her. She was obviously intelligent but her cleverness leads me to think she could outsmart even her owners. Of course, we will probably never know, but I like to think she had a few laughs at the expense of others as she wrote this poem as well as her others. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found Phillis Wheatley's poem to King George III interesting. How was it that Woloch was able to interpret the poem as a subtle jab at the King yet the those in England who screened her book of poetry for poems of Revolution missed it? Nevertheless, I agree with those above that it was a very clever way to get her views across. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I agree with Talya's assessment of Phillis Wheatley's poem. As I was reading it, I couldn't help but wonder how different her situation could have been had she been enslaved on a rural, Southern plantation as opposed to being in Boston. This also makes me wonder: I know her poems were published in England, but were they read widely in the US? If so, how were the accepted, especially since they were the work of an African American woman?--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I felt that Mary Jemison Views the Revolution was a great account of the War for Independence. Mary’s descriptions were not that of a typical woman. She describes scenes of prisoners being punished that many women would not even want to watch let alone observe and write about. I especially like the end of her story when she writes of how she hired herself out to an escaped black slave and how she was not too worried about the gun the slave stood over her with. I doubt many women of the colonial settlements would do the same.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I think Abigail Adams statement to "pay particular care and attention" to the ladies or they are "determined to forment a rebellion" was priceless! Then her husband calls her "saucy". It is amazing to see that even in a relationship like the Adams' had the notion of women being fragile and needing their husbands protection and guidance was still made very clear. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I wonder how much of Abigail Adams's claims of women being "placed by providence under your protection" was an attempt to flatter her husband's ego and appeal to his sense of chivalry. Did she really feel women needed protection, or was she merely aware of what men needed to hear in order to consider the rights of women?-- Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I was also confused by Thomas Paine. He seemed in one breath to praise women and the next breath insult them. I wonder how the women of the time saw his remarks. Did they feel insulted as well or was it something they were used to (being praised and insulted at the same time)?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Its interesting that the lecture by Rush about women was actually directed toward men. But its not really surprising, who else was directing culture and such things at this time? Its also worth noting how its put into contrast with Great Britain, just a few years after the American Revolution. Does this represent a self-conscious attempt to different what it means to be American from that of British? The letters between the Adams was also really interesting because it does show that although Adams is romaticized in American history, he was still a man of times. Its interesting that he refers to patriarchy as a 'theory' when he says about the 'masculine systems' that they "are little more than a theory." What exactly does that mean? That its merely a good model for behavior? I certainly don't think they were so detached toward these norms that they could truly think of them as a "theory." Its interesting to see him change the subject from "masucline systems" holding women down to a discussion of independence from the "peticoat." It seems to suggest that Adams didn't quite notice the similarity of the 'oppression' of women as the same as the peticoat toward the American. <br />
-Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
I also found it surprising that the Native Americans so quickly gave up the six nation treaty they had created the year before when the British Commissioners asked for their help in fighting against “the rebels.” When Jemison described the British Commissioners coming before the Chiefs to try and convince them to help I really hoped the Chiefs would be able to look past their promises of material goods and an alliance with a rich King. Sadly the Chiefs were blind sighted by the promises of wealth and agreed to fight against what the British promised to be “only a few easily subdued people who deserve the punishment for their disobedience to the King.” Just a few passages later Jemison refers to a battle in the spring of 1776 when the Indians were completely beaten and thirty-six died. It seems like the “sorrow and distress” that quickly falls over the town when the warriors returned from the battle could have been easily avoided if the Chiefs had just stood their ground and not given in to the British demands.—Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I was interested in the questions that Woloch raised in the introduction to the diary of Grace Galloway, a Loyalist Wife. Specifically, can women be held responsibile for their political opinions? In this case Galloway's property and inheritance was confiscated because she was a Loyalist. I thought this was a bit extreme considering her husband had already fled never to return and she didn't seem like a die hard loyalist in her diary and was more concerned about her possessions. Additionally, at the time women were thought to be politically ignorant. Was this instance more about show rather than politics? - Fiona Cobb<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but feel sorry for Grace Galloway! The poor woman hated politics and because of her husband's standpoint as a Loyalist, she lost everything and never gained any of it back after the war, including the money left to her by her father. And what's worse is Joseph took Betsy with him! I just feel as though this is the perfect example of how women were unfortunately left to deal with their husband's choices since they did not have any of their own, because of their status as a femme covert. It's an unfortunate scenario and it just leaves me wondering, how many more women ended up like poor Grace? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I believe Grace Galloway's case is one of the most excellent examples of Dr. McClurken's claim that women overwhelmingly remembered the deprivations and terrors of abuse,loss of property, and loss of lives. The reception she received by her supposed friends during the war is one of the numerous accounts of the true depth of the effects of war. Another interesting experience illustrated by her case was how femme covert status often cost a woman her property, even if she disagreed with her husband's politics. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Just because it needs to be said somewhere, as an addition to Dr. McClurken's lecture Tuesday, the following women deserve at least equal recognition to Mercy Otis Warren for their role in inspiring and rousing men to engage in resistance to the British. This is not intended to romanticize women's activities during the Revolution any more than history textbooks romanticize men's activities during the Revolution. These women adopted courageous roles and they deserve credit as individuals for their activities: <br />
*Hannah Arnett--When the men were considering signing the Howe brothers proclamation of loyalty, she burst into their discussion and made a rousing speech and presentation convincing them not to sign the proclamation<br />
*Penelope Barker and the Edenton, NC ladies--created their own proclamation promising to boycott importation of cloth and tea from England, along with their own little tea party demonstration<br />
*Faith Robinson Trumbull--wife of the Governor of Connecticut, urged the people of her parish to donate to the American soldiers, giving the cloak she received from Rochambeau (the French commander)<br />
*Prudence Wright--organized the women of her village in dressing in their men's clothing and carrying guns to defend the bridge at Groton against the British<br />
*The Livingston women--married to all the most influential New York politicians, their letter writing to most of the founding fathers is cited by Linda Kerber and Mary Beth Norton as an example of women actively campaigning for independence and writing persuasively to their family and friends, who happened to be the leading law makers and decision makers in their colony's politics, making them comparable to the tired and favored example of Mercy Otis Warren.<br />
Furthermore, while we need to be careful to recognize the effects of the horrors of war on women's lives during the Revolution, women who acted heroically deserve to have their stories told without being dismissed as simply exceptions or romantic stories, because history textbooks are filled with the stories of men who are also exceptions (George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin). While it is quite necessary to convey to students the exceptional nature of these women's experiences and it's impossible for Dr. McClurken--or any other professor or teacher--to address the majority of these accounts with current curriculum requirements, they deserve to be remembered, and I consider this a small attempt to add to the individual stories we've begun classes with. <br />
--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I appreciate Andrea's addition of important and influential women. If we went over all these women in class I think it would be November before we got out of the 1700s. It is too bad that we were not taught more about women like this throughout our education. It sometimes surprises me when I hear how little I know about history's important women and I have made an effort to learn about them, what of those who make no effort at all? Oh well I guess it will be my job to try to make them want to learn more. Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
I also found Phillis Wheatley's poem to be particularly memorable. I am surprised that her master, John Wheatley, allowed her the education she received. I am curious of his intentions in allowing for this. The poem included exemplifies the power of satire. As a fan of modern satirical programming, I can appreciate the strength of its belied impact. In the case of Phillis Wheatley, she seems to have left her poem raveled in such cleverness that its true meanings may only be known to her. As such, it would carry importance based upon the interpretation of those reading it, a very effective method indeed. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
From all the readings this week the one thing that stuck out most to me was this feeling of being stuck between obligation/expectations and personal desires for women during the American Revolution. The revolution stirred up a lot of ideas of “equality” and “freedom” for all types of minority groups…poor whites, free blacks, black slaves, Native Americans and women. I think the readings point to a women’s need to fulfill expectations yet wonder if there were things that needed to be changed. Many of the women discuss their role in helping fight/support the British and their sense of patriotism that was both an obligation and a desire for women. When it came to things such as education, we see the idea of empowering women with certain rights, yet the expectations still remain…a women should be polite, moral, submissive, a good wife and a good mother. What expectations, if any, did the American Revolution actually change? Was the revolution more of an ideological change or were there concrete social changes evident? Were the changes and the increase power/interest we do see, from and for women’s rights truly unique to the revolution, a consequence of the revolution or a continuation of obligation and expected roles? -- Mary Beth D.<br />
<br />
Abigail Adams letter to her husband John Adams was the most recognizable primary document out of the readings this week. It’s probably hard to avoid Abigail Adams when talking about U.S. Women’s history. I found John Adams letter sent in response to Abigail’s initial letter interesting because it gives us insight into how seriously she was taken, which unfortunately was not very seriously. Instead, John Adams tells her to be patient and that the leaders do not really have as much power to change the system as she gives them credit for. Abigail then sends a letter to her friend Mercy Warren about the exchange. I think it would have been interesting to see how Warren would have responded to Abigail’s letter. -- Jennifer Feldhaus</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/CommentsWeek 5 Questions/Comments2007-09-27T04:11:51Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>"Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights" left me wondering if his comments would have helped or hindered women in the eighteenth century. Paine states grievances against women while projecting them to be weak and fragile. He praises their contributions and advocates for recognition of female accomplishment, while belittling women with allusions to their inability to care for themselves. Paine's claims seem to be overwhelmingly contradictory. So, my question is-- Could Paine be considered an early feminist? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
When reading "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights", I also was a bit confused to where Paine was coming from. His claim's were infact very contradictory with one another. After reading Kelly's question,this leads me to believe that he could be a considered an early feminist in some ways. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I also found "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have some Rights" very interesting in that he contradicts himself in saying women are weak but have a great deal of courage for putting up with oppression throughout time and the world. Though this article did make me wonder what men's reaction to his article would have been. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Well, I too was a little confused. But looking at it in context- this is all propoganda. Is this not to just gather more patriots for the "cause"? His soft side of defending women could gather more support from the women, yet his ideas of the mascline chivalry could win the support of men. - Talya Halpern. <br />
<br />
<br />
Paine's comments on the rights of women almost assumes a certain amount of kindness or mercy is required to be offered by the conqueror, victor, or elite, almost like the deference offered in the patriarchal system of Virginia. It would be interesting to compare Paine's work with the work of Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women.Is there any information on what prompted Paine to write this essay?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Paine wrote much on how women are oppressed and loved by men at the same time but I fail to see where he talks about the rights of women. He highlighted the plight of women but didn't offer any suggestions for helping them unless you consider the fact that he recognized their plight and urged other men to think about it advocating for rights. The document that followed Paine's actually did ask readers to remember the revolution and perhaps repeat it to gain liberties for women as well. --Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
<br />
When reading the essay "A Carolina Patriot" in Woloch's book, there was an excerpt found from Eliza Wilkerson's wartime letters to an unspecified friend. I found it intersting that she said "For my part, "I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery"(p.123). Throughout this excerpt Eliza seems to be "inventing" herself - adopting the pose appropriate to a "female patriot". -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I found the letter that Katie D. mentioned to be very interesting and I would agree with the statement that she seems to be "inventing" herself. Everything that she wrote is apparently saturated with patriotic thoughts and feelings. I am curious however just how common an attitude towards politics at the time was Eliza Wilkerson's or were more women inclined to have more of the feelings of Grace Galloway (starting on page 124). Grace Galloway's diary entries are such a total opposite to the letter of ELiza Wilkerson that a reader is battered with very strong opposing views. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In regards to Katie and Mary's comments, I am also curious about how a different audience would have altered Eliza Wilkerson's statements. How might her opinions or framing of opinions have been altered if voiced to a man? Would Eliza have the same feeling of invention? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I really liked these two letters. They seem to encompass the two extremes of the time period, the "female patriot" and the loyalist. However, i think its interesting that just from the one letter included in our reading from Galloway, we don't get a sense of her true poltical standpoint. She's mad and frankly pissed off because the patriots are coming in and forcefully removing her from her house. Wouldn't you be against someone who was so keen on taking your things away? What's interesting about comparing the two letters is that Locke's ideology of the right to personal liberties comes up in both of them. A lot of the termonology for the Revolution came from the work of John Locke who stated the idea that people had a right to "life, libery and property." One of the majoy ideas which fueled the revolution was this idea that the colonies were becoming enslaved to Britian because Parliment was taking away their property, among other things. Its interesting that this enslavement is brought up in Wilkinson's letter, in the section discussed by Maj. Moore, at which Wilkinson rejoices at the prospect of liberty. However, the idea of enslavement, or that lose of personal property is also vividly illustrated in Galloway's letter where she is being robbed of her liberty, her property by the very same people who are fighting to defend thier rights to property. ---Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
I was interested in how the political atmosphere and/or personal political leanings would have affected Wilkerson's and Galloway's varying views on politics and the war. For example, while Wilkerson seems idealistic and interested in politics, would she have had the same enthusiasm as a Loyalist? Would Galloway have been merely irritated with the intrusion of politics in her life if her husband's Loyalist stance hadn't caused her to lose her home? --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
Good question, I was actually wondering the same thing. I wonder what Galloway, herself believed. I wonder if given the oppurtunity, would she have wanted / been able to seperate her political opinions from her husbands? Are their accounts of husbands and wifes taking different sides of the politcal spectrum? I wonder if Galloway ever had the oppurtunity, while her husband was away, to assert herself as a woman with patriot leanings, and therefore avoid the scene of her being almost dragged from her house. --Katelynn Vance.<br />
<br />
In regards to Eliza’s letter, I was also struck by her quote, “I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery.” It certainly paints a pretty bold picture. However, I always find it ironic when plantation owners, who are presumably slave owners, make comparisons to how wickedly they are being treated by others, when they themselves own slaves. Essentially saying, “It’s okay to treat someone else like that, just as long as it’s not me.”- Lisa Wilkerson <br />
<br />
This could be totally wrong, but in the context of the letter, I don't think Maj. Moore is talking about slavery as we understand it today. He is probably referring to the seizing of property by the British government (i.e. what the colonists saw as tyranny though the Stamp Act and other laws passsed by Parliament at that time). Now, if I had not attended Prof. Hudgins’s American Revolution class yesterday, I totally would have thought the same thing. Yay for classes overlapping!--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I agree with Lisa! This attitude makes just as much sense as a bunch of slaveholders writing a Constitution about equality and liberty. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
Another thing I found interesting was when Eliza Wilkinson's wrote,"I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy...." She was so "progressive" in her views and how much she spoke out for the inclusion of women in areas beside domestic labor and yet she still fell victim to some gender stereotyping. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
Perhaps Eliza was just appeasing the male ego when she wrote the above quote. I mean, men were in charge so it would be important not to ruffle too many feathers. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
While reading Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts Upon Female Education" I was struck by the change in the views concerning female education that we have come upon in just this short span that we have discussed. Where as before women were taught to read mostly so that they could read the Bible, now men are encouraged to promote the education of their daughters for the sake of their property, for women were often left as stewards of property and business during a husbands absence, but also, and from Rush's continuing mention of it importantly, the fact that these daughters will be growing up and getting married and having children, particularly sons, and they will have the task of educating these sons in a manner befitting their status and learning. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Mary, do not forget the part in that same document where Rush wrote about how important it was for women to read the Bible everyday. It does seem as though expectations and allowances for women's education grew in a short amount of time but let's keep in mind who these women were that Rush was writing about, I think he is addressing a certain class of woman not all women. --Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
I agree with Mary regarding Rush's lecture on female education. Girls were actually going to be challenged academically in all of the subjects they formerly were kept away from. What intrigued me about this lecture, however, is that it was aimed towards men in the audience and not actually the girls who would be undergoing this new academic change. And not only was it directed at men, but at men of a much higher social class who would be in charge of allowing this change to happen. It really shows how the elite were coming into play and actually becoming a threat to the rest of the colonists. (I also enjoy that he refused to let students study French, but that's a bit off-topic) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I though that it was interesting how in Esther DeBerdt's "Sentiments of an American Woman", she freely admits that women have "...feeble hands..." (115). I would have thought that a comment like that would be more likely to come from a man of that time and not a woman. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I felt that the way Mary Jemison described the Native Americans in the article "The War for Independence...", made them seem very materialistic. It seemed that all the Native Americans cared about were the goods they were going to receive from the British and nothing else. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading "An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights." I found it interesting that this woman flat out said that many women would do whatever they could to help the revolution during this time when many men felt like women wouldn't want to give up their luxuries to help the cause. I also enjoyed how she compared american women to the women of antiquity who helped save their nations. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading "An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights." I am the sap that this stuff was written for- I immediately felt like I could go dig a trench or build a wall to help our good ole' boys. I thought it was an excellent propoganda piece and could serve to get women who are not interested in politics involved in the fight for America's independence.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Agreeing with Lisa, "An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights" is a terrific piece of propaganda. I don't think anything else could have persuaded women more during the revolution to give up their luxuries like tea and fine textiles like another woman "just like them" telling them to do so. This piece did nothing but emphasize how important women could be and it is a great way to get women involved in supporting the revolution, especially if they were not the kind to immediately do so. - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading Esther DeBerdt Reed's piece. By showing examples of past women who struggled on behalf of their own nations, Esther bolsters her argument. I like the fact that she did not try to argue in passive manner. She asserts herself and her fellow women who want to do more to serve their nation. Her sentiments are much more convincing and empowering due to the manner in which she presented herself. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Esther DeBert's piece was made even more interesting by the fact that she says that "women have been seen forgeting the weakness of their sex." This definitely makes it seem like DeBerdt does not see women as nearly as weak as they are usually portrayed. Some of the other readings went on about how weak women were-- they could help, but they were still weak. DeBert on the other hand shows women leaving their perceived weakness behind. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
When reading Abigail Adams' correspondence with her husband John and friend Mercy, I found myself sympathizing with Abigail. Her frustration with John when he wrote. "As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh" must have been great. Reading her letter to Mercy about John's repsonse seems as though it could have been written by a woman today to a friend complaining about her husband's actions.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I agree with those thoughts on the letters of Abigail Adams. And I find it revealing in John Adams' character. He's a historically important figure in our nations history and we hold him on a high pedestal for that. But he still thinks typical thoughts of the time period with regards to women and their "rights." His comments not only include the "I cannot but laugh comment" but even to say "We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems." We can continue to think of John Adams as a great man and important to the founding of our nation, but we must recognize his averageness in his thoughts. If that made any sense at all. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I agree that it is important to note that John Adam's thoughts were typical of the time period. However, it was a bit surprising that he put his wife in the same category as children, apprentices, Indians, and slaves. He knew she was well educated but the fact that she was a woman was the overriding factor. - Fiona Cobb <br />
<br />
I felt that Phillis Wheatley's address to George III was an amazing piece of literature. I think it was so clever to include the words free and equal into her poem. Wheatley was treated a lot differently from most slaves . She was educated among white children, and was even sent to Europe to progress is studies and writing. Did her owners really read her poem? I am sure they were delighted for her--and them because they own her. But did they hear it? Did anyone else see those underlying messages for freedom from slavery? Did anyone agree with her underlying tones of the poem? - Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
I am sure that people saw the underlying themes of Wheatley's poems, or else the political ones not have been excluded from her book. I'm wondering if people just dismissed her underlying theme of freedom as something they'd expect from a female enslaved. However, its also possible that they didn't see the themes or didn't want to because they assumbed that slavery was a good thing and africans were not fully human, therefore didn't have the same need for freedom and property. Wheatley was very much the exception to the rule, which is why she was paraded around so much and expected to share her poetry because she brought attention and probably prestige to the Wheatley family. Although, on a completely different thought...When should we stop analyzing poetry, how do we as historians know we've taken our interpretatons too far. How should we walk the fine line of interpretting the poem for its historical content without completely turning our back on the message the author intended their readers to understand. How can historians ensure that they're not missing the point of the authors work by picking apart a poem line by line for possible historical signifigance? ----Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I have to agree with Talya that Wheatley was very clever and I think it's possible she was underestimated by those around her. She was obviously intelligent but her cleverness leads me to think she could outsmart even her owners. Of course, we will probably never know, but I like to think she had a few laughs at the expense of others as she wrote this poem as well as her others. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found Phillis Wheatley's poem to King George III interesting. How was it that Woloch was able to interpret the poem as a subtle jab at the King yet the those in England who screened her book of poetry for poems of Revolution missed it? Nevertheless, I agree with those above that it was a very clever way to get her views across. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I agree with Talya's assessment of Phillis Wheatley's poem. As I was reading it, I couldn't help but wonder how different her situation could have been had she been enslaved on a rural, Southern plantation as opposed to being in Boston. This also makes me wonder: I know her poems were published in England, but were they read widely in the US? If so, how were the accepted, especially since they were the work of an African American woman?--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I felt that Mary Jemison Views the Revolution was a great account of the War for Independence. Mary’s descriptions were not that of a typical woman. She describes scenes of prisoners being punished that many women would not even want to watch let alone observe and write about. I especially like the end of her story when she writes of how she hired herself out to an escaped black slave and how she was not too worried about the gun the slave stood over her with. I doubt many women of the colonial settlements would do the same.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I think Abigail Adams statement to "pay particular care and attention" to the ladies or they are "determined to forment a rebellion" was priceless! Then her husband calls her "saucy". It is amazing to see that even in a relationship like the Adams' had the notion of women being fragile and needing their husbands protection and guidance was still made very clear. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I wonder how much of Abigail Adams's claims of women being "placed by providence under your protection" was an attempt to flatter her husband's ego and appeal to his sense of chivalry. Did she really feel women needed protection, or was she merely aware of what men needed to hear in order to consider the rights of women?-- Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I was also confused by Thomas Paine. He seemed in one breath to praise women and the next breath insult them. I wonder how the women of the time saw his remarks. Did they feel insulted as well or was it something they were used to (being praised and insulted at the same time)?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Its interesting that the lecture by Rush about women was actually directed toward men. But its not really surprising, who else was directing culture and such things at this time? Its also worth noting how its put into contrast with Great Britain, just a few years after the American Revolution. Does this represent a self-conscious attempt to different what it means to be American from that of British? The letters between the Adams was also really interesting because it does show that although Adams is romaticized in American history, he was still a man of times. Its interesting that he refers to patriarchy as a 'theory' when he says about the 'masculine systems' that they "are little more than a theory." What exactly does that mean? That its merely a good model for behavior? I certainly don't think they were so detached toward these norms that they could truly think of them as a "theory." Its interesting to see him change the subject from "masucline systems" holding women down to a discussion of independence from the "peticoat." It seems to suggest that Adams didn't quite notice the similarity of the 'oppression' of women as the same as the peticoat toward the American. <br />
-Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
I also found it surprising that the Native Americans so quickly gave up the six nation treaty they had created the year before when the British Commissioners asked for their help in fighting against “the rebels.” When Jemison described the British Commissioners coming before the Chiefs to try and convince them to help I really hoped the Chiefs would be able to look past their promises of material goods and an alliance with a rich King. Sadly the Chiefs were blind sighted by the promises of wealth and agreed to fight against what the British promised to be “only a few easily subdued people who deserve the punishment for their disobedience to the King.” Just a few passages later Jemison refers to a battle in the spring of 1776 when the Indians were completely beaten and thirty-six died. It seems like the “sorrow and distress” that quickly falls over the town when the warriors returned from the battle could have been easily avoided if the Chiefs had just stood their ground and not given in to the British demands.—Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I was interested in the questions that Woloch raised in the introduction to the diary of Grace Galloway, a Loyalist Wife. Specifically, can women be held responsibile for their political opinions? In this case Galloway's property and inheritance was confiscated because she was a Loyalist. I thought this was a bit extreme considering her husband had already fled never to return and she didn't seem like a die hard loyalist in her diary and was more concerned about her possessions. Additionally, at the time women were thought to be politically ignorant. Was this instance more about show rather than politics? - Fiona Cobb<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but feel sorry for Grace Galloway! The poor woman hated politics and because of her husband's standpoint as a Loyalist, she lost everything and never gained any of it back after the war, including the money left to her by her father. And what's worse is Joseph took Betsy with him! I just feel as though this is the perfect example of how women were unfortunately left to deal with their husband's choices since they did not have any of their own, because of their status as a femme covert. It's an unfortunate scenario and it just leaves me wondering, how many more women ended up like poor Grace? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I believe Grace Galloway's case is one of the most excellent examples of Dr. McClurken's claim that women overwhelmingly remembered the deprivations and terrors of abuse,loss of property, and loss of lives. The reception she received by her supposed friends during the war is one of the numerous accounts of the true depth of the effects of war. Another interesting experience illustrated by her case was how femme covert status often cost a woman her property, even if she disagreed with her husband's politics. --A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Just because it needs to be said somewhere, as an addition to Dr. McClurken's lecture Tuesday, the following women deserve at least equal recognition to Mercy Otis Warren for their role in inspiring and rousing men to engage in resistance to the British. This is not intended to romanticize women's activities during the Revolution any more than history textbooks romanticize men's activities during the Revolution. These women adopted courageous roles and they deserve credit as individuals for their activities: <br />
*Hannah Arnett--When the men were considering signing the Howe brothers proclamation of loyalty, she burst into their discussion and made a rousing speech and presentation convincing them not to sign the proclamation<br />
*Penelope Barker and the Edenton, NC ladies--created their own proclamation promising to boycott importation of cloth and tea from England, along with their own little tea party demonstration<br />
*Faith Robinson Trumbull--wife of the Governor of Connecticut, urged the people of her parish to donate to the American soldiers, giving the cloak she received from Rochambeau (the French commander)<br />
*Prudence Wright--organized the women of her village in dressing in their men's clothing and carrying guns to defend the bridge at Groton against the British<br />
*The Livingston women--married to all the most influential New York politicians, their letter writing to most of the founding fathers is cited by Linda Kerber and Mary Beth Norton as an example of women actively campaigning for independence and writing persuasively to their family and friends, who happened to be the leading law makers and decision makers in their colony's politics, making them comparable to the tired and favored example of Mercy Otis Warren.<br />
Furthermore, while we need to be careful to recognize the effects of the horrors of war on women's lives during the Revolution, women who acted heroically deserve to have their stories told without being dismissed as simply exceptions or romantic stories, because history textbooks are filled with the stories of men who are also exceptions (George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin). While it is quite necessary to convey to students the exceptional nature of these women's experiences and it's impossible for Dr. McClurken--or any other professor or teacher--to address the majority of these accounts with current curriculum requirements, they deserve to be remembered, and I consider this a small attempt to add to the individual stories we've begun classes with. <br />
--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I also found Phillis Wheatley's poem to be particularly memorable. I am surprised that her master, John Wheatley, allowed her the education she received. I am curious of his intentions in allowing for this. The poem included exemplifies the power of satire. As a fan of modern satirical programming, I can appreciate the strength of its belied impact. In the case of Phillis Wheatley, she seems to have left her poem raveled in such cleverness that its true meanings may only be known to her. As such, it would carry importance based upon the interpretation of those reading it, a very effective method indeed. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
From all the readings this week the one thing that stuck out most to me was this feeling of being stuck between obligation/expectations and personal desires for women during the American Revolution. The revolution stirred up a lot of ideas of “equality” and “freedom” for all types of minority groups…poor whites, free blacks, black slaves, Native Americans and women. I think the readings point to a women’s need to fulfill expectations yet wonder if there were things that needed to be changed. Many of the women discuss their role in helping fight/support the British and their sense of patriotism that was both an obligation and a desire for women. When it came to things such as education, we see the idea of empowering women with certain rights, yet the expectations still remain…a women should be polite, moral, submissive, a good wife and a good mother. What expectations, if any, did the American Revolution actually change? Was the revolution more of an ideological change or were there concrete social changes evident? Were the changes and the increase power/interest we do see, from and for women’s rights truly unique to the revolution, a consequence of the revolution or a continuation of obligation and expected roles? -- Mary Beth D.<br />
<br />
Abigail Adams letter to her husband John Adams was the most recognizable primary document out of the readings this week. It’s probably hard to avoid Abigail Adams when talking about U.S. Women’s history. I found John Adams letter sent in response to Abigail’s initial letter interesting because it gives us insight into how seriously she was taken, which unfortunately was not very seriously. Instead, John Adams tells her to be patient and that the leaders do not really have as much power to change the system as she gives them credit for. Abigail then sends a letter to her friend Mercy Warren about the exchange. I think it would have been interesting to see how Warren would have responded to Abigail’s letter. -- Jennifer Feldhaus</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/CommentsWeek 3 Questions/Comments2007-09-13T05:39:20Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Early American Women, the essay by Susanna Wesely made me feel thankful I was brought up the way I was. I disagree with her methods of controling children. I don't believe in programing children to be the way a parent wishes. I do agree with some of her her principles however. I think children should be praised everytime they behave correctly or are obediant. I believe children should be taught to be respectful to other's property. I don't think children need to be preforming the same routine every day regardless if it is in eating, sleeping ect. In Wesely's essay, she herself noted that when the children had to be at seperate houses when their home was destroyed by fire, that when they were reunited under one roof again, they aquired some bad behaviors. Perhaps if Wesely weren't so strict with her routines and ridgid discipline, her children may have come back with fewer negative influences.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Cheryl I was very glad my parents were not that strict. I think what got me the most was how the essay described how the mother would break the free will of the kids. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Wesley is certainly strict, and I would not always agree with her methods of punishment. However, she has the children's best interests at heart. She insisted that her children be well-mannered, honest, and educated, qualities which most would agree are necessary (or at least extremely helpful) if one wishes to be a productive, well-respected member of society. I also appreciated her emphasis on girls learning to read. Even if the intent was only to make sure women read the Bible, it's still a step in the right direction. - Ashley Hamilton<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Ashley on some points. Wesley comes across as being unreasonably strict when it comes to her children's upbringing. However, from her writing we get a sense that she was very proud of her children because they were well behaved, versed in their catechism and prayers. Yet, there are two very imporant ideas which help place Wesley's letter in the context of the period. First and foremost, children and childhood was not viewed in the same light as it is today. Children of the colonial period were still thought of as being 'little adults' and were therefore held to similar standards of behavior as adults. Therefore, Wesley mentions with almost a sense of pride that "the family usually lived in as much quietness as if there had not been a child among them," which correlates with that old, overused belief, 'children should be seen and not heard.' Also, we need to keep in mind that domestic work and the bearing/raising of children was a woman's world during the colonial era. I wonder therefore, if Wesley's actions were dictated by the idea that her children were a reflection of her competency as a mother and wife. Perhaps, the better the more well behaved the children were, the better mother people would presume her to be, what do you think? ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
While the essay of Susanna Wesely is very scary thinking about how those children were raised, I have to remember that that way of thinking was probably normal for the time and an acceptable way of thought. But to our modern minds it does seem very barbaric. I did like Eliza Pinckney's letter to herself however and thought that it gave a good insight into the minds of women at the time, especially married women in her social position. Reading what she wrote, some of it women try and apply in their lives today and it does seem to speak through the years. It is that part about making all her actions "Corrispond with that sincere love and Duty I bear him" that we tend to baulk at today. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
>> After reading Eliza's letter to herself it made me want to be her friend, she definitely seemed like a thoughtful person. She remembered nearly EVERYONE in her resolutions. However, I wonder how successful she was at keeping her resolutions. According to the text she read these things daily and reflected upon them (at least that what she said she does). Her piece was a nice contrast the strictness of Susanna Wesley.--> Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
I also think it is important to remember when this document was written. Granted, I would never raise my children this way- and I was not raised this way, obviously! But, this was written in a time when structure and control was normal. Control and structure of social institutions was through the church and the government. All children were representatives of their parents- as we are today- and what would the "gossiping women" say if your children were acting up in the slightest way? We must remember how much pressure there was on women to raise their children. Anything the children did wrong was the mother's fault and she would be socially battered for it. - Talya R. Halpern <br />
<br />
I was also shocked about the strictness of Wesley's account of how she raised her children. Breaking the free will of the kids got me too. But in response Mary's comment that that was the way of thinking then and it was normal I'm not so sure. I'm sure some were that way but could this be an extreme case? Because for example, when she mentioned they acquired bad habits and behaviors when they lived with neighbors for a time. So therefore, not even some others in her own community were as harsh as her. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I also was very shocked when I read the account of Abigail Bailey and 1) she had 17 kids and 2) her husband tried having a relationship beyond a fatherly one. The account definitely showed how helpless a woman was when discovering her husband doing something wrong. In the intro to the account it says that she got her husband arrested but with the help of her brothers. But would she have been able to have him arrested without her brothers assistance?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I, too, was shocked while reading Abigail Bailey's "An Abominable Wickedness" and I agree with Elizabeth that the narrative did show how helpless a woman was under the rule of her husband. Yet, there are two sides to this wifely obedience. A “proper” woman saw it her solemn duty to uphold the marriage covenant and be a kind, faithful, and subservient wife to her husband. However, when the husband has violated the marriage covenant and has behaved immorally, exceptions ensue. All of a sudden, a woman with no rights now has all legal authority in the marriage. She knew divorce and breaking up her family was a sin (imagine how tough this must have been for her to deal with) but once she realized it was not her fault, she placed all guilt and blame on Mr. Bailey. Where was the point when Abigail realized enough was enough and she had to say something? Despite the fact she confronted him long after the first signs of his wrongdoing; many women could have assumed their position and not have said a word. I found it quite empowering to see docile and obedient Abigail become an enlivened woman and mother whose priorities changed; her duty was no longer to her husband but to her children.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
While a huge part of Abigail Bailey's remaining silent for so long was due to the time period and the fact that she had very little or no legal power, I think we must also recognize that this story could probably be told by someone today. Many women and children are still abused and still feel as though any legal action they took would simply be one person's word against another. Also I think that the footnote is very interesting. Why is it that the editor feels that it is necessary to excuse Abigail's actions. As an abused woman I feel that it is amazing that she spoke up at all, while the editor seems to think that readers might not understand her hesitance. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree. I am an intern at both RCDV (domestic violence place) and RCASA (a sexual assault place) and this kind of story is very common even today. It is very hard for someone to speak up in this situation. I just watched a video on incest actually and the effects are lifechanging. Many child abuse survivors were extremely hurt that there mothers didn't speak up and help them. I think it is amazing she said anything at all, especially for that time. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I believe Abigail had a good reason to be hesitant. Know one wants to believe they married such a monster that could rape repeatedly is own daughter. I do not blame her for wanting more proof. Women in her day and age were brought up with the notion to love, honor and obey their husbands. It went against everything she believed in to just come forward when she did for the sake of her child.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that while Abigail seemed certain of her husband's wrongdoing, she resented her daughter for not coming forward and exposing what he was doing (Woloch 45). Yes, Abigail had a lot at stake for exposing the husband, but ultimately, didn’t the daughter as well? I suppose she didn't have a husband to lose, but couldn't she could be seen as reponsible for breaking up her family as well?--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I think Kaitlyn makes a really good point. Since divorce was not a common practice Abilgail would have probably worried about the social implications and/or stigma that might be attached to the family if she were to leave her husband. I wonder if the daughter saw that she had more to lose by coming forward because it would label her as being seduced by her father, and there for tainted her in someway. She does not have a husband to lose but coming forward might not encourage other men to think about asking for her hand in marriage. This might happen for a number of reasons, including the unusual relationship she had with her father, or perhaps the idea that she is too outspoken and not obedient. I think the realization of serious social implications shaped the decisions of both Abigal and her daughter. ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
<br />
I want to second the things that several people have already said about how rare it still is for people to speak out and take action against incest or any kind of domestic/familial abuse. I also think Abigail deserves exceptional credit for all she worked through and spoke out against. I also think Kaitlyn raises a good point, but I'm not sure what--short of being accused of encouraging her father's advances or lacking in morals--the daughter would have been blamed for.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
>> When I was reading the intro piece to Woloch's primary sources I was wondering if there would be a case where the husband and father of the house would fail to live up to his role as the head of the family unit. However this source was still surprising. This man did not just break the rules he went way over the line and it was still difficult for the woman to get out of her situation. As far as the fear that the daughter had in admitting the situation, I must say that I can't blame her-- she must have been very afraid and confused. According to the mother this man totally changed the way he was acting towards his daughter-- he went from the strict father figure (or his expected role) to a suitor in a way (a totally inappropriate role). What was this girl to make out of the situation she had nothing and no one to compare this to? <br />
<br />
I found Martha Ballard’s entry “A Maine Midwife” to be quite insightful. Just by her keeping a very brief journal we are able to calculate birth rates, see some folk remedies, find out when and how people died, and keep up on town news and events. On a sidenote: what’s the deal with all the burnt feet during those first few days in August?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I personally was amused at the first reading in Woloch on "The Duties of Husbands and Wives." While Woloch acknowledges that this is not necessarily how people acted, I couldn't help imagining what it would be like if someone two hundred years from now used one of our articles on relationships to judge the relationships of people at large. The Bullet's Sexclamations article perhaps? It is interesting to keep in mind that the primary sources that we have are just as small portion of what would have existed at this time. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I believe Abigail had a good reason to be hesitant. Know one wants to believe they married such a monster that could rape repeatedly is own daughter. I do not blame her for wanting more proof. Women in her day and age were brought up with the notion to love, honor and obey their husbands. It went against everything she believed in to just come forward when she did for the sake of her child.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
While reading the article, "To Use Her As His Wife" by Sklar, I noticed a few of the things we discussed in class on Tuesday in practice. The main thing that stuck out for me was how there was never a real record of Martha Root and her story during her court case; everything we know about this case was on account of the male lawyers or the father of Martha's children. This point, in my opinion, really emphasized that most of what we know about colonial women during this time period was somehow influenced by men. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I totally agree with Kelly about "To Use Her As His WIfe." It touched on what we went over in class and really seemed to personify the idea that women in general are second class citizens as this point. I also found it really interesting, though I was not surprised, was the complete double standard that seemed to be held towards Martha. I mean it took two people to create those children and yet she is the one whose reputation was forever tarnished and her eventual marriage at age 34 was a "last chance" scenario that enabled her to finally get out of town. I also had a question about the idea that a younger sibling doesnt marry before the oldest so there are no two marrigable people of the same sex in the same family. But what happens if one sibling is a perpetual spinster or what if, like in the case of Martha's children, there happened to be twins? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how fully Sklar researched the lives of Jonathan Edwards and Joseph Hawley. At first I thought it was a bit extreme when she was writing about their grandparents, but then I saw how much of their past and family life shaped their actions and motivations. I think it shows that as historians we need to delve below the surface in order to contrusct a representation that is as accurate as can be. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
In Sklar's essay I was surprised to read that Edwards, as a minister, argued against the "double standard" and said that Elisha should have to marry Martha regardless of the claims that she was not a virgin and that she seduced him. To me it seems that Edwards and Hawley seized upon the case because they saw it as an opportunity to promote their beliefs (kind of like today). Their insistence might also explain why Martha pushed her claim despite the risk to her reputation and future ability to marry. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
I really loved the letters between Esther Burr and Sally Prince. The letters were a great way to see the relationships that women of the time could have with each other while at the same time relaying an idea of what daily life was like for these women. I just thought that they were really interesting. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary about the insight the letters exchanged between Esther Burr and Sally Prince give us. By reading the journals that the two women kept, we historians can catch a glimpse of what life was like (vaguely) from a female's perspective for once and not via a man's perspective. It also emphasizes the point we discussed in class how social life amongst women was very important and how women were at the base of kinship networks. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary and Kelly. I found the letters between Ester Burr and Sally Prince to be fascinating. I particularly enjoyed the last letter (No. 22), in which Ester discusses having an argument with Mr. Ewing. She says, “(My Tongue, you know, hangs pretty loose, my thoughts Crouded in—so I sputtered away for dear life.) You may Guss what a large field this speech opened for me—I retorted several severe things upon him before he had time to speak again” (Woloch 41). This passage, while it made me laugh, also made me wonder, how typical was it for women to openly argue with men and was it widely accepted?--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
After reading Susanna Wesley’s letter to her son about how to raise children by conquering their will, enforcing strict rules, and teaching them the importance of religion and daily prayer I was surprised to read the 8th rule she had for her household: “that no girl be taught to work till she can read very well; and that she be kept to her work with the same application and for the same time that she was held to reading.” This stood out to me as being a radical idea for the early 1700s and in sharp contrast to the entire message of the piece. I wonder if women saw their daughters not being able to read well and decided to fix the problem by enforcing these types of rules or if Wesley was simply more educated and represented the beginning of social changes that colonial women made in their households. --Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Like Caitlin, I was surprised by rule 8. Maybe because Wesley could obviously write well for her time, she saw education become an advantage in her own life and wished to pass it on. Also, Wesley was obviously a very spiritual person, maybe she wanted young women to read so they could read The Bible? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
While reading the letters of Esther Burr and Sally Prince, I found myself amused by Esther's Letter No. 22. She related her conversation with Mr. Ewing about women. He beleived that women should only converse on subjects they "understood." I loved Esther's thought, "My tongue, you know, hangs pretty loose, thoughts Crouded in-so I sputtered away for dear life." -- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
When reading "To Use Her As His Wife," I was quite impressed with Jonathan Edwards' support for Martha. How many other men at that time would have reacted the same way? I was saddened to learn that his support for Martha did have something to do with his dismissal from the pulpit in 1750. -- E. Hufford <br />
<br />
I was struck by the last paragraph in the sermon "About the Duties of Husbands and Wives." At the very end, after stating how marriages should involve love and tenderness, Wadsworth as if on a side note, mentions that parents should wisely match their children with someone who is "proper." This point seems to have little emphasis in his sermon which mainly seems about loving someone you potentially might not even like. If all of this love and tenderness Wadsworth speaks of should occur shouldn't selecting a spouse with whom you are compatible be a higher priority? --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
In "About the Duties of Husbands and Wives," Wadsworth advises wives, "Yea, though possibly you have greater abilities of mind than he has, was of some high birth, and he of a more common birth, or did bring more estate, yet since he is your husband, God has made him your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him." I find it interesting that Wadsworth acknowledges the possibility of women being smarter than their husbands. They realized the superiority of some women, yet they used religion as a tool to keep women under control. - Ashley Hamilton <br />
<br />
I found the Wadsworth's article extremely frustrating! It annoyed me that he made the word "government" the husband's possesion. Even though we say that women did not mind per se because that was what they were used to, this does not make sense. How is a woman supposed to comepletely "love, honor , and obey" if she walks into her home and feel like she is walking into a "government." How is this a home? The husband in the governor and what ever he says goes. I know i'm looking at this through our time- but did these women not long for something else. Respect, appreciation, true tender love? A husband being "gentle and easy" does not make it okay. Also the discussion of arguing being the devil's work is a prime example of how religion and soceity had control of women or men speaking their mind. If this was the case today, boy I would be in big trouble! This idea of arguing being the devil's work was away to keep wives from speaking up and telling their husbands how they really felt.- Talya R. Halpern <br />
<br />
I think the role of women and the economy or more accurately the role of women as a labor force brings up some interesting points that ties to some larger themes we have discussed so far. With regards to slavery the role of the mother and inheritance is once again an issue. While we saw that some Native American cultures used the mother as a line of inheritance, when it came to slavery a child’s status as free or slave was determined by the mother. Another idea we have begun to touch upon is the hierarchy of society and women. For instance indentured servants, apprentices, or slaves occupied the same area as their mistresses but the mistress was in charge, in control due to her elevated status. In the introduction paragraph of this chapter Woloch asks questions about women’s work in the pre-industrial economy. One idea that really stuck out to me was this idea of all-women work groups. Could groups of women who worked in the field, who had things in common such as motherhood or the same master constitute the continuation of the theme of kinship we have already established in both Native American culture and Colonial culture? -- Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
<br />
The first thing that struck me from Woloch was in the very beginning when she talks about the duties of husbands and wives. While in class we discuss how the woman have no power and really don't exsist as themselves the way the Wadsworth describes it, it sounds touching almost. The quote that stuck out the most to me was, " Yet his government should not be with rigor, haughtiness, harshness, severity, but with the greatest love, gentleness, kindness, tenderness that may be. Though he governs her, he must not treat her as a servant, but as his own flesh; he must love her as himself." (28-29) Now whether or not this truely happened I do not know, however, if women were treated like this I'm not entirely sure they would ever be truely unhappy. Then in Susan Wesley's letter, where she describes her by-laws, the last one being "that no girl be taught to work till she can read very well..." shocked me also. (33) For some reason I was under the impression that a young girls education was never a high priority. Those were just two of things that really stood out to me but the book was full of information that really opened my eyes to what the people were like at that time. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I liked Eliza Pinckney’s list titled “To Improve in Every Virtue” because it gives historians a good idea of what women in Pinckney’s social class were concerned with during the 1750s. She mentions God first, assuring us that religion is a top priority in her life. She also talks about making others happy and striving to be a good wife, mother, and daughter. Many of women’s priorities have shifted in society since the 1750s, while others have stayed the same. I wonder how this list would change if Pinckney had lived in our generation. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also was impressed by how evolved Eliza Pinckney was in “To Improve in Every Virtue” and particularly by the fact that as a teenager she ran her father’s three Carolina plantations. I’m sure she had lots of help but it still seems like such a large responsibility for a young woman. -Caitlin Quinn <br />
<br />
<br />
The story about Abigail was most interesting, for a number of reasons. She definitely had alot of children, even by early American standards, but her husband engaged in an incestuous relationship with one of his daughters. I wonder what the punishment for such a thing was? Abigail's statement about the law seemed very revealing about a sense of inadequacy: "It may appear surprising that such wickednes was not checked by legal restraints." Its interesting to see that put in the same chapter with "About The Duties of Husbands and Wives," considering how obviously contradictory Abigail's reality was from the idea of Wadsworth. In the primary source reading, there was a statement about how alot of people do marry the one's they love, and live happily ever after. Of course, happy stories don't seem to be the one's most written about, and not really the most historically useful. The position of women seemed somewhat contradictory, they could divorce in New England, but then they had nothing. Did people realize this as a problem? It would seem they didn't. <br />
-Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
I was most struck by the Spanish government's guidelines regarding honor, a woman's virginity, and marriage. I found the idea that it could be more disgraceful for someone to be married to another person so clearly beyond their social status fascinating. It was interesting to me that class issues outranked the honor/virtue issues related to illegitimate children and premarital sex. Was it really more of an embarrassment to be married to someone not of your caste than be pregnant and unmarried, or is this an example of source bias?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
Woloch's book page 42-46. I can’t even imagine what Abigail must have been going through as she notes the psychological changes in her daughter. She must have felt powerless. What was her perception of justice during this period in history? I can’t even begin to fathom that. At first, she tried to reject this horrible act, but couldn’t. I interpret her account as foreboding fears of reprisals from her husband or the patriarchal institutions. I have great admiration for Abigail, for the anxiety she must have been going through was incredibly overwhelming. But through this terror, she gives us a glimpse of the past in a concise manner to address the ills—the mental and physical abuse that was bestowed upon them by this nasty man. I think Abigail’s detailed account of the behavioral problems she encountered would give insighte in today’s fields such as Sociology, Psychology, and Criminal Science in evaluating domestic and non-domestic abuse in today’s society.—John Furner<br />
<br />
Based upon what Fiona said about Sklar's article, I too wonder how much the possibilities for political and religious advancement played into the importance of the case. It seems that Martha Root was only the required reasoning to set argue a precedent. As is pertinent today, the issues being argued in a case can become far more important than the case itself. It was more of an issue of the cultural changes being on trial, rather than the actual parties. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
As I was reading Abigail Bailey's document, I noticed that it said she kicked her husband out after she found out what he was doing to one of their daughters. Was it common back in the 1800s for women to kick their husbands out of the house for doing things like her husband was doing? ~Katherine S.~</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/CommentsWeek 3 Questions/Comments2007-09-13T05:20:31Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Early American Women, the essay by Susanna Wesely made me feel thankful I was brought up the way I was. I disagree with her methods of controling children. I don't believe in programing children to be the way a parent wishes. I do agree with some of her her principles however. I think children should be praised everytime they behave correctly or are obediant. I believe children should be taught to be respectful to other's property. I don't think children need to be preforming the same routine every day regardless if it is in eating, sleeping ect. In Wesely's essay, she herself noted that when the children had to be at seperate houses when their home was destroyed by fire, that when they were reunited under one roof again, they aquired some bad behaviors. Perhaps if Wesely weren't so strict with her routines and ridgid discipline, her children may have come back with fewer negative influences.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Cheryl I was very glad my parents were not that strict. I think what got me the most was how the essay described how the mother would break the free will of the kids. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Wesley is certainly strict, and I would not always agree with her methods of punishment. However, she has the children's best interests at heart. She insisted that her children be well-mannered, honest, and educated, qualities which most would agree are necessary (or at least extremely helpful) if one wishes to be a productive, well-respected member of society. I also appreciated her emphasis on girls learning to read. Even if the intent was only to make sure women read the Bible, it's still a step in the right direction. - Ashley Hamilton<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Ashley on some points. Wesley comes across as being unreasonably strict when it comes to her children's upbringing. However, from her writing we get a sense that she was very proud of her children because they were well behaved, versed in their catechism and prayers. Yet, there are two very imporant ideas which help place Wesley's letter in the context of the period. First and foremost, children and childhood was not viewed in the same light as it is today. Children of the colonial period were still thought of as being 'little adults' and were therefore held to similar standards of behavior as adults. Therefore, Wesley mentions with almost a sense of pride that "the family usually lived in as much quietness as if there had not been a child among them," which correlates with that old, overused belief, 'children should be seen and not heard.' Also, we need to keep in mind that domestic work and the bearing/raising of children was a woman's world during the colonial era. I wonder therefore, if Wesley's actions were dictated by the idea that her children were a reflection of her competency as a mother and wife. Perhaps, the better the more well behaved the children were, the better mother people would presume her to be, what do you think? ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
While the essay of Susanna Wesely is very scary thinking about how those children were raised, I have to remember that that way of thinking was probably normal for the time and an acceptable way of thought. But to our modern minds it does seem very barbaric. I did like Eliza Pinckney's letter to herself however and thought that it gave a good insight into the minds of women at the time, especially married women in her social position. Reading what she wrote, some of it women try and apply in their lives today and it does seem to speak through the years. It is that part about making all her actions "Corrispond with that sincere love and Duty I bear him" that we tend to baulk at today. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
>> After reading Eliza's letter to herself it made me want to be her friend, she definitely seemed like a thoughtful person. She remembered nearly EVERYONE in her resolutions. However, I wonder how successful she was at keeping her resolutions. According to the text she read these things daily and reflected upon them (at least that what she said she does. Her piece was a nice contrast the strictness of Susanna Wesley. <br />
<br />
I also think it is important to remember when this document was written. Granted, I would never raise my children this way- and I was not raised this way, obviously! But, this was written in a time when structure and control was normal. Control and structure of social institutions was through the church and the government. All children were representatives of their parents- as we are today- and what would the "gossiping women" say if your children were acting up in the slightest way? We must remember how much pressure there was on women to raise their children. Anything the children did wrong was the mother's fault and she would be socially battered for it. - Talya R. Halpern <br />
<br />
I was also shocked about the strictness of Wesley's account of how she raised her children. Breaking the free will of the kids got me too. But in response Mary's comment that that was the way of thinking then and it was normal I'm not so sure. I'm sure some were that way but could this be an extreme case? Because for example, when she mentioned they acquired bad habits and behaviors when they lived with neighbors for a time. So therefore, not even some others in her own community were as harsh as her. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I also was very shocked when I read the account of Abigail Bailey and 1) she had 17 kids and 2) her husband tried having a relationship beyond a fatherly one. The account definitely showed how helpless a woman was when discovering her husband doing something wrong. In the intro to the account it says that she got her husband arrested but with the help of her brothers. But would she have been able to have him arrested without her brothers assistance?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I, too, was shocked while reading Abigail Bailey's "An Abominable Wickedness" and I agree with Elizabeth that the narrative did show how helpless a woman was under the rule of her husband. Yet, there are two sides to this wifely obedience. A “proper” woman saw it her solemn duty to uphold the marriage covenant and be a kind, faithful, and subservient wife to her husband. However, when the husband has violated the marriage covenant and has behaved immorally, exceptions ensue. All of a sudden, a woman with no rights now has all legal authority in the marriage. She knew divorce and breaking up her family was a sin (imagine how tough this must have been for her to deal with) but once she realized it was not her fault, she placed all guilt and blame on Mr. Bailey. Where was the point when Abigail realized enough was enough and she had to say something? Despite the fact she confronted him long after the first signs of his wrongdoing; many women could have assumed their position and not have said a word. I found it quite empowering to see docile and obedient Abigail become an enlivened woman and mother whose priorities changed; her duty was no longer to her husband but to her children.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
While a huge part of Abigail Bailey's remaining silent for so long was due to the time period and the fact that she had very little or no legal power, I think we must also recognize that this story could probably be told by someone today. Many women and children are still abused and still feel as though any legal action they took would simply be one person's word against another. Also I think that the footnote is very interesting. Why is it that the editor feels that it is necessary to excuse Abigail's actions. As an abused woman I feel that it is amazing that she spoke up at all, while the editor seems to think that readers might not understand her hesitance. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree. I am an intern at both RCDV (domestic violence place) and RCASA (a sexual assault place) and this kind of story is very common even today. It is very hard for someone to speak up in this situation. I just watched a video on incest actually and the effects are lifechanging. Many child abuse survivors were extremely hurt that there mothers didn't speak up and help them. I think it is amazing she said anything at all, especially for that time. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I believe Abigail had a good reason to be hesitant. Know one wants to believe they married such a monster that could rape repeatedly is own daughter. I do not blame her for wanting more proof. Women in her day and age were brought up with the notion to love, honor and obey their husbands. It went against everything she believed in to just come forward when she did for the sake of her child.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that while Abigail seemed certain of her husband's wrongdoing, she resented her daughter for not coming forward and exposing what he was doing (Woloch 45). Yes, Abigail had a lot at stake for exposing the husband, but ultimately, didn’t the daughter as well? I suppose she didn't have a husband to lose, but couldn't she could be seen as reponsible for breaking up her family as well?--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I think Kaitlyn makes a really good point. Since divorce was not a common practice Abilgail would have probably worried about the social implications and/or stigma that might be attached to the family if she were to leave her husband. I wonder if the daughter saw that she had more to lose by coming forward because it would label her as being seduced by her father, and there for tainted her in someway. She does not have a husband to lose but coming forward might not encourage other men to think about asking for her hand in marriage. This might happen for a number of reasons, including the unusual relationship she had with her father, or perhaps the idea that she is too outspoken and not obedient. I think the realization of serious social implications shaped the decisions of both Abigal and her daughter. ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
<br />
I want to second the things that several people have already said about how rare it still is for people to speak out and take action against incest or any kind of domestic/familial abuse. I also think Abigail deserves exceptional credit for all she worked through and spoke out against. I also think Kaitlyn raises a good point, but I'm not sure what--short of being accused of encouraging her father's advances or lacking in morals--the daughter would have been blamed for.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I found Martha Ballard’s entry “A Maine Midwife” to be quite insightful. Just by her keeping a very brief journal we are able to calculate birth rates, see some folk remedies, find out when and how people died, and keep up on town news and events. On a sidenote: what’s the deal with all the burnt feet during those first few days in August?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I personally was amused at the first reading in Woloch on "The Duties of Husbands and Wives." While Woloch acknowledges that this is not necessarily how people acted, I couldn't help imagining what it would be like if someone two hundred years from now used one of our articles on relationships to judge the relationships of people at large. The Bullet's Sexclamations article perhaps? It is interesting to keep in mind that the primary sources that we have are just as small portion of what would have existed at this time. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I believe Abigail had a good reason to be hesitant. Know one wants to believe they married such a monster that could rape repeatedly is own daughter. I do not blame her for wanting more proof. Women in her day and age were brought up with the notion to love, honor and obey their husbands. It went against everything she believed in to just come forward when she did for the sake of her child.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
While reading the article, "To Use Her As His Wife" by Sklar, I noticed a few of the things we discussed in class on Tuesday in practice. The main thing that stuck out for me was how there was never a real record of Martha Root and her story during her court case; everything we know about this case was on account of the male lawyers or the father of Martha's children. This point, in my opinion, really emphasized that most of what we know about colonial women during this time period was somehow influenced by men. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I totally agree with Kelly about "To Use Her As His WIfe." It touched on what we went over in class and really seemed to personify the idea that women in general are second class citizens as this point. I also found it really interesting, though I was not surprised, was the complete double standard that seemed to be held towards Martha. I mean it took two people to create those children and yet she is the one whose reputation was forever tarnished and her eventual marriage at age 34 was a "last chance" scenario that enabled her to finally get out of town. I also had a question about the idea that a younger sibling doesnt marry before the oldest so there are no two marrigable people of the same sex in the same family. But what happens if one sibling is a perpetual spinster or what if, like in the case of Martha's children, there happened to be twins? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how fully Sklar researched the lives of Jonathan Edwards and Joseph Hawley. At first I thought it was a bit extreme when she was writing about their grandparents, but then I saw how much of their past and family life shaped their actions and motivations. I think it shows that as historians we need to delve below the surface in order to contrusct a representation that is as accurate as can be. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
In Sklar's essay I was surprised to read that Edwards, as a minister, argued against the "double standard" and said that Elisha should have to marry Martha regardless of the claims that she was not a virgin and that she seduced him. To me it seems that Edwards and Hawley seized upon the case because they saw it as an opportunity to promote their beliefs (kind of like today). Their insistence might also explain why Martha pushed her claim despite the risk to her reputation and future ability to marry. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
I really loved the letters between Esther Burr and Sally Prince. The letters were a great way to see the relationships that women of the time could have with each other while at the same time relaying an idea of what daily life was like for these women. I just thought that they were really interesting. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary about the insight the letters exchanged between Esther Burr and Sally Prince give us. By reading the journals that the two women kept, we historians can catch a glimpse of what life was like (vaguely) from a female's perspective for once and not via a man's perspective. It also emphasizes the point we discussed in class how social life amongst women was very important and how women were at the base of kinship networks. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary and Kelly. I found the letters between Ester Burr and Sally Prince to be fascinating. I particularly enjoyed the last letter (No. 22), in which Ester discusses having an argument with Mr. Ewing. She says, “(My Tongue, you know, hangs pretty loose, my thoughts Crouded in—so I sputtered away for dear life.) You may Guss what a large field this speech opened for me—I retorted several severe things upon him before he had time to speak again” (Woloch 41). This passage, while it made me laugh, also made me wonder, how typical was it for women to openly argue with men and was it widely accepted?--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
After reading Susanna Wesley’s letter to her son about how to raise children by conquering their will, enforcing strict rules, and teaching them the importance of religion and daily prayer I was surprised to read the 8th rule she had for her household: “that no girl be taught to work till she can read very well; and that she be kept to her work with the same application and for the same time that she was held to reading.” This stood out to me as being a radical idea for the early 1700s and in sharp contrast to the entire message of the piece. I wonder if women saw their daughters not being able to read well and decided to fix the problem by enforcing these types of rules or if Wesley was simply more educated and represented the beginning of social changes that colonial women made in their households. --Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Like Caitlin, I was surprised by rule 8. Maybe because Wesley could obviously write well for her time, she saw education become an advantage in her own life and wished to pass it on. Also, Wesley was obviously a very spiritual person, maybe she wanted young women to read so they could read The Bible? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
While reading the letters of Esther Burr and Sally Prince, I found myself amused by Esther's Letter No. 22. She related her conversation with Mr. Ewing about women. He beleived that women should only converse on subjects they "understood." I loved Esther's thought, "My tongue, you know, hangs pretty loose, thoughts Crouded in-so I sputtered away for dear life." -- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
When reading "To Use Her As His Wife," I was quite impressed with Jonathan Edwards' support for Martha. How many other men at that time would have reacted the same way? I was saddened to learn that his support for Martha did have something to do with his dismissal from the pulpit in 1750. -- E. Hufford <br />
<br />
I was struck by the last paragraph in the sermon "About the Duties of Husbands and Wives." At the very end, after stating how marriages should involve love and tenderness, Wadsworth as if on a side note, mentions that parents should wisely match their children with someone who is "proper." This point seems to have little emphasis in his sermon which mainly seems about loving someone you potentially might not even like. If all of this love and tenderness Wadsworth speaks of should occur shouldn't selecting a spouse with whom you are compatible be a higher priority? --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
In "About the Duties of Husbands and Wives," Wadsworth advises wives, "Yea, though possibly you have greater abilities of mind than he has, was of some high birth, and he of a more common birth, or did bring more estate, yet since he is your husband, God has made him your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him." I find it interesting that Wadsworth acknowledges the possibility of women being smarter than their husbands. They realized the superiority of some women, yet they used religion as a tool to keep women under control. - Ashley Hamilton <br />
<br />
I found the Wadsworth's article extremely frustrating! It annoyed me that he made the word "government" the husband's possesion. Even though we say that women did not mind per se because that was what they were used to, this does not make sense. How is a woman supposed to comepletely "love, honor , and obey" if she walks into her home and feel like she is walking into a "government." How is this a home? The husband in the governor and what ever he says goes. I know i'm looking at this through our time- but did these women not long for something else. Respect, appreciation, true tender love? A husband being "gentle and easy" does not make it okay. Also the discussion of arguing being the devil's work is a prime example of how religion and soceity had control of women or men speaking their mind. If this was the case today, boy I would be in big trouble! This idea of arguing being the devil's work was away to keep wives from speaking up and telling their husbands how they really felt.- Talya R. Halpern <br />
<br />
I think the role of women and the economy or more accurately the role of women as a labor force brings up some interesting points that ties to some larger themes we have discussed so far. With regards to slavery the role of the mother and inheritance is once again an issue. While we saw that some Native American cultures used the mother as a line of inheritance, when it came to slavery a child’s status as free or slave was determined by the mother. Another idea we have begun to touch upon is the hierarchy of society and women. For instance indentured servants, apprentices, or slaves occupied the same area as their mistresses but the mistress was in charge, in control due to her elevated status. In the introduction paragraph of this chapter Woloch asks questions about women’s work in the pre-industrial economy. One idea that really stuck out to me was this idea of all-women work groups. Could groups of women who worked in the field, who had things in common such as motherhood or the same master constitute the continuation of the theme of kinship we have already established in both Native American culture and Colonial culture? -- Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
<br />
The first thing that struck me from Woloch was in the very beginning when she talks about the duties of husbands and wives. While in class we discuss how the woman have no power and really don't exsist as themselves the way the Wadsworth describes it, it sounds touching almost. The quote that stuck out the most to me was, " Yet his government should not be with rigor, haughtiness, harshness, severity, but with the greatest love, gentleness, kindness, tenderness that may be. Though he governs her, he must not treat her as a servant, but as his own flesh; he must love her as himself." (28-29) Now whether or not this truely happened I do not know, however, if women were treated like this I'm not entirely sure they would ever be truely unhappy. Then in Susan Wesley's letter, where she describes her by-laws, the last one being "that no girl be taught to work till she can read very well..." shocked me also. (33) For some reason I was under the impression that a young girls education was never a high priority. Those were just two of things that really stood out to me but the book was full of information that really opened my eyes to what the people were like at that time. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I liked Eliza Pinckney’s list titled “To Improve in Every Virtue” because it gives historians a good idea of what women in Pinckney’s social class were concerned with during the 1750s. She mentions God first, assuring us that religion is a top priority in her life. She also talks about making others happy and striving to be a good wife, mother, and daughter. Many of women’s priorities have shifted in society since the 1750s, while others have stayed the same. I wonder how this list would change if Pinckney had lived in our generation. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also was impressed by how evolved Eliza Pinckney was in “To Improve in Every Virtue” and particularly by the fact that as a teenager she ran her father’s three Carolina plantations. I’m sure she had lots of help but it still seems like such a large responsibility for a young woman. -Caitlin Quinn <br />
<br />
<br />
The story about Abigail was most interesting, for a number of reasons. She definitely had alot of children, even by early American standards, but her husband engaged in an incestuous relationship with one of his daughters. I wonder what the punishment for such a thing was? Abigail's statement about the law seemed very revealing about a sense of inadequacy: "It may appear surprising that such wickednes was not checked by legal restraints." Its interesting to see that put in the same chapter with "About The Duties of Husbands and Wives," considering how obviously contradictory Abigail's reality was from the idea of Wadsworth. In the primary source reading, there was a statement about how alot of people do marry the one's they love, and live happily ever after. Of course, happy stories don't seem to be the one's most written about, and not really the most historically useful. The position of women seemed somewhat contradictory, they could divorce in New England, but then they had nothing. Did people realize this as a problem? It would seem they didn't. <br />
-Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
I was most struck by the Spanish government's guidelines regarding honor, a woman's virginity, and marriage. I found the idea that it could be more disgraceful for someone to be married to another person so clearly beyond their social status fascinating. It was interesting to me that class issues outranked the honor/virtue issues related to illegitimate children and premarital sex. Was it really more of an embarrassment to be married to someone not of your caste than be pregnant and unmarried, or is this an example of source bias?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
Woloch's book page 42-46. I can’t even imagine what Abigail must have been going through as she notes the psychological changes in her daughter. She must have felt powerless. What was her perception of justice during this period in history? I can’t even begin to fathom that. At first, she tried to reject this horrible act, but couldn’t. I interpret her account as foreboding fears of reprisals from her husband or the patriarchal institutions. I have great admiration for Abigail, for the anxiety she must have been going through was incredibly overwhelming. But through this terror, she gives us a glimpse of the past in a concise manner to address the ills—the mental and physical abuse that was bestowed upon them by this nasty man. I think Abigail’s detailed account of the behavioral problems she encountered would give insighte in today’s fields such as Sociology, Psychology, and Criminal Science in evaluating domestic and non-domestic abuse in today’s society.—John Furner<br />
<br />
Based upon what Fiona said about Sklar's article, I too wonder how much the possibilities for political and religious advancement played into the importance of the case. It seems that Martha Root was only the required reasoning to set argue a precedent. As is pertinent today, the issues being argued in a case can become far more important than the case itself. It was more of an issue of the cultural changes being on trial, rather than the actual parties. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
As I was reading Abigail Bailey's document, I noticed that it said she kicked her husband out after she found out what he was doing to one of their daughters. Was it common back in the 1800s for women to kick their husbands out of the house for doing things like her husband was doing? ~Katherine S.~</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/CommentsWeek 2 Questions/Comments2007-09-06T04:59:45Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in the passage by John Heckewelder( page 30- 33) in Modern Problems where he says that the women's work load was so much lighter than that of the mens. I found this particularly interesting because in one of my classes last semester we read some articles about Europeans reactions to Native American society in Virginia and it said how lazy the European men felt that the Indian men were because it appeared that the women did the majority of the work within the village. I thought it was interesting seeing the different views that this reading exposed. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Continuing from what Elizabeth wrote, It is infact very intersting to see how different groups of people play differnt roles, and how each group views those roles played by each gender.--Katie D.<br />
<br />
I too was interested by the passage about women’s work written by John Heckewelder. I actually found myself getting a little miffed at him for saying such a thing. However, Mary Jemison somewhat backs up what he says in the account of her captivity. She hints that the work was different from the work that white women had to face, but in the end, it all equaled out. “Our labor was not severe; and that of one year was exactly similar in almost every respect to that of the others, with out that endless variety that is to be observed in the common labor of white people…their task is probably not harder than that of white women…” (Woloch 21). Of course, Jemison doesn’t really mention men’s work in her passage, so it’s hard to tell if Seneca men compare to the “macho men” that Heckewelder describes. --Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I was also a bit baffled at Heckewelder's discription and thought it contrasted so some of the ideas that I interpreted from our lecture on Tuesday. I got from the lecture that women not only pulled their weight, but really did more than that. Granted the region really determined the labor of both genders, but I got that women worked a lot harder than Heckewelder was describing. Maybe I'm just being a "feminist"- but I do not think that Hechewelder was giving women enough credit- but who is surprised about that? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
>> I do not think that I am being dense when I say that I think that Heckewelder's comments were not all that far from the truth when I compare his writing to our class lecture and to the account from Jemison. He may have exaggerated some about just how difficult men's work was but from where I am sitting it does not seem that easy to hunt animals or fight a war. Heckewelder does seem to have an interesting account of the way a marriage works but I also wonder if by the time he is doing his observations that the society which he was studying had changed its ways seeing as how this account comes from 1819 not the late 1600s or mid 1700s. (Julie Castanien)<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, having to do with marriage and treatment of their wives,(p.9-11), I found it intersting how he says that there are many persons who believe, from the labour that they see the Indian women perform, that they are in a manner treated as slaves. These labours, indeed, are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society, but they are no more than their fair share of the hardships attendant on savage life. So they are not only voluntarily, but cheerfully submitted to the work. <br />
--Katie D.<br />
<br />
Heckewelder's discription also described the women as being "...cheerful." Maybe it was a European interpretation that smiling and cheerfulness was through the fear of the great stong Native American men. Now in the prespective of a historian who knows a bit more about the Native American culture it can be frustrating to read some accounts of Europeans and their interactions with the Natives. Women as we learned are cheerful not out of fear- maybe they were cheerful because they did have some power and influence over the tribes. If Heckewelder observed the strange freedoms that men and women had with marriage, could the connection not be made that these women have lots of liberties in other aspects of their societies and culture? - Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
Katie, I was also interested in the idea that somehow fieldwork alone made slaves, but housework did not...Is there any explanation for that, Dr. McClurken? Or someone else who saw something I missed?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
This is a total shot in the dark, but from a European perspective, I think that they would be used to women doing domestic work as opposed to working in the fields. Taking care of the home was a woman's place in European society and when seeing a Native woman doing those tasks, that was a normal thing to them. However, when women were working in the fields, a red flag must have gone up and they were like "Whoa, must be a slave." I don't know, just a kind of [bad] a guess.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
Throughout the personal narratives we have read, it has become obvious that Europeans thought their way of life to be far more superior to the way of life of the Natives they encountered. Due to the fact that they had never seen a society perform this way, Europeans defined this foreign culture as erroneous and thought it their divine right to intervene. Are there any current examples of this “responsibility” to intrude on foreign societies and make them like ours? Without trying to make this a political argument, one may argue the situation in Iraq. For instance, an attempt was made by the U.S. to spread democracy to this dictatorship. - Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Lisa, I would have to agree with you. The term manifest destiny comes to mind. Though the term may not be as common anymore, the ideology certainly still exists. It was this idea that enabled the Europeans to justify their dealings with the Native Americans and any others who came accross the European's path. -- Elizabeth H.<br />
<br />
This brings to mind the anthropological term of ethnocentrism to me. As the term suggests, the Europeans looked at the world through their own cultural perspective, believing that they are superior. All other societies are therefore judged based on their own views/culture/lifestyle. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
>> I think that it is not possible to look at other cultures without using your own as a point of comparison. Now we do the best we can to be unbiased but we still have certain tendencies to misunderstand others. (Julie Castanien)<br />
<br />
Though Native Americans were not nearly as interfering in the lives of European settlers as the settlers were to them I think it is safe to say that the Native Americans would have viewed the European way of life as erroneous and as something that needed to be corrected as well. In fact, with what we know of Native Americans sharing their ways of farming it is possible that Native Americans felt and acted in the same way, seeing Europeans as ignorant and behind the times, only we do not have any primary sources to back up their of the story. Anyway all I am trying to say is that the Europeans most likely were not the only ones looking down on another group of people. Just interesting to remember that we only have one side of the story. --Allison J. <br />
<br />
To what extent were European prejudices against natives based on differences about gender roles? To what extent were they more based on standards of living and tools? If native peoples had similar gender roles to Europeans, would the Europeans have had better gender relations, or would they still be doomed due to European prejudices about tools or desires for land?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
I don't think similar gender roles would have solved all the problems between Native American and European relations but I think it definitely would have helped the situation. Had they been more alike, both sides ethnocentrism would not have been so strong. I think this would have reduced the tension between the groups. People fear what they don't understand. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
We have several accounts of Native men being introduced to European ideas about gender and the absolute rights European men had in the 17th century. How frequently and quickly did Natives apply these ideas, and how did the application process disrupt Native family dynamics? Because all our accounts are from Europeans, we really don't have any sense of how things were within the Native families when European ideas were experimented with. Did Native women resist European ideals or did some accept these "new" roles?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
It’s amazing that over 300 years later we are running into the same storylines. The story of Sarah Ahhaton committing adultery sounds as if it could’ve been taken right off the front pages of People Magazine. It’s surprising to see the parallels between our two time periods. Sarah accused her husband, William, of philandering long before he became suspicious and jealous of her relationship with Joseph. Yet, William was not put on trial and was not questioned about his unfaithfulness. It was Sarah who was wrongfully accused, pleaded innocent, and was ridiculed before she had even committed the sin (granted William did have a right to speculate- but that’s not the point). Why wasn’t William ever questioned about his running around? And what about Joseph- he gets off scot-free! What we see here is something that has continually found its way into society: the double standard.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
In Woloch page 21, the recollections of Mary Jemison, I was really struck by her point of view on the work and labor of Indian women. "Our labor was not severe... Notwithstanding the Indian women have all the fuel and bread to procure, and the cooking to perform, their task is probably not harder that that of white women, who have those articles provided for them; and their cares certainly are not half as numerous, nor half as great." As a European woman now being held in captivity, I think it's a more trustworthy look at the work of Indian women versus the work of white women. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
One of the things I personally liked about the Woloch reading was that she, right from the get go, reminded us that most women in the early period were not literate -- they could not read or write and therefore most of what we know about them comes from men or writings of elite, white women. I think that we, as historians need to keep that in mind when analyzing and studying these sorts of materials because more often than not, these stories and facts are altered or skewed in some way. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the reading posted on Black Board it talks about how Christianity changed the gender roles and how women were treated. It shocked me that the women were summoned to a council and told that their influence basically had caused demons to come into the village (at least thats the impression I got). Also in that reading I saw how native american society ended up being very similar to the European society in which women were expected to be pure and loyal only to her husband and if she wasn't she was punished where as well men were SUPPOSED to be they often weren't and weren't punished for their adultery. I also am wondering why women let themselves be pushed into a role where they had less influence, if I had been in that position I'm positive I would have fought back. Does anyone else have thoughts on the black board reading?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I noticed that Father Le Leune cites the possible corruption of Indian men as the main reasoning behind the conversion of Indian women: "for the boys that we shall have reared in the knowledge of God, when they marry Savage girls or women accustomed to wandering in the woods, will, as their husbands, be compelled to follow them and thus fall back into barbarism, or to leave them." Did anyone else find this an interesting extension of the Christian concepts of original sin and Eve's fall in the Garden of Eden? -- Ashley Hamilton<br />
<br />
One of the contributing reasons for some native women losing power and not "fighting back" might have been the fact that European's justified their lifestyle and gender roles with lessons from Christianity. Wrestling with a new notion of God must have been unbelievably overwhelming and with the threat of hell looming perhaps women surrendered power, in part, because of fear of the consequences of acting against Christianity or European morals. - Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I found it pretty interesting in the Woloch reading the complete opposite views of the two women captives. Mary Rowlandson seems to really hate being with the Indians even while she was trying to figure out why God had allowed this to happen to her. She also seemed to contridict herself as far as her treatment..sometimes harshly and sometimes with mercy. The other captive Mary Jemison chose to stay with her captives even though they killed all of her relatives. She even says her situation was easy (pg 20). She even describes her Indian "sisters" as "peaceable and mild in their dispositions; temperment and decent in their habits, and very tender and gentle" towards her (pg21). I wonder if the difference is just how each individual tribe responded to the settlers or if was because of the time periods they lived in? Did the Indians attitude towards the settlers change that dramatically? ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I think it is really important to remember, as we are reading Mary Rowlandson's narrative, that she had just lost a child. A lot of her animosity and unhappiness could be attributed to the sadness of losing a child rather than the harsh and savage treatment of the Native Americans. Maybe this is why there are some inconsistencies in here account. Such as describing Native Americans as cruel but one paragraph later mentioning how one family took her in and fed her. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
I agree with Alison about Rowlandson's account of captivity might have been influenced by her sadness. Also, Rowlandson was described as a "middle-aged minister's wife," while at the time of her initial capture, Jemison was a teenager. I wonder how much Rowlandson's previous life experiences and beliefs influenced her views on the natives. Rowlandson's account of the natives seems inconsistent. One could speculate that Rowlandson's opinions about the Native Americans were formed prior to her capture and this might contribute to her negative view of them. -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I also agree with you, Allison, but if you read some of what Mary Rowlandson discusses, at one point she actually takes food from a starving child who is also a captive (pg 15). As a general question, do you believe she would do this sort of thing out of spite towards children? Or was she merely just trying to survive in what she considered a horrid world? -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Lisa on the Sarah Ahhaton reading. I wonder, though, why was Joseph's mother who seemed to be setting the whole affair up never confronted? She seems like she was intentionally trying to get things started between Sarah and Joseph, and Sarah ends up taking all the blame and punishment. I think at the very least Joseph should have been held accountable for his part but maybe that is just putting my values on them. I wonder why when it was so easy for Indian women or men to divorce, why was Sarah made into such an example? ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
In discussing Sarah Ahhaton, I think it's important to remember that Sarah was a converted Indian; her husband was a Native American Christian minister, and she herself was a professed Christian. While it may have been easy for Indian men and women to divorce before contact with Europeans, Sarah's conversion makes her, to a certain extent, subject to the same moral code and laws governing Christians. As an Indian, moreover, she would possibly be under even more scrutiny as Europeans expected Indians to return to their "savage" ways. -- Ashley Hamilton<br />
<br />
I found it rather interesting when reading Woloch's passage (on page 4) that a few Indian women actually benefited from European arrival. Those women in hunting tribes benefited through expanded fur trade. While I realize that the majority of women suffered an extremely negative impact from the Europeans, I found this example somewhat unusual. -- Elizabeth H.<br />
<br />
Replying to Andrea Meyers question up above, I too thought about that at first. It's not like European men just expected their wives to just lull about and look pretty. However, I don't think Europeans didn't think women should not do any work I think it was just based on the kind of work they did. Women should not to do work in the fields, however they should do work in the house. It's also a lot less rigourous. Men should be in the fields. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I also thought it was really interesting to see the differences in opinion between the captive stories of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson. As Allison said above, it is important to note that Mary Rowlandson did loose a child. I think some other factors that account for their differences could be that Mary Jemison was younger when she was taken and didn’t have a husband or children. Also, Rowlandson was taken during a period of harship and war for the natives serving as her captors. This could account for more harsh living conditions. <br />
-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
(Plane Essay) Did the fact that Sarah Ahhaton told the story to an Englishman have any effect on the narrative? Could the Englishman have perhaps asked leading questions that may have skewed her story? - F.Cobb<br />
<br />
I was interested by the two writings of the English man and woman who had been adopted into an Native American tribe to replace children who had died. (Mary Jemison writing in Woloch and John Tanner in MP). Was this a common practice? Why were the Native Americans so accepting of white people? Perhaps the two writings are just examples of the exception rather than the norm? - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
>>to answer your question, yes it was a common practice to adopt prisoners of war as substitutes for fallen kinsmen/women. Frequently there was some type of ritual that tested the adoptee which is was Jemison was talking about at the beginning of her account. If the person was able to handle the test he or she was adopted. (Julie Castanien) <br />
<br />
It was interesting to read John Heckewelder’s passage on Indian marriages because they are different from the European or American institution of marriage. For instance marriages among Indians are not contracts for life, there are no vows, or promises and either party can leave whenever they please. Heckewelder describes an Indian marriage being more like a working partnership where the husband performs certain tasks such as building the house and hunting and the woman acts as his help mate and labors in the field. I would have loved to read more about different aspects of Indian marriages instead of just learning about the work that both parties perform and that divorce is not viewed as seriously as it was in Europe and America at the time. Unfortunately since so few first hand records remain we have to rely on white European men’s accounts which leave out important details and always carry bias.-Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
<br />
I get the impression that Samuel de Champlain was rather surprised at the physical appearance of the Native Americans. His statements about their physical presence really seem to give me the impression that those back-home in Europe were really at a loss as to what to expect in the New World. The statement that their skin color is beautiful, "although olive" was rather amusing for its historical value. Also of interest was John Tanner's talk of being drunk and of his Native American adopted mother, Net-no-kwa, being drunk. The native Americans had whiskey? And was drunkeness something common? That always seemed like a western, European thing to me. John was supposedly drunk for two days, and did nobody really notice? I guess it really gives the modern person a real sense of their life span when a thirteen year old boy would be drunk for two days and nobody really reacting to it. It was also interesting to see how the trade of John was affected by, as it seems, getting everybody tipsy. -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
Just as a general question, was Mary Jemison's situation common, in the sense that she did not want to move back into white society when the Native Americans allowed her to? Perhaps she chose to remain with the Native Americans because she was captured when she was young and life with the Native Americans was the only life she knew and felt comfortable in. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's comment about Mary Rowlandson taking food from a starving child, I think Mary was just trying to survive in what she considered a horrid world. It seemed to me that she had an attitude of every person for themselves, and she was looking out for herself by eating the child's food. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
>>Whoops I made an error in my input, I mistakenly placed my input under the discussion tab sorry>> ...Better teach the girls for they will corrupt the boys. I’m sure this sentence got most of you upset. It got me upset when I read the short blackboard article of Father Le Jeune. It seems that once again girls would lead the God fearing boys into the path of barbarism and the evil that it entails. This very much parallels with the Biblical account of Adam and Eve where of course Eve brought sin upon all of humankind. Also is Le Jeune referring men and women as boys and girls, belittling Indian adults as mere children? Sort of elevating himself as a lofty religious figurehead whereas the Indian adults are mere children since they are only beginning to understand God. Le Jeune’s account reminds me of the domesticity issues of the mid 20th century as in Elaine Tyler May’s book Homeward Bound, where the sex of women, if left untamed by men, were compared to being radioactively explosive thus leading men to the path of destruction. –John Furner<br />
<br />
Out of curiosity, (at least, I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet) what did everyone think of the Chinook tale at the end of the Woloch readings? It describes what the Indians saw when the Europeans approached which is a different point of view than most historians are used to. Thoughts? -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
<br />
I found this weeks readings to be strikingly similar to those I covered in Prof. Poska's Gender and Empire course last semester. We spent most of the semester discussing how the different nations, particullary England, France, Spain, Portugal and the Danes, encountered the Natives of the New World, as well as the gendered social structures of some of the native tribes. The lecture of this week, as well as the reading, does a wonderful job of providing a detailed overview of some of the ideas from the course last semester, particullary the idea that all encounters with the natives were influenced by baises and preconceptions that the european's had about the natives and native culture, as well as european gender constructs. Taking the idea that almost all interactions with the natives were colored by social and gender preconceptions, how much should we trust what the english are writing about, and how much of it should we be leary about using as 'historical fact' and do the documents tell us just about the natives or could they also be used as a way to explore european preconceptions and social/gender expectations? --Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
Does anyone else wonder what happened to the two Europeans at the end of the Chinook Story, The First Ship? --Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I think the section from Roger Williams is extremely interesting because the words he choose to document tells a lot of English society and what was imporant to the English in marriage and relationships. For example: the english seemed to be concerned about the amount of wives the natives had because he mentions the words for 1,2,3,4...wifes. This makes sense since the english believed that it was proper to only take one wife as stated in the Bible. Also, in that same section Williams lists the characteristics of a traditionally proper and English wife, loving, proper, sober and chast, ect. This seems to point out that in attempting to make sense of the native lifestyle, williams was looking for similarities between the natives and the english through the use of language. As, this type of rudementary dictionary could have been used as a means of converting the natives by explaining how they were expected to act. Maybe, but more likely it was used as a way to simply try and understand the natvies and their culture in terms that the englsih were familiar with. --Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
As a general theme for the readings in Woloch, I see an interest in the Europeans settlers to explore the gender roles of the Native American tribes, but not to understand them. It seems that all observation were commonly related to their own society. With a few exceptions, there was a vivid interest in learning about these people, but only as their gender roles were to be seen as inferior. It is interesting that European women would also agree with this, as it makes me wonder how they felt about their own position and what they wished for it to be. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
I thought the account about Sarah was interesting especially when the essay further discussed various issues about the situation, for example she and her husband were converts to Christianity and therefore automatically subject to European norms (what is that about?) and how she escapes to Metacom's village, the hotbed of conflict, between Indians and Europeans for protection (a clever idea if she had only stayed but then again maybe they didn't want woman there who had adopted European ways). (Julie Castanien)</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/CommentsWeek 2 Questions/Comments2007-09-06T04:19:06Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in the passage by John Heckewelder( page 30- 33) in Modern Problems where he says that the women's work load was so much lighter than that of the mens. I found this particularly interesting because in one of my classes last semester we read some articles about Europeans reactions to Native American society in Virginia and it said how lazy the European men felt that the Indian men were because it appeared that the women did the majority of the work within the village. I thought it was interesting seeing the different views that this reading exposed. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Continuing from what Elizabeth wrote, It is infact very intersting to see how different groups of people play differnt roles, and how each group views those roles played by each gender.--Katie D.<br />
<br />
I too was interested by the passage about women’s work written by John Heckewelder. I actually found myself getting a little miffed at him for saying such a thing. However, Mary Jemison somewhat backs up what he says in the account of her captivity. She hints that the work was different from the work that white women had to face, but in the end, it all equaled out. “Our labor was not severe; and that of one year was exactly similar in almost every respect to that of the others, with out that endless variety that is to be observed in the common labor of white people…their task is probably not harder than that of white women…” (Woloch 21). Of course, Jemison doesn’t really mention men’s work in her passage, so it’s hard to tell if Seneca men compare to the “macho men” that Heckewelder describes. --Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I was also a bit baffled at Heckewelder's discription and thought it contrasted so some of the ideas that I interpreted from our lecture on Tuesday. I got from the lecture that women not only pulled their weight, but really did more than that. Granted the region really determined the labor of both genders, but I got that women worked a lot harder than Heckewelder was describing. Maybe I'm just being a "feminist"- but I do not think that Hechewelder was giving women enough credit- but who is surprised about that? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
>> I do not think that I am being dense when I say that I think that Heckewelder's comments were not all that far from the truth when I compare his writing to our class lecture and to the account from Jemison. He may have exaggerated some about just how difficult men's work was but from where I am sitting it does not seem that easy to hunt animals or fight a war. Heckewelder does seem to have an interesting account of the way a marriage works but I also wonder if by the time he is doing his observations that the society which he was studying had changed its ways seeing as how this account comes from 1819 not the late 1600s or mid 1700s. (Julie Castanien)<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, having to do with marriage and treatment of their wives,(p.9-11), I found it intersting how he says that there are many persons who believe, from the labour that they see the Indian women perform, that they are in a manner treated as slaves. These labours, indeed, are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society, but they are no more than their fair share of the hardships attendant on savage life. So they are not only voluntarily, but cheerfully submitted to the work. <br />
--Katie D.<br />
<br />
Heckewelder's discription also described the women as being "...cheerful." Maybe it was a European interpretation that smiling and cheerfulness was through the fear of the great stong Native American men. Now in the prespective of a historian who knows a bit more about the Native American culture it can be frustrating to read some accounts of Europeans and their interactions with the Natives. Women as we learned are cheerful not out of fear- maybe they were cheerful because they did have some power and influence over the tribes. If Heckewelder observed the strange freedoms that men and women had with marriage, could the connection not be made that these women have lots of liberties in other aspects of their societies and culture? - Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
Katie, I was also interested in the idea that somehow fieldwork alone made slaves, but housework did not...Is there any explanation for that, Dr. McClurken? Or someone else who saw something I missed?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
This is a total shot in the dark, but from a European perspective, I think that they would be used to women doing domestic work as opposed to working in the fields. Taking care of the home was a woman's place in European society and when seeing a Native woman doing those tasks, that was a normal thing to them. However, when women were working in the fields, a red flag must have gone up and they were like "Whoa, must be a slave." I don't know, just a kind of [bad] a guess.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
Throughout the personal narratives we have read, it has become obvious that Europeans thought their way of life to be far more superior to the way of life of the Natives they encountered. Due to the fact that they had never seen a society perform this way, Europeans defined this foreign culture as erroneous and thought it their divine right to intervene. Are there any current examples of this “responsibility” to intrude on foreign societies and make them like ours? Without trying to make this a political argument, one may argue the situation in Iraq. For instance, an attempt was made by the U.S. to spread democracy to this dictatorship. - Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Lisa, I would have to agree with you. The term manifest destiny comes to mind. Though the term may not be as common anymore, the ideology certainly still exists. It was this idea that enabled the Europeans to justify their dealings with the Native Americans and any others who came accross the European's path. -- Elizabeth H.<br />
<br />
This brings to mind the anthropological term of ethnocentrism to me. As the term suggests, the Europeans looked at the world through their own cultural perspective, believing that they are superior. All other societies are therefore judged based on their own views/culture/lifestyle. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
>> I think that it is not possible to look at other cultures without using your own as a point of comparison. Now we do the best we can to be unbiased but we still have certain tendencies to misunderstand others. (Julie Castanien)<br />
<br />
Though Native Americans were not nearly as interfering in the lives of European settlers as the settlers were to them I think it is safe to say that the Native Americans would have viewed the European way of life as erroneous and as something that needed to be corrected as well. In fact, with what we know of Native Americans sharing their ways of farming it is possible that Native Americans felt and acted in the same way, seeing Europeans as ignorant and behind the times, only we do not have any primary sources to back up their of the story. Anyway all I am trying to say is that the Europeans most likely were not the only ones looking down on another group of people. Just interesting to remember that we only have one side of the story. --Allison J. <br />
<br />
To what extent were European prejudices against natives based on differences about gender roles? To what extent were they more based on standards of living and tools? If native peoples had similar gender roles to Europeans, would the Europeans have had better gender relations, or would they still be doomed due to European prejudices about tools or desires for land?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
I don't think similar gender roles would have solved all the problems between Native American and European relations but I think it definitely would have helped the situation. Had they been more alike, both sides ethnocentrism would not have been so strong. I think this would have reduced the tension between the groups. People fear what they don't understand. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
We have several accounts of Native men being introduced to European ideas about gender and the absolute rights European men had in the 17th century. How frequently and quickly did Natives apply these ideas, and how did the application process disrupt Native family dynamics? Because all our accounts are from Europeans, we really don't have any sense of how things were within the Native families when European ideas were experimented with. Did Native women resist European ideals or did some accept these "new" roles?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
It’s amazing that over 300 years later we are running into the same storylines. The story of Sarah Ahhaton committing adultery sounds as if it could’ve been taken right off the front pages of People Magazine. It’s surprising to see the parallels between our two time periods. Sarah accused her husband, William, of philandering long before he became suspicious and jealous of her relationship with Joseph. Yet, William was not put on trial and was not questioned about his unfaithfulness. It was Sarah who was wrongfully accused, pleaded innocent, and was ridiculed before she had even committed the sin (granted William did have a right to speculate- but that’s not the point). Why wasn’t William ever questioned about his running around? And what about Joseph- he gets off scot-free! What we see here is something that has continually found its way into society: the double standard.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
In Woloch page 21, the recollections of Mary Jemison, I was really struck by her point of view on the work and labor of Indian women. "Our labor was not severe... Notwithstanding the Indian women have all the fuel and bread to procure, and the cooking to perform, their task is probably not harder that that of white women, who have those articles provided for them; and their cares certainly are not half as numerous, nor half as great." As a European woman now being held in captivity, I think it's a more trustworthy look at the work of Indian women versus the work of white women. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
One of the things I personally liked about the Woloch reading was that she, right from the get go, reminded us that most women in the early period were not literate -- they could not read or write and therefore most of what we know about them comes from men or writings of elite, white women. I think that we, as historians need to keep that in mind when analyzing and studying these sorts of materials because more often than not, these stories and facts are altered or skewed in some way. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the reading posted on Black Board it talks about how Christianity changed the gender roles and how women were treated. It shocked me that the women were summoned to a council and told that their influence basically had caused demons to come into the village (at least thats the impression I got). Also in that reading I saw how native american society ended up being very similar to the European society in which women were expected to be pure and loyal only to her husband and if she wasn't she was punished where as well men were SUPPOSED to be they often weren't and weren't punished for their adultery. I also am wondering why women let themselves be pushed into a role where they had less influence, if I had been in that position I'm positive I would have fought back. Does anyone else have thoughts on the black board reading?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I noticed that Father Le Leune cites the possible corruption of Indian men as the main reasoning behind the conversion of Indian women: "for the boys that we shall have reared in the knowledge of God, when they marry Savage girls or women accustomed to wandering in the woods, will, as their husbands, be compelled to follow them and thus fall back into barbarism, or to leave them." Did anyone else find this an interesting extension of the Christian concepts of original sin and Eve's fall in the Garden of Eden? -- Ashley Hamilton<br />
<br />
One of the contributing reasons for some native women losing power and not "fighting back" might have been the fact that European's justified their lifestyle and gender roles with lessons from Christianity. Wrestling with a new notion of God must have been unbelievably overwhelming and with the threat of hell looming perhaps women surrendered power, in part, because of fear of the consequences of acting against Christianity or European morals. - Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I found it pretty interesting in the Woloch reading the complete opposite views of the two women captives. Mary Rowlandson seems to really hate being with the Indians even while she was trying to figure out why God had allowed this to happen to her. She also seemed to contridict herself as far as her treatment..sometimes harshly and sometimes with mercy. The other captive Mary Jemison chose to stay with her captives even though they killed all of her relatives. She even says her situation was easy (pg 20). She even describes her Indian "sisters" as "peaceable and mild in their dispositions; temperment and decent in their habits, and very tender and gentle" towards her (pg21). I wonder if the difference is just how each individual tribe responded to the settlers or if was because of the time periods they lived in? Did the Indians attitude towards the settlers change that dramatically? ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I think it is really important to remember, as we are reading Mary Rowlandson's narrative, that she had just lost a child. A lot of her animosity and unhappiness could be attributed to the sadness of losing a child rather than the harsh and savage treatment of the Native Americans. Maybe this is why there are some inconsistencies in here account. Such as describing Native Americans as cruel but one paragraph later mentioning how one family took her in and fed her. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
I agree with Alison about Rowlandson's account of captivity might have been influenced by her sadness. Also, Rowlandson was described as a "middle-aged minister's wife," while at the time of her initial capture, Jemison was a teenager. I wonder how much Rowlandson's previous life experiences and beliefs influenced her views on the natives. Rowlandson's account of the natives seems inconsistent. One could speculate that Rowlandson's opinions about the Native Americans were formed prior to her capture and this might contribute to her negative view of them. -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I also agree with you, Allison, but if you read some of what Mary Rowlandson discusses, at one point she actually takes food from a starving child who is also a captive (pg 15). As a general question, do you believe she would do this sort of thing out of spite towards children? Or was she merely just trying to survive in what she considered a horrid world? -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Lisa on the Sarah Ahhaton reading. I wonder, though, why was Joseph's mother who seemed to be setting the whole affair up never confronted? She seems like she was intentionally trying to get things started between Sarah and Joseph, and Sarah ends up taking all the blame and punishment. I think at the very least Joseph should have been held accountable for his part but maybe that is just putting my values on them. I wonder why when it was so easy for Indian women or men to divorce, why was Sarah made into such an example? ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
In discussing Sarah Ahhaton, I think it's important to remember that Sarah was a converted Indian; her husband was a Native American Christian minister, and she herself was a professed Christian. While it may have been easy for Indian men and women to divorce before contact with Europeans, Sarah's conversion makes her, to a certain extent, subject to the same moral code and laws governing Christians. As an Indian, moreover, she would possibly be under even more scrutiny as Europeans expected Indians to return to their "savage" ways. -- Ashley Hamilton<br />
<br />
I found it rather interesting when reading Woloch's passage (on page 4) that a few Indian women actually benefited from European arrival. Those women in hunting tribes benefited through expanded fur trade. While I realize that the majority of women suffered an extremely negative impact from the Europeans, I found this example somewhat unusual. -- Elizabeth H.<br />
<br />
Replying to Andrea Meyers question up above, I too thought about that at first. It's not like European men just expected their wives to just lull about and look pretty. However, I don't think Europeans didn't think women should not do any work I think it was just based on the kind of work they did. Women should not to do work in the fields, however they should do work in the house. It's also a lot less rigourous. Men should be in the fields. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I also thought it was really interesting to see the differences in opinion between the captive stories of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson. As Allison said above, it is important to note that Mary Rowlandson did loose a child. I think some other factors that account for their differences could be that Mary Jemison was younger when she was taken and didn’t have a husband or children. Also, Rowlandson was taken during a period of harship and war for the natives serving as her captors. This could account for more harsh living conditions. <br />
-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
(Plane Essay) Did the fact that Sarah Ahhaton told the story to an Englishman have any effect on the narrative? Could the Englishman have perhaps asked leading questions that may have skewed her story? - F.Cobb<br />
<br />
I was interested by the two writings of the English man and woman who had been adopted into an Native American tribe to replace children who had died. (Mary Jemison writing in Woloch and John Tanner in MP). Was this a common practice? Why were the Native Americans so accepting of white people? Perhaps the two writings are just examples of the exception rather than the norm? - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read John Heckewelder’s passage on Indian marriages because they are different from the European or American institution of marriage. For instance marriages among Indians are not contracts for life, there are no vows, or promises and either party can leave whenever they please. Heckewelder describes an Indian marriage being more like a working partnership where the husband performs certain tasks such as building the house and hunting and the woman acts as his help mate and labors in the field. I would have loved to read more about different aspects of Indian marriages instead of just learning about the work that both parties perform and that divorce is not viewed as seriously as it was in Europe and America at the time. Unfortunately since so few first hand records remain we have to rely on white European men’s accounts which leave out important details and always carry bias.-Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
<br />
I get the impression that Samuel de Champlain was rather surprised at the physical appearance of the Native Americans. His statements about their physical presence really seem to give me the impression that those back-home in Europe were really at a loss as to what to expect in the New World. The statement that their skin color is beautiful, "although olive" was rather amusing for its historical value. Also of interest was John Tanner's talk of being drunk and of his Native American adopted mother, Net-no-kwa, being drunk. The native Americans had whiskey? And was drunkeness something common? That always seemed like a western, European thing to me. John was supposedly drunk for two days, and did nobody really notice? I guess it really gives the modern person a real sense of their life span when a thirteen year old boy would be drunk for two days and nobody really reacting to it. It was also interesting to see how the trade of John was affected by, as it seems, getting everybody tipsy. -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
Just as a general question, was Mary Jemison's situation common, in the sense that she did not want to move back into white society when the Native Americans allowed her to? Perhaps she chose to remain with the Native Americans because she was captured when she was young and life with the Native Americans was the only life she knew and felt comfortable in. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's comment about Mary Rowlandson taking food from a starving child, I think Mary was just trying to survive in what she considered a horrid world. It seemed to me that she had an attitude of every person for themselves, and she was looking out for herself by eating the child's food. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
>>Whoops I made an error in my input, I mistakenly placed my input under the discussion tab sorry>> ...Better teach the girls for they will corrupt the boys. I’m sure this sentence got most of you upset. It got me upset when I read the short blackboard article of Father Le Jeune. It seems that once again girls would lead the God fearing boys into the path of barbarism and the evil that it entails. This very much parallels with the Biblical account of Adam and Eve where of course Eve brought sin upon all of humankind. Also is Le Jeune referring men and women as boys and girls, belittling Indian adults as mere children? Sort of elevating himself as a lofty religious figurehead whereas the Indian adults are mere children since they are only beginning to understand God. Le Jeune’s account reminds me of the domesticity issues of the mid 20th century as in Elaine Tyler May’s book Homeward Bound, where the sex of women, if left untamed by men, were compared to being radioactively explosive thus leading men to the path of destruction. –John Furner<br />
<br />
Out of curiosity, (at least, I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet) what did everyone think of the Chinook tale at the end of the Woloch readings? It describes what the Indians saw when the Europeans approached which is a different point of view than most historians are used to. Thoughts? -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
<br />
I found this weeks readings to be strikingly similar to those I covered in Prof. Poska's Gender and Empire course last semester. We spent most of the semester discussing how the different nations, particullary England, France, Spain, Portugal and the Danes, encountered the Natives of the New World, as well as the gendered social structures of some of the native tribes. The lecture of this week, as well as the reading, does a wonderful job of providing a detailed overview of some of the ideas from the course last semester, particullary the idea that all encounters with the natives were influenced by baises and preconceptions that the european's had about the natives and native culture, as well as european gender constructs. Taking the idea that almost all interactions with the natives were colored by social and gender preconceptions, how much should we trust what the english are writing about, and how much of it should we be leary about using as 'historical fact' and do the documents tell us just about the natives or could they also be used as a way to explore european preconceptions and social/gender expectations? --Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
Does anyone else wonder what happened to the two Europeans at the end of the Chinook Story, The First Ship? --Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I think the section from Roger Williams is extremely interesting because the words he choose to document tells a lot of English society and what was imporant to the English in marriage and relationships. For example: the english seemed to be concerned about the amount of wives the natives had because he mentions the words for 1,2,3,4...wifes. This makes sense since the english believed that it was proper to only take one wife as stated in the Bible. Also, in that same section Williams lists the characteristics of a traditionally proper and English wife, loving, proper, sober and chast, ect. This seems to point out that in attempting to make sense of the native lifestyle, williams was looking for similarities between the natives and the english through the use of language. As, this type of rudementary dictionary could have been used as a means of converting the natives by explaining how they were expected to act. Maybe, but more likely it was used as a way to simply try and understand the natvies and their culture in terms that the englsih were familiar with. --Katelynn V.</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/CommentsWeek 2 Questions/Comments2007-09-06T04:04:20Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in the passage by John Heckewelder( page 30- 33) in Modern Problems where he says that the women's work load was so much lighter than that of the mens. I found this particularly interesting because in one of my classes last semester we read some articles about Europeans reactions to Native American society in Virginia and it said how lazy the European men felt that the Indian men were because it appeared that the women did the majority of the work within the village. I thought it was interesting seeing the different views that this reading exposed. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Continuing from what Elizabeth wrote, It is infact very intersting to see how different groups of people play differnt roles, and how each group views those roles played by each gender.--Katie D.<br />
<br />
I too was interested by the passage about women’s work written by John Heckewelder. I actually found myself getting a little miffed at him for saying such a thing. However, Mary Jemison somewhat backs up what he says in the account of her captivity. She hints that the work was different from the work that white women had to face, but in the end, it all equaled out. “Our labor was not severe; and that of one year was exactly similar in almost every respect to that of the others, with out that endless variety that is to be observed in the common labor of white people…their task is probably not harder than that of white women…” (Woloch 21). Of course, Jemison doesn’t really mention men’s work in her passage, so it’s hard to tell if Seneca men compare to the “macho men” that Heckewelder describes. --Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I was also a bit baffled at Heckewelder's discription and thought it contrasted so some of the ideas that I interpreted from our lecture on Tuesday. I got from the lecture that women not only pulled their weight, but really did more than that. Granted the region really determined the labor of both genders, but I got that women worked a lot harder than Heckewelder was describing. Maybe I'm just being a "feminist"- but I do not think that Hechewelder was giving women enough credit- but who is surprised about that? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
>> I do not think that I am being dense when I say that I thinkt hat Heckewelder's comments were not all that far from the truth when I compare his writing to our class lecture and to the account from Jemison. He may have exaggerated some about just how difficult men's work was but from where I am sitting it does not seem that easy to hunt animals or fight a war. Heckewelder does seem to have an interesting account of the way a marriage works but I also wonder if by the time he is doing his observations that the society which he was studing had changed its ways seeing as how this account comes from 1819 not the late 1600s or mid 1700s. <br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, having to do with marriage and treatment of their wives,(p.9-11), I found it intersting how he says that there are many persons who believe, from the labour that they see the Indian women perform, that they are in a manner treated as slaves. These labours, indeed, are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society, but they are no more than their fair share of the hardships attendant on savage life. So they are not only voluntarily, but cheerfully submitted to the work. <br />
--Katie D.<br />
<br />
Heckewelder's discription also described the women as being "...cheerful." Maybe it was a European interpretation that smiling and cheerfulness was through the fear of the great stong Native American men. Now in the prespective of a historian who knows a bit more about the Native American culture it can be frustrating to read some accounts of Europeans and their interactions with the Natives. Women as we learned are cheerful not out of fear- maybe they were cheerful because they did have some power and influence over the tribes. If Heckewelder observed the strange freedoms that men and women had with marriage, could the connection not be made that these women have lots of liberties in other aspects of their societies and culture? - Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
Katie, I was also interested in the idea that somehow fieldwork alone made slaves, but housework did not...Is there any explanation for that, Dr. McClurken? Or someone else who saw something I missed?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
This is a total shot in the dark, but from a European perspective, I think that they would be used to women doing domestic work as opposed to working in the fields. Taking care of the home was a woman's place in European society and when seeing a Native woman doing those tasks, that was a normal thing to them. However, when women were working in the fields, a red flag must have gone up and they were like "Whoa, must be a slave." I don't know, just a kind of [bad] a guess.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
Throughout the personal narratives we have read, it has become obvious that Europeans thought their way of life to be far more superior to the way of life of the Natives they encountered. Due to the fact that they had never seen a society perform this way, Europeans defined this foreign culture as erroneous and thought it their divine right to intervene. Are there any current examples of this “responsibility” to intrude on foreign societies and make them like ours? Without trying to make this a political argument, one may argue the situation in Iraq. For instance, an attempt was made by the U.S. to spread democracy to this dictatorship. - Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Lisa, I would have to agree with you. The term manifest destiny comes to mind. Though the term may not be as common anymore, the ideology certainly still exists. It was this idea that enabled the Europeans to justify their dealings with the Native Americans and any others who came accross the European's path. -- Elizabeth H.<br />
<br />
This brings to mind the anthropological term of ethnocentrism to me. As the term suggests, the Europeans looked at the world through their own cultural perspective, believing that they are superior. All other societies are therefore judged based on their own views/culture/lifestyle. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
Though Native Americans were not nearly as interfering in the lives of European settlers as the settlers were to them I think it is safe to say that the Native Americans would have viewed the European way of life as erroneous and as something that needed to be corrected as well. In fact, with what we know of Native Americans sharing their ways of farming it is possible that Native Americans felt and acted in the same way, seeing Europeans as ignorant and behind the times, only we do not have any primary sources to back up their of the story. Anyway all I am trying to say is that the Europeans most likely were not the only ones looking down on another group of people. Just interesting to remember that we only have one side of the story. --Allison J. <br />
<br />
To what extent were European prejudices against natives based on differences about gender roles? To what extent were they more based on standards of living and tools? If native peoples had similar gender roles to Europeans, would the Europeans have had better gender relations, or would they still be doomed due to European prejudices about tools or desires for land?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
I don't think similar gender roles would have solved all the problems between Native American and European relations but I think it definitely would have helped the situation. Had they been more alike, both sides ethnocentrism would not have been so strong. I think this would have reduced the tension between the groups. People fear what they don't understand. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
We have several accounts of Native men being introduced to European ideas about gender and the absolute rights European men had in the 17th century. How frequently and quickly did Natives apply these ideas, and how did the application process disrupt Native family dynamics? Because all our accounts are from Europeans, we really don't have any sense of how things were within the Native families when European ideas were experimented with. Did Native women resist European ideals or did some accept these "new" roles?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
It’s amazing that over 300 years later we are running into the same storylines. The story of Sarah Ahhaton committing adultery sounds as if it could’ve been taken right off the front pages of People Magazine. It’s surprising to see the parallels between our two time periods. Sarah accused her husband, William, of philandering long before he became suspicious and jealous of her relationship with Joseph. Yet, William was not put on trial and was not questioned about his unfaithfulness. It was Sarah who was wrongfully accused, pleaded innocent, and was ridiculed before she had even committed the sin (granted William did have a right to speculate- but that’s not the point). Why wasn’t William ever questioned about his running around? And what about Joseph- he gets off scot-free! What we see here is something that has continually found its way into society: the double standard.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
In Woloch page 21, the recollections of Mary Jemison, I was really struck by her point of view on the work and labor of Indian women. "Our labor was not severe... Notwithstanding the Indian women have all the fuel and bread to procure, and the cooking to perform, their task is probably not harder that that of white women, who have those articles provided for them; and their cares certainly are not half as numerous, nor half as great." As a European woman now being held in captivity, I think it's a more trustworthy look at the work of Indian women versus the work of white women. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
One of the things I personally liked about the Woloch reading was that she, right from the get go, reminded us that most women in the early period were not literate -- they could not read or write and therefore most of what we know about them comes from men or writings of elite, white women. I think that we, as historians need to keep that in mind when analyzing and studying these sorts of materials because more often than not, these stories and facts are altered or skewed in some way. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the reading posted on Black Board it talks about how Christianity changed the gender roles and how women were treated. It shocked me that the women were summoned to a council and told that their influence basically had caused demons to come into the village (at least thats the impression I got). Also in that reading I saw how native american society ended up being very similar to the European society in which women were expected to be pure and loyal only to her husband and if she wasn't she was punished where as well men were SUPPOSED to be they often weren't and weren't punished for their adultery. I also am wondering why women let themselves be pushed into a role where they had less influence, if I had been in that position I'm positive I would have fought back. Does anyone else have thoughts on the black board reading?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I noticed that Father Le Leune cites the possible corruption of Indian men as the main reasoning behind the conversion of Indian women: "for the boys that we shall have reared in the knowledge of God, when they marry Savage girls or women accustomed to wandering in the woods, will, as their husbands, be compelled to follow them and thus fall back into barbarism, or to leave them." Did anyone else find this an interesting extension of the Christian concepts of original sin and Eve's fall in the Garden of Eden? -- Ashley Hamilton<br />
<br />
One of the contributing reasons for some native women losing power and not "fighting back" might have been the fact that European's justified their lifestyle and gender roles with lessons from Christianity. Wrestling with a new notion of God must have been unbelievably overwhelming and with the threat of hell looming perhaps women surrendered power, in part, because of fear of the consequences of acting against Christianity or European morals. - Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I found it pretty interesting in the Woloch reading the complete opposite views of the two women captives. Mary Rowlandson seems to really hate being with the Indians even while she was trying to figure out why God had allowed this to happen to her. She also seemed to contridict herself as far as her treatment..sometimes harshly and sometimes with mercy. The other captive Mary Jemison chose to stay with her captives even though they killed all of her relatives. She even says her situation was easy (pg 20). She even describes her Indian "sisters" as "peaceable and mild in their dispositions; temperment and decent in their habits, and very tender and gentle" towards her (pg21). I wonder if the difference is just how each individual tribe responded to the settlers or if was because of the time periods they lived in? Did the Indians attitude towards the settlers change that dramatically? ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I think it is really important to remember, as we are reading Mary Rowlandson's narrative, that she had just lost a child. A lot of her animosity and unhappiness could be attributed to the sadness of losing a child rather than the harsh and savage treatment of the Native Americans. Maybe this is why there are some inconsistencies in here account. Such as describing Native Americans as cruel but one paragraph later mentioning how one family took her in and fed her. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
I agree with Alison about Rowlandson's account of captivity might have been influenced by her sadness. Also, Rowlandson was described as a "middle-aged minister's wife," while at the time of her initial capture, Jemison was a teenager. I wonder how much Rowlandson's previous life experiences and beliefs influenced her views on the natives. Rowlandson's account of the natives seems inconsistent. One could speculate that Rowlandson's opinions about the Native Americans were formed prior to her capture and this might contribute to her negative view of them. -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I also agree with you, Allison, but if you read some of what Mary Rowlandson discusses, at one point she actually takes food from a starving child who is also a captive (pg 15). As a general question, do you believe she would do this sort of thing out of spite towards children? Or was she merely just trying to survive in what she considered a horrid world? -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Lisa on the Sarah Ahhaton reading. I wonder, though, why was Joseph's mother who seemed to be setting the whole affair up never confronted? She seems like she was intentionally trying to get things started between Sarah and Joseph, and Sarah ends up taking all the blame and punishment. I think at the very least Joseph should have been held accountable for his part but maybe that is just putting my values on them. I wonder why when it was so easy for Indian women or men to divorce, why was Sarah made into such an example? ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
In discussing Sarah Ahhaton, I think it's important to remember that Sarah was a converted Indian; her husband was a Native American Christian minister, and she herself was a professed Christian. While it may have been easy for Indian men and women to divorce before contact with Europeans, Sarah's conversion makes her, to a certain extent, subject to the same moral code and laws governing Christians. As an Indian, moreover, she would possibly be under even more scrutiny as Europeans expected Indians to return to their "savage" ways. -- Ashley Hamilton<br />
<br />
I found it rather interesting when reading Woloch's passage (on page 4) that a few Indian women actually benefited from European arrival. Those women in hunting tribes benefited through expanded fur trade. While I realize that the majority of women suffered an extremely negative impact from the Europeans, I found this example somewhat unusual. -- Elizabeth H.<br />
<br />
Replying to Andrea Meyers question up above, I too thought about that at first. It's not like European men just expected their wives to just lull about and look pretty. However, I don't think Europeans didn't think women should not do any work I think it was just based on the kind of work they did. Women should not to do work in the fields, however they should do work in the house. It's also a lot less rigourous. Men should be in the fields. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I also thought it was really interesting to see the differences in opinion between the captive stories of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson. As Allison said above, it is important to note that Mary Rowlandson did loose a child. I think some other factors that account for their differences could be that Mary Jemison was younger when she was taken and didn’t have a husband or children. Also, Rowlandson was taken during a period of harship and war for the natives serving as her captors. This could account for more harsh living conditions. <br />
-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
(Plane Essay) Did the fact that Sarah Ahhaton told the story to an Englishman have any effect on the narrative? Could the Englishman have perhaps asked leading questions that may have skewed her story? - F.Cobb<br />
<br />
I was interested by the two writings of the English man and woman who had been adopted into an Native American tribe to replace children who had died. (Mary Jemison writing in Woloch and John Tanner in MP). Was this a common practice? Why were the Native Americans so accepting of white people? Perhaps the two writings are just examples of the exception rather than the norm? - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read John Heckewelder’s passage on Indian marriages because they are different from the European or American institution of marriage. For instance marriages among Indians are not contracts for life, there are no vows, or promises and either party can leave whenever they please. Heckewelder describes an Indian marriage being more like a working partnership where the husband performs certain tasks such as building the house and hunting and the woman acts as his help mate and labors in the field. I would have loved to read more about different aspects of Indian marriages instead of just learning about the work that both parties perform and that divorce is not viewed as seriously as it was in Europe and America at the time. Unfortunately since so few first hand records remain we have to rely on white European men’s accounts which leave out important details and always carry bias.-Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
<br />
I get the impression that Samuel de Champlain was rather surprised at the physical appearance of the Native Americans. His statements about their physical presence really seem to give me the impression that those back-home in Europe were really at a loss as to what to expect in the New World. The statement that their skin color is beautiful, "although olive" was rather amusing for its historical value. Also of interest was John Tanner's talk of being drunk and of his Native American adopted mother, Net-no-kwa, being drunk. The native Americans had whiskey? And was drunkeness something common? That always seemed like a western, European thing to me. John was supposedly drunk for two days, and did nobody really notice? I guess it really gives the modern person a real sense of their life span when a thirteen year old boy would be drunk for two days and nobody really reacting to it. It was also interesting to see how the trade of John was affected by, as it seems, getting everybody tipsy. -Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
Just as a general question, was Mary Jemison's situation common, in the sense that she did not want to move back into white society when the Native Americans allowed her to? Perhaps she chose to remain with the Native Americans because she was captured when she was young and life with the Native Americans was the only life she knew and felt comfortable in. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's comment about Mary Rowlandson taking food from a starving child, I think Mary was just trying to survive in what she considered a horrid world. It seemed to me that she had an attitude of every person for themselves, and she was looking out for herself by eating the child's food. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
>>Whoops I made an error in my input, I mistakenly placed my input under the discussion tab sorry>> ...Better teach the girls for they will corrupt the boys. I’m sure this sentence got most of you upset. It got me upset when I read the short blackboard article of Father Le Jeune. It seems that once again girls would lead the God fearing boys into the path of barbarism and the evil that it entails. This very much parallels with the Biblical account of Adam and Eve where of course Eve brought sin upon all of humankind. Also is Le Jeune referring men and women as boys and girls, belittling Indian adults as mere children? Sort of elevating himself as a lofty religious figurehead whereas the Indian adults are mere children since they are only beginning to understand God. Le Jeune’s account reminds me of the domesticity issues of the mid 20th century as in Elaine Tyler May’s book Homeward Bound, where the sex of women, if left untamed by men, were compared to being radioactively explosive thus leading men to the path of destruction. –John Furner<br />
<br />
Out of curiosity, (at least, I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet) what did everyone think of the Chinook tale at the end of the Woloch readings? It describes what the Indians saw when the Europeans approached which is a different point of view than most historians are used to. Thoughts? -- Kelly Wuyscik</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T05:34:46Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div> -- Major Problems, 1-23<br />
<br />
The first essay mentions how women were once only seen as important to history because of their relation to important men. A prime example of this is our University. Mary Washington is recognized solely as the mother of George Washington. She is seen as important because of her son not because of any of her own actions. -- Allison<br />
<br />
That's an awesome example! I wonder if other cultures were/are inclined to qulify their women in a similar manner. --Katelynn <br />
<br />
I think Allison makes an excellent point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie History Boys. The quote is from the woman history teacher who says, "History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket." She may have some feminist tendencies when saying this, but I think it can be a relevant quote for what Kate Haulman is saying in her essay and the point Allison made. -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
One of my other professors mentioned that history is constantly being reinterpreted and rewritten, so can any of the questions represented by this book ever actually be answered to everyone's satisfaction? -- Allison<br />
<br />
In response to Allison's question: I think that you have a good point. I seriously doubt that any of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Like in all things there will always be someone who is not satisfied, someone who continues to look for another way to answer the question. Its human nature. You can see that just looking at the essays, even though the historians writing this are all involved in women's history they all have different ideas of how you should go about it and what you should focus on. --Mary<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary and Allison also. It is human nature to not be satisfied- and it is in our nature to complain and always want to adapt in ideologies. None of the questions asked in Chapter 1 can ever be answered coherently because the answers can be interepreted in so many different ways. I mean the book has four essays on the topic so far, all of which are different.- Talya <br />
<br />
>In response to the above, I think that the entire point of the first chapter is to show how the idea of American Women's History has changed and adapted (or how it should do so) in response to people's questions. Therefore if you are unsatisfied with some historian's account of history you can take the time to study that account and others so that you can find a different truth. For example the final two essays were written by women who were unsatisfied with the way minority women are represented in the realm of women's history so they devoted time to studying women from other cultures and racial backgrounds so as to satisfy their queries. Their work only adds to our understanding. -- Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
<br />
There was one section while reading that stood out for me and that was the part on page twelve about equality and difference. I found it interesting that she should mention the idea that so often in the search for women's "equality" women want to be treated as if they were men and often over look the differences between men and women because they have often been used as a basis for discimination. While this section was very confusing, in my opinion at least, just because of the strong and opposing opinions about the subject, personally I think that just because a woman wants to be seen as an equal to a man in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law that is no reason to set aside her femininity. --Mary<br />
<br />
In regards to Mary's comment, I agree that equality should never be awarded based on one's femininity. The dichotomy was a contrast between feminists who deny difference between males and females and those who use their differences as a strength or access to power. I think it is vital to realize that "femininity" is a construct that has been forced upon women. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" have regulated gender politics and certainly there is nothing wrong with expressing either- but they are just labels that have been oppressive to those who wish to transcend their designated gender roles. I think that there would be value in discussing from where "femininity" stems and how free thought is and has been affected by this construct. --Kelly<br />
<br />
I'd like to pose a question of opinion, if permitted, in response to Mary's and Kelly's comments. It's a situation that I know many instances of and wonder about what everyone else thinks of it. Woman A wants to go to college, get a degree, and continue her education (perhaps to get a masters or doctorate). She hopes to achieve a full and lengthy career while maintaining a family life. Woman B wants to finish college but her main goal is to start a family and stay at home to take care of her children and the household. She has no desire for a career and is more than satisfied with her life as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker. I don't really have a follow-up question other than to open the floor to opinion, but is there anything wrong with either woman's goals and should either be seen as less-equal or more equal than the other? -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
In response to Vanessa's comment, I don't believe the issue should be whether or not one woman's goals are more or less equal to those of the other woman. The important issue is that women have the choice to pursue an education and career and/or they have the choice to become mothers and care for their households. We have come a long way in history considering the choice was not always there. -- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
One, I think that either choice contains a life time of dedication and hard work. Vanessa's question for Woman B was if the woman went to school and then just stayed home. What if woman B never went to school at all? What if she simply became a house wife? What does everyone think about a housewife with no education? What if school was not even an option because it was not important? It is so interesting that school has now become the factor of success. A while ago, college was not for everyone- especially not for women at one point. What does everyone think about how an uneducated housewife would be viewed upon today versus a century ago?- Talya. <br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth. In the 1950s the typical family dynamic was a stay at home mom (homemaker) and a father who worked (the breadwinner). "The Problem That Has No Name" written by Betty Friedan speaks to women who had no other options than to raise the children and be the homemaker. That is what society told them they had to/should do at that time. "The Problem" was that many women became depressed and wanted more from their life. I don't mean to down homemakers at all. Rather, I say this because women did not have a real choice then. Like Elizabeth said though, now women have more choices. Both homemakers and career women should be valued for their work. --Alex<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth but also think that looking at what influences a woman's life goal could potentially be telling. I would be curious about how the goals of Woman A and B have been supported by their peers, the media, and other outside forces. --Kelly <br />
<br />
I have been a stay at home mom but I also held a part-time job if hours that were different from my husbands. This was a way I could balanace a career and be a mother at the same time. It was difficult but I had plenty of support from my family, peers and others. The only thing I put on hold was my education. Hopefully this coming spring I will graduate.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Women's history has come a long way. I agree with Gerda Lerner when she says "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians." (p.8). There is something about the neglect of women's studies that makes us want to focus even more on their history. --Katie<br />
<br />
Speaking of Gerda Lerner, she was a speaker during last years women's history month here on campus. I went to hear her speak and she was a really strong, intelligent and persistent women. She spoke of the Seneca Falls Convention and the Declaration of Sentiments written there advocating for the women's rights. In addition, she also addressed the women's movement stereotype that it only involved white middle class women. She mentioned that the working class, blacks and some men were also involved. Lerner also noted that although the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to be passed, she does not feel that it would be the magic ticket to solve all women’s issues. She stressed that legal reforms/changes are not enough. Social support and cultural transformation is needed. The attitudes of men and women alike need to change in support of these issues. Knowing women’s history is a major step in the right direction. Lerner basically founded women’s history programs, stressing that we have a right to know our own history. --Alex<br />
<br />
Knowing that it is gender that defines "man" and "woman", or "male" and "female", what exactly truely defines the category "women"? --Katie<br />
<br />
I believe that when studying women's history it is easy to get caught up in the oppression of women. It's important to remember that not all cultures were as oppressive over women as were European societies. We know that many Native American women had a stronger role in soceity than most European women. This is not to say that women were never oppressed, rather that depending on the soceity of study, women's roles were different.-- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment: I definitely agree. In fact, while I was reading the essays, I kept reminding myself about the different situations of women throughout history, like Native Americans as you mentioned. However, not focusing on oppression is sometimes hard to do as Leslie Alexander points out, some scholars seek to incoroporate race into their studies and end up "focusing exclusively on oppression" (20).--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
I agree, there has been so many positive parts in Women's history. Yet, we cannot forget some of the good parts were incorporated hand in hand with the status of the particular female individual. Abigail Adams for example- I'm sure she would not have been popular or involved in the Revolutionary War as much as she was if she was not married to her famous husband.- Talya. <br />
<br />
In her essay Alexander argued that historians are "reluctant to explore how the reality of race influences Black women's lives." What is the cause of this reluctance? Can this statement also be applied to all minority women? - Fiona<br />
<br />
The authors argue that women's history needs to be examined from multiple angles: class, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, work, etc. Is this possible? Would it still be women's history or would it become something like African American women's history or Latino women's history? - Fiona<br />
<br />
Elaborating on Fiona's questions, how do we define any group for the purpose of studying its history? How does one draw important distinctions (class, race, age, etc.) while not creating a focus so narrow or specific as to be impractical for study as a group? Also, Gisela Bock refers to the emergence of "men's history" and "men's studies." Has anyone actually witnesses any examples of this? -Ashley<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
As Cheryl states below, the preface states the basic reasons that this topic came into play. 1) the feminist movement in the 1960s and 2) women began to enter into the field of history and historical study as a result of employment opportunities that they had not previously been given. And one reason seems to be the result of the other. - Kelly W.<br />
<br />
In the preface of the book, more details are given about the study of women's histroy.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I was actually curious about the same thing. I believe one of the authors mentioned that the field of study stretched all the way back to the 1950s (I could be wrong). That being said, with the ever-changing role of women in society, how do you think the study of women's history has changed since its beginning and how do you think it will change in the future?--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
Playing a bit of a devil's advocate, wouldn't it be fair to say that women have always played a role in history by nature of the biological process? However, in regards to the readings I think the authors all seem to agree that the study of women's history began between 1950-1970-ish. --Katelynn <br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
To comment on Allison’s Mary Washington statement that opened this discussion, Bock’s essay makes a great point in her public v. private dichotomy. She says, “male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared, and cared for by the women’s labor”(10). Thus, George is a public reflection of Mary’s private raising. We are able to see the woman Mary was through the man George became.--Lisa<br />
<br />
How does one determine what is gender neutral? Especially when it comes to applying gender neutrallity to laws that invovled violence like rape and battery?--Cheryl<br />
<br />
There is a comment somewhere amongst these essays that states that women’s history is a compilation of only the exceptional women from history, thus creating a history that is unrepresentative of every woman. Isn’t most history (not just women’s history) we read that of the extraordinary and not the commonplace?--Lisa<br />
<br />
In response to your question, Lisa, I'd have to agree with you on that one. Most history we study from grade school through our current education focuses primarily on major events, not only of women, but of men as well. Discussions are always based on the extraordinary and the only way we tap into the lives of the commonplace is by digging for primary sources and analyzing what we can. I feel however, that the field is slowly beginning to expand and bring the commonplace closer to the center. (I think that made sense). - Kelly W <br />
<br />
In her essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," Gisela Bock states that women appeared front and center in the historian's eye because of their subjectivity and that "women are not only victims but also actively shape their own lives, society and history." How does everyone feel about this statement? Do you agree that it was also partly at the fault of women that the gender was not previously studied? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
It was actually a surprise to me how indepth the discussion of "women's history" really is. I had always been under the simple assumption that women's history was just precisely that: history of women. The reality that such a two word phrase would contain so many issues regarding gender, race, class... appears very important, despite my previous assumptions. The idea that women's history was actually 'white women's history' was an observation that jumped out at me. It seems so easy to fight for a perspective/focus in history with the goal of some type of equality while at the same time ignoring a whole type of inequality in your focus. The sections dealing with the multiple dichotomies was very interesting, considering how even today such phrases are used. In the case of "work and family," its interesting to see how a practical consideration of "paid and unpaid work" was given a more ethical/moral (perhaps even a religious/theological one?) with the phrase "work and family" -it makes me wonder what other dichotomies in society that seem to be ethical or social values are at base purely practical ones. --Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
I would first like to start by commenting to Allison’s opening statement about women’s history in relation to men and would like to throw out another question. Considering the time period we are focusing on in this class and the mostly male-dominated/patriarchal society of the time is it contextually appropriate to only focus on women without considering important men both publicly and privately in women’s lives? I think Haulman brings up an extremely important part of understanding women’s historiography and that was the need and desire to have a history of all types, classes, races, etc. of women but can we do that without some comparison to men? (particularly in this half of the course). I also think Haulman, Castaneda, and Alexander brought up an important point about titles and incorporating women of color. In my research for my 299 paper I came across research and studies about minority groups in the 1960s women’s movement, how they viewed the women’s movement, how they participated, and how they viewed the predominantly white, middle class woman’s struggle compared to theirs. It made me think of other titles such as the “History of African Americans” and what that title would mean broken down. ----Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting in Antonia Castaneda's essay how she mentions that the women, who wrote the history of women in the West, only wrote about white women. I think that it is difficult to write a through history of women in the West without highlighting the accomplishments of Native American, Hispanic and Asian women. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Going along with Katherine's comment, think of how little we know about the American (and when I say American I mean US) southeast and the Native American tribes. Most of what we are taught is that they were fighting a battle they were ultimately going to lose -- isn't most history biased in that sort of way and not just women's history? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting how Leslie Alexander mentions that the feminist movement was not very successful with African American women. It was not successful because African American families were very close knit and the movement required women to distance themselves a little bit from their families. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me the most in the reading was the section about equality versus difference. As I was reading it I kept thinking Why is it so difficult for women to be equal. I believe that we (as women) should not be treated exactly like men because we are different and have different issues that cannot be addressed that way, such as what was mentioned in the text of rape, abortion, and spousal abuse (pg12). I think Bock's question of "why is it, for instance, that "equality" and "justice" seem to complement each other in the case of men, but be opposed to each other in the case of women." (pg12) is a very important question and sums up the women's struggle to be visible. ~Mary Beth C~<br />
<br />
I found the various references to the complications of writing to represent a whole sex interesting. The progression from the inclusion of "important and influential" figures in women's history, to a history that strives to incorporate the vast meanings of what it means to be a woman in all respects in all periods is daunting, if not hopeless. But, striving for such complete understanding seems to be a crucial goal of the modern historian. Diversity of study is finding an important prominence, but in such the danger of dilution of the subject field becomes apparent. -- Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
Vanessa's question hit on an issue that we're starting to see the pendulum sort of swing in the opposite direction on, but for so long we have only wanted to talk about and recognize the active and "exciting" action taking parts of history. No one wants to talk about keeping a family on the homefront or making the parts for the planes that dropped the bombs, they want to talk about flying in to drop the bombs. At the same time, as we try to recognize the importance of raising families, and women like Abigail Adams who were intellectually advanced and deserve credit for being recognized as leaders within their own time, we neglect to give attention to women who assumed active roles equal or comparable to male roles--why do we know Jack Jouett and Paul Revere, but we don't know Sybil Luddington and Dicey Langston? Women's history seems to have gone to extremes, resulting in attention being devoted most unequally. --Andrea<br />
<br />
Bock and Haulman seemed to do an excellent job of articulating key themes in gender and women's studies, themes I have not seen articulated as succintly and clearly elsewhere. Bock's numbered themes simply identify issues my women's studies class spent weeks discussing, issues that I believe we will find continually reappear and connect in subtle ways we would never anticipate...These are issues that apply to other minorities on some level in many situations--like the integration discussion. Are any neglected/minority accounts of history better taught on their own independently or better off integrated into mainstream history? African American, Latino or even Irish History/Studies could easily be substituted for Women's Studies/History in many of these essays. Haulman's explanation of the sexuality nature vs. nurture debate is significantly clearer than the essays used in the same series' book on Sexual History by Weeks and Rictor Norton, which fail to address many examples like mannerisms, which Haulman uses well. Leslie Alexander's discussion of historians' use of the contributionist model with African American history also seemed to apply to women's history in general, or really any history that's been neglected from the "Dead White Men" version of history. It made me realize that women's history really is discussed in terms of contributions or assistance or help, never in terms of achievements or actions, contrary to the "he did" history of DWM. That thought left me frustrated and asking "What would Gerda say?" (besides to keep insisting on the recognition of obscure minority examples of women which derail Dr. McClurken's classes). --Andrea<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth’s question about how important it is to incorporate men into our study of women, I think it is important to include them because they did play an important role in influencing women’s lives and choices. While the degree is debatable, the fact remains that Women were influenced by the male dominated society in which they lived. We wouldn’t be getting the full picture if we failed to incorporate men into that history.<br />
For me, the equality v. difference argument in the Gisella Bock essay was very interesting. Though I am all for female independence, equal education and job opportunities, etc. I’m not convinced that women and men should be treated as gender neutral. Biologically we are different and face different issues in society. –- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
Jennifer- I completely agree. Men and Women should not be treated as gender neutral. The difference between us- not just physically- but mentally, emotionally, and physcologically, are to extreme to be considered equal. That is not to say that we should not have equal rights- but not only do we face different issues in society differenty, we react differently to those issues. - Talya.<br />
<br />
I thought this article raised interesting questions about gender and the role that men and women are asked to preform in society. While I think that equal pay for the same work is important, I would be cautious in saying that gender should be a neutral. If its neutral than would what would we base our differences on? --Katelynn<br />
<br />
These were posted in another area accidentally:<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
--Not sure if this is really what you're looking for but I believe Gerda Lerner started the first(?) women's history department at the University of Wisconsin...which would make it somewhat linked to the feminist movements, but partially independent?--Andrea<br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
--I really liked this question, the first thing I can think of is feminism has traditionally had less respect and interest in traditional women's roles as homemakers, etc. --Andrea<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that so many different groups identified themselves as "American" women, like the Cherokees. While I think the four major bolded themes in the Haulman essay are useful, they are also major themes in Gender Studies and Women's Studies. In the History of U.S. Sexuality, we are reading nature vs. culture/constructionist vs. essentialist essays, and I believe Haulman's part 1 addresses important issues like mannerisms and hobbies, which I haven't seen articulated as well elsewhere. Unfortunately, I agree with the vicious cycle Haulman identifies on p. 11, whereby women's efforts to be more historically recognized and gain rights limited them. --Andrea<br />
<br />
Lesile Alexander raised some interesting points in her essay about how the feminist movement affects African American women’s history. I have always seen women’s history as inextricably linked to the feminist movement but never considered the ramifications that it would have for African American women. While Lesile Alexander states that the feminist movement was useful in liberating white women she says it also forced Black women into the same mold and has therefore prevented a full understanding of black women’s lives. Throughout the essay Alexander states the importance of incorporating race into women’s history going so far as to say that black women’s lives cannot be understood if they are continually viewed through the “lens of whiteness and oppression.” I wanted to see if people agreed with Alexander that African American women’s history has been misunderstood for years because racial differences have not been examined fully enough.-Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
> Yes Caitlin, I agree with Alexander about African American women's history. I also know that there are similar issues with Latina History. There seems to be this prevailing theme that when it comes to minority women the primary goal is to see their racial or ethnic group liberated before they are liberated as women. I could try to make a stretch here and compare this racial and ethic liberation to that of the White American Male Colonists from the oppressive English rule before the White women could be liberated but I think that is over kill. --Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
I am surprised because I have yet to see anyone comment (unless I have not read this page closely enough) on something just casually mentioned in some of the essays that still astounds me. This is one half of the world's population we are talking about here. I know that the two last essays warn us against labeling women as a unified group but I still have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that until the 1960s and later has Women's History come to the forefront.-- Julie Castanien</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T05:32:17Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div> -- Major Problems, 1-23<br />
<br />
The first essay mentions how women were once only seen as important to history because of their relation to important men. A prime example of this is our University. Mary Washington is recognized solely as the mother of George Washington. She is seen as important because of her son not because of any of her own actions. -- Allison<br />
<br />
That's an awesome example! I wonder if other cultures were/are inclined to qulify their women in a similar manner. --Katelynn <br />
<br />
I think Allison makes an excellent point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie History Boys. The quote is from the woman history teacher who says, "History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket." She may have some feminist tendencies when saying this, but I think it can be a relevant quote for what Kate Haulman is saying in her essay and the point Allison made. -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
One of my other professors mentioned that history is constantly being reinterpreted and rewritten, so can any of the questions represented by this book ever actually be answered to everyone's satisfaction? -- Allison<br />
<br />
In response to Allison's question: I think that you have a good point. I seriously doubt that any of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Like in all things there will always be someone who is not satisfied, someone who continues to look for another way to answer the question. Its human nature. You can see that just looking at the essays, even though the historians writing this are all involved in women's history they all have different ideas of how you should go about it and what you should focus on. --Mary<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary and Allison also. It is human nature to not be satisfied- and it is in our nature to complain and always want to adapt in ideologies. None of the questions asked in Chapter 1 can ever be answered coherently because the answers can be interepreted in so many different ways. I mean the book has four essays on the topic so far, all of which are different.- Talya <br />
<br />
>In response to the above, I think that the entire point of the first chapter is to show how the idea of American Women's History has changed and adapted (or how it should do so) in response to people's questions. Therefore if you are unsatisfied with some historian's account of history you can take the time to study that account and others so that you can find a different truth. For example the final two essays were written by women who were unsatisfied with the way minority women are represented in the realm of women's history so they devoted time to studying women from other cultures and racial backgrounds so as to satisfy their queries. Their work only adds to our understanding. -- Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
<br />
There was one section while reading that stood out for me and that was the part on page twelve about equality and difference. I found it interesting that she should mention the idea that so often in the search for women's "equality" women want to be treated as if they were men and often over look the differences between men and women because they have often been used as a basis for discimination. While this section was very confusing, in my opinion at least, just because of the strong and opposing opinions about the subject, personally I think that just because a woman wants to be seen as an equal to a man in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law that is no reason to set aside her femininity. --Mary<br />
<br />
In regards to Mary's comment, I agree that equality should never be awarded based on one's femininity. The dichotomy was a contrast between feminists who deny difference between males and females and those who use their differences as a strength or access to power. I think it is vital to realize that "femininity" is a construct that has been forced upon women. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" have regulated gender politics and certainly there is nothing wrong with expressing either- but they are just labels that have been oppressive to those who wish to transcend their designated gender roles. I think that there would be value in discussing from where "femininity" stems and how free thought is and has been affected by this construct. --Kelly<br />
<br />
I'd like to pose a question of opinion, if permitted, in response to Mary's and Kelly's comments. It's a situation that I know many instances of and wonder about what everyone else thinks of it. Woman A wants to go to college, get a degree, and continue her education (perhaps to get a masters or doctorate). She hopes to achieve a full and lengthy career while maintaining a family life. Woman B wants to finish college but her main goal is to start a family and stay at home to take care of her children and the household. She has no desire for a career and is more than satisfied with her life as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker. I don't really have a follow-up question other than to open the floor to opinion, but is there anything wrong with either woman's goals and should either be seen as less-equal or more equal than the other? -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
In response to Vanessa's comment, I don't believe the issue should be whether or not one woman's goals are more or less equal to those of the other woman. The important issue is that women have the choice to pursue an education and career and/or they have the choice to become mothers and care for their households. We have come a long way in history considering the choice was not always there. -- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
One, I think that either choice contains a life time of dedication and hard work. Vanessa's question for Woman B was if the woman went to school and then just stayed home. What if woman B never went to school at all? What if she simply became a house wife? What does everyone think about a housewife with no education? What if school was not even an option because it was not important? It is so interesting that school has now become the factor of success. A while ago, college was not for everyone- especially not for women at one point. What does everyone think about how an uneducated housewife would be viewed upon today versus a century ago?- Talya. <br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth. In the 1950s the typical family dynamic was a stay at home mom (homemaker) and a father who worked (the breadwinner). "The Problem That Has No Name" written by Betty Friedan speaks to women who had no other options than to raise the children and be the homemaker. That is what society told them they had to/should do at that time. "The Problem" was that many women became depressed and wanted more from their life. I don't mean to down homemakers at all. Rather, I say this because women did not have a real choice then. Like Elizabeth said though, now women have more choices. Both homemakers and career women should be valued for their work. --Alex<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth but also think that looking at what influences a woman's life goal could potentially be telling. I would be curious about how the goals of Woman A and B have been supported by their peers, the media, and other outside forces. --Kelly <br />
<br />
I have been a stay at home mom but I also held a part-time job if hours that were different from my husbands. This was a way I could balanace a career and be a mother at the same time. It was difficult but I had plenty of support from my family, peers and others. The only thing I put on hold was my education. Hopefully this coming spring I will graduate.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Women's history has come a long way. I agree with Gerda Lerner when she says "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians." (p.8). There is something about the neglect of women's studies that makes us want to focus even more on their history. --Katie<br />
<br />
Speaking of Gerda Lerner, she was a speaker during last years women's history month here on campus. I went to hear her speak and she was a really strong, intelligent and persistent women. She spoke of the Seneca Falls Convention and the Declaration of Sentiments written there advocating for the women's rights. In addition, she also addressed the women's movement stereotype that it only involved white middle class women. She mentioned that the working class, blacks and some men were also involved. Lerner also noted that although the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to be passed, she does not feel that it would be the magic ticket to solve all women’s issues. She stressed that legal reforms/changes are not enough. Social support and cultural transformation is needed. The attitudes of men and women alike need to change in support of these issues. Knowing women’s history is a major step in the right direction. Lerner basically founded women’s history programs, stressing that we have a right to know our own history. --Alex<br />
<br />
Knowing that it is gender that defines "man" and "woman", or "male" and "female", what exactly truely defines the category "women"? --Katie<br />
<br />
I believe that when studying women's history it is easy to get caught up in the oppression of women. It's important to remember that not all cultures were as oppressive over women as were European societies. We know that many Native American women had a stronger role in soceity than most European women. This is not to say that women were never oppressed, rather that depending on the soceity of study, women's roles were different.-- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment: I definitely agree. In fact, while I was reading the essays, I kept reminding myself about the different situations of women throughout history, like Native Americans as you mentioned. However, not focusing on oppression is sometimes hard to do as Leslie Alexander points out, some scholars seek to incoroporate race into their studies and end up "focusing exclusively on oppression" (20).--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
I agree, there has been so many positive parts in Women's history. Yet, we cannot forget some of the good parts were incorporated hand in hand with the status of the particular female individual. Abigail Adams for example- I'm sure she would not have been popular or involved in the Revolutionary War as much as she was if she was not married to her famous husband.- Talya. <br />
<br />
In her essay Alexander argued that historians are "reluctant to explore how the reality of race influences Black women's lives." What is the cause of this reluctance? Can this statement also be applied to all minority women? - Fiona<br />
<br />
The authors argue that women's history needs to be examined from multiple angles: class, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, work, etc. Is this possible? Would it still be women's history or would it become something like African American women's history or Latino women's history? - Fiona<br />
<br />
Elaborating on Fiona's questions, how do we define any group for the purpose of studying its history? How does one draw important distinctions (class, race, age, etc.) while not creating a focus so narrow or specific as to be impractical for study as a group? Also, Gisela Bock refers to the emergence of "men's history" and "men's studies." Has anyone actually witnesses any examples of this? -Ashley<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
As Cheryl states below, the preface states the basic reasons that this topic came into play. 1) the feminist movement in the 1960s and 2) women began to enter into the field of history and historical study as a result of employment opportunities that they had not previously been given. And one reason seems to be the result of the other. - Kelly W.<br />
<br />
In the preface of the book, more details are given about the study of women's histroy.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I was actually curious about the same thing. I believe one of the authors mentioned that the field of study stretched all the way back to the 1950s (I could be wrong). That being said, with the ever-changing role of women in society, how do you think the study of women's history has changed since its beginning and how do you think it will change in the future?--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
Playing a bit of a devil's advocate, wouldn't it be fair to say that women have always played a role in history by nature of the biological process? However, in regards to the readings I think the authors all seem to agree that the study of women's history began between 1950-1970-ish. --Katelynn <br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
To comment on Allison’s Mary Washington statement that opened this discussion, Bock’s essay makes a great point in her public v. private dichotomy. She says, “male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared, and cared for by the women’s labor”(10). Thus, George is a public reflection of Mary’s private raising. We are able to see the woman Mary was through the man George became.--Lisa<br />
<br />
How does one determine what is gender neutral? Especially when it comes to applying gender neutrallity to laws that invovled violence like rape and battery?--Cheryl<br />
<br />
There is a comment somewhere amongst these essays that states that women’s history is a compilation of only the exceptional women from history, thus creating a history that is unrepresentative of every woman. Isn’t most history (not just women’s history) we read that of the extraordinary and not the commonplace?--Lisa<br />
<br />
In response to your question, Lisa, I'd have to agree with you on that one. Most history we study from grade school through our current education focuses primarily on major events, not only of women, but of men as well. Discussions are always based on the extraordinary and the only way we tap into the lives of the commonplace is by digging for primary sources and analyzing what we can. I feel however, that the field is slowly beginning to expand and bring the commonplace closer to the center. (I think that made sense). - Kelly W <br />
<br />
In her essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," Gisela Bock states that women appeared front and center in the historian's eye because of their subjectivity and that "women are not only victims but also actively shape their own lives, society and history." How does everyone feel about this statement? Do you agree that it was also partly at the fault of women that the gender was not previously studied? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
It was actually a surprise to me how indepth the discussion of "women's history" really is. I had always been under the simple assumption that women's history was just precisely that: history of women. The reality that such a two word phrase would contain so many issues regarding gender, race, class... appears very important, despite my previous assumptions. The idea that women's history was actually 'white women's history' was an observation that jumped out at me. It seems so easy to fight for a perspective/focus in history with the goal of some type of equality while at the same time ignoring a whole type of inequality in your focus. The sections dealing with the multiple dichotomies was very interesting, considering how even today such phrases are used. In the case of "work and family," its interesting to see how a practical consideration of "paid and unpaid work" was given a more ethical/moral (perhaps even a religious/theological one?) with the phrase "work and family" -it makes me wonder what other dichotomies in society that seem to be ethical or social values are at base purely practical ones. --Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
I would first like to start by commenting to Allison’s opening statement about women’s history in relation to men and would like to throw out another question. Considering the time period we are focusing on in this class and the mostly male-dominated/patriarchal society of the time is it contextually appropriate to only focus on women without considering important men both publicly and privately in women’s lives? I think Haulman brings up an extremely important part of understanding women’s historiography and that was the need and desire to have a history of all types, classes, races, etc. of women but can we do that without some comparison to men? (particularly in this half of the course). I also think Haulman, Castaneda, and Alexander brought up an important point about titles and incorporating women of color. In my research for my 299 paper I came across research and studies about minority groups in the 1960s women’s movement, how they viewed the women’s movement, how they participated, and how they viewed the predominantly white, middle class woman’s struggle compared to theirs. It made me think of other titles such as the “History of African Americans” and what that title would mean broken down. ----Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting in Antonia Castaneda's essay how she mentions that the women, who wrote the history of women in the West, only wrote about white women. I think that it is difficult to write a through history of women in the West without highlighting the accomplishments of Native American, Hispanic and Asian women. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Going along with Katherine's comment, think of how little we know about the American (and when I say American I mean US) southeast and the Native American tribes. Most of what we are taught is that they were fighting a battle they were ultimately going to lose -- isn't most history biased in that sort of way and not just women's history? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting how Leslie Alexander mentions that the feminist movement was not very successful with African American women. It was not successful because African American families were very close knit and the movement required women to distance themselves a little bit from their families. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me the most in the reading was the section about equality versus difference. As I was reading it I kept thinking Why is it so difficult for women to be equal. I believe that we (as women) should not be treated exactly like men because we are different and have different issues that cannot be addressed that way, such as what was mentioned in the text of rape, abortion, and spousal abuse (pg12). I think Bock's question of "why is it, for instance, that "equality" and "justice" seem to complement each other in the case of men, but be opposed to each other in the case of women." (pg12) is a very important question and sums up the women's struggle to be visible. ~Mary Beth C~<br />
<br />
I found the various references to the complications of writing to represent a whole sex interesting. The progression from the inclusion of "important and influential" figures in women's history, to a history that strives to incorporate the vast meanings of what it means to be a woman in all respects in all periods is daunting, if not hopeless. But, striving for such complete understanding seems to be a crucial goal of the modern historian. Diversity of study is finding an important prominence, but in such the danger of dilution of the subject field becomes apparent. -- Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
Vanessa's question hit on an issue that we're starting to see the pendulum sort of swing in the opposite direction on, but for so long we have only wanted to talk about and recognize the active and "exciting" action taking parts of history. No one wants to talk about keeping a family on the homefront or making the parts for the planes that dropped the bombs, they want to talk about flying in to drop the bombs. At the same time, as we try to recognize the importance of raising families, and women like Abigail Adams who were intellectually advanced and deserve credit for being recognized as leaders within their own time, we neglect to give attention to women who assumed active roles equal or comparable to male roles--why do we know Jack Jouett and Paul Revere, but we don't know Sybil Luddington and Dicey Langston? Women's history seems to have gone to extremes, resulting in attention being devoted most unequally. --Andrea<br />
<br />
Bock and Haulman seemed to do an excellent job of articulating key themes in gender and women's studies, themes I have not seen articulated as succintly and clearly elsewhere. Bock's numbered themes simply identify issues my women's studies class spent weeks discussing, issues that I believe we will find continually reappear and connect in subtle ways we would never anticipate...These are issues that apply to other minorities on some level in many situations--like the integration discussion. Are any neglected/minority accounts of history better taught on their own independently or better off integrated into mainstream history? African American, Latino or even Irish History/Studies could easily be substituted for Women's Studies/History in many of these essays. Haulman's explanation of the sexuality nature vs. nurture debate is significantly clearer than the essays used in the same series' book on Sexual History by Weeks and Rictor Norton, which fail to address many examples like mannerisms, which Haulman uses well. Leslie Alexander's discussion of historians' use of the contributionist model with African American history also seemed to apply to women's history in general, or really any history that's been neglected from the "Dead White Men" version of history. It made me realize that women's history really is discussed in terms of contributions or assistance or help, never in terms of achievements or actions, contrary to the "he did" history of DWM. That thought left me frustrated and asking "What would Gerda say?" (besides to keep insisting on the recognition of obscure minority examples of women which derail Dr. McClurken's classes). --Andrea<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth’s question about how important it is to incorporate men into our study of women, I think it is important to include them because they did play an important role in influencing women’s lives and choices. While the degree is debatable, the fact remains that Women were influenced by the male dominated society in which they lived. We wouldn’t be getting the full picture if we failed to incorporate men into that history.<br />
For me, the equality v. difference argument in the Gisella Bock essay was very interesting. Though I am all for female independence, equal education and job opportunities, etc. I’m not convinced that women and men should be treated as gender neutral. Biologically we are different and face different issues in society. –- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
Jennifer- I completely agree. Men and Women should not be treated as gender neutral. The difference between us- not just physically- but mentally, emotionally, and physcologically, are to extreme to be considered equal. That is not to say that we should not have equal rights- but not only do we face different issues in society differenty, we react differently to those issues. - Talya.<br />
<br />
I thought this article raised interesting questions about gender and the role that men and women are asked to preform in society. While I think that equal pay for the same work is important, I would be cautious in saying that gender should be a neutral. If its neutral than would what would we base our differences on? --Katelynn<br />
<br />
These were posted in another area accidentally:<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
--Not sure if this is really what you're looking for but I believe Gerda Lerner started the first(?) women's history department at the University of Wisconsin...which would make it somewhat linked to the feminist movements, but partially independent?--Andrea<br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
--I really liked this question, the first thing I can think of is feminism has traditionally had less respect and interest in traditional women's roles as homemakers, etc. --Andrea<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that so many different groups identified themselves as "American" women, like the Cherokees. While I think the four major bolded themes in the Haulman essay are useful, they are also major themes in Gender Studies and Women's Studies. In the History of U.S. Sexuality, we are reading nature vs. culture/constructionist vs. essentialist essays, and I believe Haulman's part 1 addresses important issues like mannerisms and hobbies, which I haven't seen articulated as well elsewhere. Unfortunately, I agree with the vicious cycle Haulman identifies on p. 11, whereby women's efforts to be more historically recognized and gain rights limited them. --Andrea<br />
<br />
Lesile Alexander raised some interesting points in her essay about how the feminist movement affects African American women’s history. I have always seen women’s history as inextricably linked to the feminist movement but never considered the ramifications that it would have for African American women. While Lesile Alexander states that the feminist movement was useful in liberating white women she says it also forced Black women into the same mold and has therefore prevented a full understanding of black women’s lives. Throughout the essay Alexander states the importance of incorporating race into women’s history going so far as to say that black women’s lives cannot be understood if they are continually viewed through the “lens of whiteness and oppression.” I wanted to see if people agreed with Alexander that African American women’s history has been misunderstood for years because racial differences have not been examined fully enough.-Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
> Yes Caitlin I agree with Alexander about African American women's history. I also know that there are similar issues with Latina History. There seems to be this prevailing theme that when it comes to minority women the primary goal is to see their racial or ethnic group liberated before they are liberated as women. I could try to make a stretch here and compare this racial and ethic liberation to that of the White American Male Colonists from the oppressive English rule but I think that is over kill. --Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
I am surprised because I have yet to see anyone comment (unless I have not read this page closely enough) on something just casually mentioned in some of the essays that still astounds me. This is one half of the world's population we are talking about here. I know that the two last essays warn us against labeling women as a unified group but I still have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that until the 1960s and later has Women's History come to the forefront.-- Julie Castanien</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T05:03:25Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div> -- Major Problems, 1-23<br />
<br />
The first essay mentions how women were once only seen as important to history because of their relation to important men. A prime example of this is our University. Mary Washington is recognized solely as the mother of George Washington. She is seen as important because of her son not because of any of her own actions. -- Allison<br />
<br />
That's an awesome example! I wonder if other cultures were/are inclined to qulify their women in a similar manner. --Katelynn <br />
<br />
I think Allison makes an excellent point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie History Boys. The quote is from the woman history teacher who says, "History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket." She may have some feminist tendencies when saying this, but I think it can be a relevant quote for what Kate Haulman is saying in her essay and the point Allison made. -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
One of my other professors mentioned that history is constantly being reinterpreted and rewritten, so can any of the questions represented by this book ever actually be answered to everyone's satisfaction? -- Allison<br />
<br />
In response to Allison's question: I think that you have a good point. I seriously doubt that any of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Like in all things there will always be someone who is not satisfied, someone who continues to look for another way to answer the question. Its human nature. You can see that just looking at the essays, even though the historians writing this are all involved in women's history they all have different ideas of how you should go about it and what you should focus on. --Mary<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary and Allison also. It is human nature to not be satisfied- and it is in our nature to complain and always want to adapt in ideologies. None of the questions asked in Chapter 1 can ever be answered coherently because the answers can be interepreted in so many different ways. I mean the book has four essays on the topic so far, all of which are different.- Talya <br />
<br />
>In response to the above, I think that the entire point of the first chapter is to show how the idea of American Women's History has changed and adapted (or how it should do so) in response to people's questions. Therefore if you are unsatisfied with some historian's account of history you can take the time to study that account and others so that you can find a different truth. For example the final two essays were written by women who were unsatisfied with the way minority women are represented in the realm of women's history so they devoted time to studying women from other cultures and racial backgrounds so as to satisfy their queries. Their work only adds to our understanding. -- Julie <br />
<br />
<br />
There was one section while reading that stood out for me and that was the part on page twelve about equality and difference. I found it interesting that she should mention the idea that so often in the search for women's "equality" women want to be treated as if they were men and often over look the differences between men and women because they have often been used as a basis for discimination. While this section was very confusing, in my opinion at least, just because of the strong and opposing opinions about the subject, personally I think that just because a woman wants to be seen as an equal to a man in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law that is no reason to set aside her femininity. --Mary<br />
<br />
In regards to Mary's comment, I agree that equality should never be awarded based on one's femininity. The dichotomy was a contrast between feminists who deny difference between males and females and those who use their differences as a strength or access to power. I think it is vital to realize that "femininity" is a construct that has been forced upon women. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" have regulated gender politics and certainly there is nothing wrong with expressing either- but they are just labels that have been oppressive to those who wish to transcend their designated gender roles. I think that there would be value in discussing from where "femininity" stems and how free thought is and has been affected by this construct. --Kelly<br />
<br />
I'd like to pose a question of opinion, if permitted, in response to Mary's and Kelly's comments. It's a situation that I know many instances of and wonder about what everyone else thinks of it. Woman A wants to go to college, get a degree, and continue her education (perhaps to get a masters or doctorate). She hopes to achieve a full and lengthy career while maintaining a family life. Woman B wants to finish college but her main goal is to start a family and stay at home to take care of her children and the household. She has no desire for a career and is more than satisfied with her life as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker. I don't really have a follow-up question other than to open the floor to opinion, but is there anything wrong with either woman's goals and should either be seen as less-equal or more equal than the other? -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
In response to Vanessa's comment, I don't believe the issue should be whether or not one woman's goals are more or less equal to those of the other woman. The important issue is that women have the choice to pursue an education and career and/or they have the choice to become mothers and care for their households. We have come a long way in history considering the choice was not always there. -- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
One, I think that either choice contains a life time of dedication and hard work. Vanessa's question for Woman B was if the woman went to school and then just stayed home. What if woman B never went to school at all? What if she simply became a house wife? What does everyone think about a housewife with no education? What if school was not even an option because it was not important? It is so interesting that school has now become the factor of success. A while ago, college was not for everyone- especially not for women at one point. What does everyone think about how an uneducated housewife would be viewed upon today versus a century ago?- Talya. <br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth. In the 1950s the typical family dynamic was a stay at home mom (homemaker) and a father who worked (the breadwinner). "The Problem That Has No Name" written by Betty Friedan speaks to women who had no other options than to raise the children and be the homemaker. That is what society told them they had to/should do at that time. "The Problem" was that many women became depressed and wanted more from their life. I don't mean to down homemakers at all. Rather, I say this because women did not have a real choice then. Like Elizabeth said though, now women have more choices. Both homemakers and career women should be valued for their work. --Alex<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth but also think that looking at what influences a woman's life goal could potentially be telling. I would be curious about how the goals of Woman A and B have been supported by their peers, the media, and other outside forces. --Kelly <br />
<br />
I have been a stay at home mom but I also held a part-time job if hours that were different from my husbands. This was a way I could balanace a career and be a mother at the same time. It was difficult but I had plenty of support from my family, peers and others. The only thing I put on hold was my education. Hopefully this coming spring I will graduate.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Women's history has come a long way. I agree with Gerda Lerner when she says "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians." (p.8). There is something about the neglect of women's studies that makes us want to focus even more on their history. --Katie<br />
<br />
Speaking of Gerda Lerner, she was a speaker during last years women's history month here on campus. I went to hear her speak and she was a really strong, intelligent and persistent women. She spoke of the Seneca Falls Convention and the Declaration of Sentiments written there advocating for the women's rights. In addition, she also addressed the women's movement stereotype that it only involved white middle class women. She mentioned that the working class, blacks and some men were also involved. Lerner also noted that although the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to be passed, she does not feel that it would be the magic ticket to solve all women’s issues. She stressed that legal reforms/changes are not enough. Social support and cultural transformation is needed. The attitudes of men and women alike need to change in support of these issues. Knowing women’s history is a major step in the right direction. Lerner basically founded women’s history programs, stressing that we have a right to know our own history. --Alex<br />
<br />
Knowing that it is gender that defines "man" and "woman", or "male" and "female", what exactly truely defines the category "women"? --Katie<br />
<br />
I believe that when studying women's history it is easy to get caught up in the oppression of women. It's important to remember that not all cultures were as oppressive over women as were European societies. We know that many Native American women had a stronger role in soceity than most European women. This is not to say that women were never oppressed, rather that depending on the soceity of study, women's roles were different.-- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment: I definitely agree. In fact, while I was reading the essays, I kept reminding myself about the different situations of women throughout history, like Native Americans as you mentioned. However, not focusing on oppression is sometimes hard to do as Leslie Alexander points out, some scholars seek to incoroporate race into their studies and end up "focusing exclusively on oppression" (20).--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
I agree, there has been so many positive parts in Women's history. Yet, we cannot forget some of the good parts were incorporated hand in hand with the status of the particular female individual. Abigail Adams for example- I'm sure she would not have been popular or involved in the Revolutionary War as much as she was if she was not married to her famous husband.- Talya. <br />
<br />
In her essay Alexander argued that historians are "reluctant to explore how the reality of race influences Black women's lives." What is the cause of this reluctance? Can this statement also be applied to all minority women? - Fiona<br />
<br />
The authors argue that women's history needs to be examined from multiple angles: class, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, work, etc. Is this possible? Would it still be women's history or would it become something like African American women's history or Latino women's history? - Fiona<br />
<br />
Elaborating on Fiona's questions, how do we define any group for the purpose of studying its history? How does one draw important distinctions (class, race, age, etc.) while not creating a focus so narrow or specific as to be impractical for study as a group? Also, Gisela Bock refers to the emergence of "men's history" and "men's studies." Has anyone actually witnesses any examples of this? -Ashley<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
As Cheryl states below, the preface states the basic reasons that this topic came into play. 1) the feminist movement in the 1960s and 2) women began to enter into the field of history and historical study as a result of employment opportunities that they had not previously been given. And one reason seems to be the result of the other. - Kelly W.<br />
<br />
In the preface of the book, more details are given about the study of women's histroy.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I was actually curious about the same thing. I believe one of the authors mentioned that the field of study stretched all the way back to the 1950s (I could be wrong). That being said, with the ever-changing role of women in society, how do you think the study of women's history has changed since its beginning and how do you think it will change in the future?--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
Playing a bit of a devil's advocate, wouldn't it be fair to say that women have always played a role in history by nature of the biological process? However, in regards to the readings I think the authors all seem to agree that the study of women's history began between 1950-1970-ish. --Katelynn <br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
To comment on Allison’s Mary Washington statement that opened this discussion, Bock’s essay makes a great point in her public v. private dichotomy. She says, “male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared, and cared for by the women’s labor”(10). Thus, George is a public reflection of Mary’s private raising. We are able to see the woman Mary was through the man George became.--Lisa<br />
<br />
How does one determine what is gender neutral? Especially when it comes to applying gender neutrallity to laws that invovled violence like rape and battery?--Cheryl<br />
<br />
There is a comment somewhere amongst these essays that states that women’s history is a compilation of only the exceptional women from history, thus creating a history that is unrepresentative of every woman. Isn’t most history (not just women’s history) we read that of the extraordinary and not the commonplace?--Lisa<br />
<br />
In response to your question, Lisa, I'd have to agree with you on that one. Most history we study from grade school through our current education focuses primarily on major events, not only of women, but of men as well. Discussions are always based on the extraordinary and the only way we tap into the lives of the commonplace is by digging for primary sources and analyzing what we can. I feel however, that the field is slowly beginning to expand and bring the commonplace closer to the center. (I think that made sense). - Kelly W <br />
<br />
In her essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," Gisela Bock states that women appeared front and center in the historian's eye because of their subjectivity and that "women are not only victims but also actively shape their own lives, society and history." How does everyone feel about this statement? Do you agree that it was also partly at the fault of women that the gender was not previously studied? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
It was actually a surprise to me how indepth the discussion of "women's history" really is. I had always been under the simple assumption that women's history was just precisely that: history of women. The reality that such a two word phrase would contain so many issues regarding gender, race, class... appears very important, despite my previous assumptions. The idea that women's history was actually 'white women's history' was an observation that jumped out at me. It seems so easy to fight for a perspective/focus in history with the goal of some type of equality while at the same time ignoring a whole type of inequality in your focus. The sections dealing with the multiple dichotomies was very interesting, considering how even today such phrases are used. In the case of "work and family," its interesting to see how a practical consideration of "paid and unpaid work" was given a more ethical/moral (perhaps even a religious/theological one?) with the phrase "work and family" -it makes me wonder what other dichotomies in society that seem to be ethical or social values are at base purely practical ones. --Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
I would first like to start by commenting to Allison’s opening statement about women’s history in relation to men and would like to throw out another question. Considering the time period we are focusing on in this class and the mostly male-dominated/patriarchal society of the time is it contextually appropriate to only focus on women without considering important men both publicly and privately in women’s lives? I think Haulman brings up an extremely important part of understanding women’s historiography and that was the need and desire to have a history of all types, classes, races, etc. of women but can we do that without some comparison to men? (particularly in this half of the course). I also think Haulman, Castaneda, and Alexander brought up an important point about titles and incorporating women of color. In my research for my 299 paper I came across research and studies about minority groups in the 1960s women’s movement, how they viewed the women’s movement, how they participated, and how they viewed the predominantly white, middle class woman’s struggle compared to theirs. It made me think of other titles such as the “History of African Americans” and what that title would mean broken down. ----Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting in Antonia Castaneda's essay how she mentions that the women, who wrote the history of women in the West, only wrote about white women. I think that it is difficult to write a through history of women in the West without highlighting the accomplishments of Native American, Hispanic and Asian women. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Going along with Katherine's comment, think of how little we know about the American (and when I say American I mean US) southeast and the Native American tribes. Most of what we are taught is that they were fighting a battle they were ultimately going to lose -- isn't most history biased in that sort of way and not just women's history? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting how Leslie Alexander mentions that the feminist movement was not very successful with African American women. It was not successful because African American families were very close knit and the movement required women to distance themselves a little bit from their families. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me the most in the reading was the section about equality versus difference. As I was reading it I kept thinking Why is it so difficult for women to be equal. I believe that we (as women) should not be treated exactly like men because we are different and have different issues that cannot be addressed that way, such as what was mentioned in the text of rape, abortion, and spousal abuse (pg12). I think Bock's question of "why is it, for instance, that "equality" and "justice" seem to complement each other in the case of men, but be opposed to each other in the case of women." (pg12) is a very important question and sums up the women's struggle to be visible. ~Mary Beth C~<br />
<br />
I found the various references to the complications of writing to represent a whole sex interesting. The progression from the inclusion of "important and influential" figures in women's history, to a history that strives to incorporate the vast meanings of what it means to be a woman in all respects in all periods is daunting, if not hopeless. But, striving for such complete understanding seems to be a crucial goal of the modern historian. Diversity of study is finding an important prominence, but in such the danger of dilution of the subject field becomes apparent. -- Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
Vanessa's question hit on an issue that we're starting to see the pendulum sort of swing in the opposite direction on, but for so long we have only wanted to talk about and recognize the active and "exciting" action taking parts of history. No one wants to talk about keeping a family on the homefront or making the parts for the planes that dropped the bombs, they want to talk about flying in to drop the bombs. At the same time, as we try to recognize the importance of raising families, and women like Abigail Adams who were intellectually advanced and deserve credit for being recognized as leaders within their own time, we neglect to give attention to women who assumed active roles equal or comparable to male roles--why do we know Jack Jouett and Paul Revere, but we don't know Sybil Luddington and Dicey Langston? Women's history seems to have gone to extremes, resulting in attention being devoted most unequally. --Andrea<br />
<br />
Bock and Haulman seemed to do an excellent job of articulating key themes in gender and women's studies, themes I have not seen articulated as succintly and clearly elsewhere. Bock's numbered themes simply identify issues my women's studies class spent weeks discussing, issues that I believe we will find continually reappear and connect in subtle ways we would never anticipate...These are issues that apply to other minorities on some level in many situations--like the integration discussion. Are any neglected/minority accounts of history better taught on their own independently or better off integrated into mainstream history? African American, Latino or even Irish History/Studies could easily be substituted for Women's Studies/History in many of these essays. Haulman's explanation of the sexuality nature vs. nurture debate is significantly clearer than the essays used in the same series' book on Sexual History by Weeks and Rictor Norton, which fail to address many examples like mannerisms, which Haulman uses well. Leslie Alexander's discussion of historians' use of the contributionist model with African American history also seemed to apply to women's history in general, or really any history that's been neglected from the "Dead White Men" version of history. It made me realize that women's history really is discussed in terms of contributions or assistance or help, never in terms of achievements or actions, contrary to the "he did" history of DWM. That thought left me frustrated and asking "What would Gerda say?" (besides to keep insisting on the recognition of obscure minority examples of women which derail Dr. McClurken's classes). --Andrea<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth’s question about how important it is to incorporate men into our study of women, I think it is important to include them because they did play an important role in influencing women’s lives and choices. While the degree is debatable, the fact remains that Women were influenced by the male dominated society in which they lived. We wouldn’t be getting the full picture if we failed to incorporate men into that history.<br />
For me, the equality v. difference argument in the Gisella Bock essay was very interesting. Though I am all for female independence, equal education and job opportunities, etc. I’m not convinced that women and men should be treated as gender neutral. Biologically we are different and face different issues in society. –- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
Jennifer- I completely agree. Men and Women should not be treated as gender neutral. The difference between us- not just physically- but mentally, emotionally, and physcologically, are to extreme to be considered equal. That is not to say that we should not have equal rights- but not only do we face different issues in society differenty, we react differently to those issues. - Talya.<br />
<br />
I thought this article raised interesting questions about gender and the role that men and women are asked to preform in society. While I think that equal pay for the same work is important, I would be cautious in saying that gender should be a neutral. If its neutral than would what would we base our differences on? --Katelynn<br />
<br />
These were posted in another area accidentally:<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
--Not sure if this is really what you're looking for but I believe Gerda Lerner started the first(?) women's history department at the University of Wisconsin...which would make it somewhat linked to the feminist movements, but partially independent?--Andrea<br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
--I really liked this question, the first thing I can think of is feminism has traditionally had less respect and interest in traditional women's roles as homemakers, etc. --Andrea<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that so many different groups identified themselves as "American" women, like the Cherokees. While I think the four major bolded themes in the Haulman essay are useful, they are also major themes in Gender Studies and Women's Studies. In the History of U.S. Sexuality, we are reading nature vs. culture/constructionist vs. essentialist essays, and I believe Haulman's part 1 addresses important issues like mannerisms and hobbies, which I haven't seen articulated as well elsewhere. Unfortunately, I agree with the vicious cycle Haulman identifies on p. 11, whereby women's efforts to be more historically recognized and gain rights limited them. --Andrea<br />
<br />
Lesile Alexander raised some interesting points in her essay about how the feminist movement affects African American women’s history. I have always seen women’s history as inextricably linked to the feminist movement but never considered the ramifications that it would have for African American women. While Lesile Alexander states that the feminist movement was useful in liberating white women she says it also forced Black women into the same mold and has therefore prevented a full understanding of black women’s lives. Throughout the essay Alexander states the importance of incorporating race into women’s history going so far as to say that black women’s lives cannot be understood if they are continually viewed through the “lens of whiteness and oppression.” I wanted to see if people agreed with Alexander that African American women’s history has been misunderstood for years because racial differences have not been examined fully enough.-Caitlin Quinn</div>Jcast2lxhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T05:00:35Z<p>Jcast2lx: </p>
<hr />
<div> -- Major Problems, 1-23<br />
<br />
The first essay mentions how women were once only seen as important to history because of their relation to important men. A prime example of this is our University. Mary Washington is recognized solely as the mother of George Washington. She is seen as important because of her son not because of any of her own actions. -- Allison<br />
<br />
That's an awesome example! I wonder if other cultures were/are inclined to qulify their women in a similar manner. --Katelynn <br />
<br />
I think Allison makes an excellent point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie History Boys. The quote is from the woman history teacher who says, "History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket." She may have some feminist tendencies when saying this, but I think it can be a relevant quote for what Kate Haulman is saying in her essay and the point Allison made. -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
One of my other professors mentioned that history is constantly being reinterpreted and rewritten, so can any of the questions represented by this book ever actually be answered to everyone's satisfaction? -- Allison<br />
<br />
In response to Allison's question: I think that you have a good point. I seriously doubt that any of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Like in all things there will always be someone who is not satisfied, someone who continues to look for another way to answer the question. Its human nature. You can see that just looking at the essays, even though the historians writing this are all involved in women's history they all have different ideas of how you should go about it and what you should focus on. --Mary<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary and Allison also. It is human nature to not be satisfied- and it is in our nature to complain and always want to adapt in ideologies. None of the questions asked in Chapter 1 can ever be answered coherently because the answers can be interepreted in so many different ways. I mean the book has four essays on the topic so far, all of which are different.- Talya <br />
<br />
In response to the above, I think that the entire point of the first chapter is to show how the idea of American Women's History has changed and adapted (or how it should do so) in response to people's questions. Therefore if you are unsatisfied with some historian's account of history you can take the time to study that account and others so that you can find a different truth. For example the final two essays were written by women who were unsatisfied with the way minority women are represented in the realm of women's history so they devoted time to studying women from other cultures and racial backgrounds so as to satisfy their queries. Their work only adds to our understanding. -- Julie <br />
<br />
<br />
There was one section while reading that stood out for me and that was the part on page twelve about equality and difference. I found it interesting that she should mention the idea that so often in the search for women's "equality" women want to be treated as if they were men and often over look the differences between men and women because they have often been used as a basis for discimination. While this section was very confusing, in my opinion at least, just because of the strong and opposing opinions about the subject, personally I think that just because a woman wants to be seen as an equal to a man in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law that is no reason to set aside her femininity. --Mary<br />
<br />
In regards to Mary's comment, I agree that equality should never be awarded based on one's femininity. The dichotomy was a contrast between feminists who deny difference between males and females and those who use their differences as a strength or access to power. I think it is vital to realize that "femininity" is a construct that has been forced upon women. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" have regulated gender politics and certainly there is nothing wrong with expressing either- but they are just labels that have been oppressive to those who wish to transcend their designated gender roles. I think that there would be value in discussing from where "femininity" stems and how free thought is and has been affected by this construct. --Kelly<br />
<br />
I'd like to pose a question of opinion, if permitted, in response to Mary's and Kelly's comments. It's a situation that I know many instances of and wonder about what everyone else thinks of it. Woman A wants to go to college, get a degree, and continue her education (perhaps to get a masters or doctorate). She hopes to achieve a full and lengthy career while maintaining a family life. Woman B wants to finish college but her main goal is to start a family and stay at home to take care of her children and the household. She has no desire for a career and is more than satisfied with her life as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker. I don't really have a follow-up question other than to open the floor to opinion, but is there anything wrong with either woman's goals and should either be seen as less-equal or more equal than the other? -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
In response to Vanessa's comment, I don't believe the issue should be whether or not one woman's goals are more or less equal to those of the other woman. The important issue is that women have the choice to pursue an education and career and/or they have the choice to become mothers and care for their households. We have come a long way in history considering the choice was not always there. -- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
One, I think that either choice contains a life time of dedication and hard work. Vanessa's question for Woman B was if the woman went to school and then just stayed home. What if woman B never went to school at all? What if she simply became a house wife? What does everyone think about a housewife with no education? What if school was not even an option because it was not important? It is so interesting that school has now become the factor of success. A while ago, college was not for everyone- especially not for women at one point. What does everyone think about how an uneducated housewife would be viewed upon today versus a century ago?- Talya. <br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth. In the 1950s the typical family dynamic was a stay at home mom (homemaker) and a father who worked (the breadwinner). "The Problem That Has No Name" written by Betty Friedan speaks to women who had no other options than to raise the children and be the homemaker. That is what society told them they had to/should do at that time. "The Problem" was that many women became depressed and wanted more from their life. I don't mean to down homemakers at all. Rather, I say this because women did not have a real choice then. Like Elizabeth said though, now women have more choices. Both homemakers and career women should be valued for their work. --Alex<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth but also think that looking at what influences a woman's life goal could potentially be telling. I would be curious about how the goals of Woman A and B have been supported by their peers, the media, and other outside forces. --Kelly <br />
<br />
I have been a stay at home mom but I also held a part-time job if hours that were different from my husbands. This was a way I could balanace a career and be a mother at the same time. It was difficult but I had plenty of support from my family, peers and others. The only thing I put on hold was my education. Hopefully this coming spring I will graduate.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Women's history has come a long way. I agree with Gerda Lerner when she says "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians." (p.8). There is something about the neglect of women's studies that makes us want to focus even more on their history. --Katie<br />
<br />
Speaking of Gerda Lerner, she was a speaker during last years women's history month here on campus. I went to hear her speak and she was a really strong, intelligent and persistent women. She spoke of the Seneca Falls Convention and the Declaration of Sentiments written there advocating for the women's rights. In addition, she also addressed the women's movement stereotype that it only involved white middle class women. She mentioned that the working class, blacks and some men were also involved. Lerner also noted that although the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to be passed, she does not feel that it would be the magic ticket to solve all women’s issues. She stressed that legal reforms/changes are not enough. Social support and cultural transformation is needed. The attitudes of men and women alike need to change in support of these issues. Knowing women’s history is a major step in the right direction. Lerner basically founded women’s history programs, stressing that we have a right to know our own history. --Alex<br />
<br />
Knowing that it is gender that defines "man" and "woman", or "male" and "female", what exactly truely defines the category "women"? --Katie<br />
<br />
I believe that when studying women's history it is easy to get caught up in the oppression of women. It's important to remember that not all cultures were as oppressive over women as were European societies. We know that many Native American women had a stronger role in soceity than most European women. This is not to say that women were never oppressed, rather that depending on the soceity of study, women's roles were different.-- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment: I definitely agree. In fact, while I was reading the essays, I kept reminding myself about the different situations of women throughout history, like Native Americans as you mentioned. However, not focusing on oppression is sometimes hard to do as Leslie Alexander points out, some scholars seek to incoroporate race into their studies and end up "focusing exclusively on oppression" (20).--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
I agree, there has been so many positive parts in Women's history. Yet, we cannot forget some of the good parts were incorporated hand in hand with the status of the particular female individual. Abigail Adams for example- I'm sure she would not have been popular or involved in the Revolutionary War as much as she was if she was not married to her famous husband.- Talya. <br />
<br />
In her essay Alexander argued that historians are "reluctant to explore how the reality of race influences Black women's lives." What is the cause of this reluctance? Can this statement also be applied to all minority women? - Fiona<br />
<br />
The authors argue that women's history needs to be examined from multiple angles: class, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, work, etc. Is this possible? Would it still be women's history or would it become something like African American women's history or Latino women's history? - Fiona<br />
<br />
Elaborating on Fiona's questions, how do we define any group for the purpose of studying its history? How does one draw important distinctions (class, race, age, etc.) while not creating a focus so narrow or specific as to be impractical for study as a group? Also, Gisela Bock refers to the emergence of "men's history" and "men's studies." Has anyone actually witnesses any examples of this? -Ashley<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
As Cheryl states below, the preface states the basic reasons that this topic came into play. 1) the feminist movement in the 1960s and 2) women began to enter into the field of history and historical study as a result of employment opportunities that they had not previously been given. And one reason seems to be the result of the other. - Kelly W.<br />
<br />
In the preface of the book, more details are given about the study of women's histroy.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I was actually curious about the same thing. I believe one of the authors mentioned that the field of study stretched all the way back to the 1950s (I could be wrong). That being said, with the ever-changing role of women in society, how do you think the study of women's history has changed since its beginning and how do you think it will change in the future?--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
Playing a bit of a devil's advocate, wouldn't it be fair to say that women have always played a role in history by nature of the biological process? However, in regards to the readings I think the authors all seem to agree that the study of women's history began between 1950-1970-ish. --Katelynn <br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
To comment on Allison’s Mary Washington statement that opened this discussion, Bock’s essay makes a great point in her public v. private dichotomy. She says, “male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared, and cared for by the women’s labor”(10). Thus, George is a public reflection of Mary’s private raising. We are able to see the woman Mary was through the man George became.--Lisa<br />
<br />
How does one determine what is gender neutral? Especially when it comes to applying gender neutrallity to laws that invovled violence like rape and battery?--Cheryl<br />
<br />
There is a comment somewhere amongst these essays that states that women’s history is a compilation of only the exceptional women from history, thus creating a history that is unrepresentative of every woman. Isn’t most history (not just women’s history) we read that of the extraordinary and not the commonplace?--Lisa<br />
<br />
In response to your question, Lisa, I'd have to agree with you on that one. Most history we study from grade school through our current education focuses primarily on major events, not only of women, but of men as well. Discussions are always based on the extraordinary and the only way we tap into the lives of the commonplace is by digging for primary sources and analyzing what we can. I feel however, that the field is slowly beginning to expand and bring the commonplace closer to the center. (I think that made sense). - Kelly W <br />
<br />
In her essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," Gisela Bock states that women appeared front and center in the historian's eye because of their subjectivity and that "women are not only victims but also actively shape their own lives, society and history." How does everyone feel about this statement? Do you agree that it was also partly at the fault of women that the gender was not previously studied? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
It was actually a surprise to me how indepth the discussion of "women's history" really is. I had always been under the simple assumption that women's history was just precisely that: history of women. The reality that such a two word phrase would contain so many issues regarding gender, race, class... appears very important, despite my previous assumptions. The idea that women's history was actually 'white women's history' was an observation that jumped out at me. It seems so easy to fight for a perspective/focus in history with the goal of some type of equality while at the same time ignoring a whole type of inequality in your focus. The sections dealing with the multiple dichotomies was very interesting, considering how even today such phrases are used. In the case of "work and family," its interesting to see how a practical consideration of "paid and unpaid work" was given a more ethical/moral (perhaps even a religious/theological one?) with the phrase "work and family" -it makes me wonder what other dichotomies in society that seem to be ethical or social values are at base purely practical ones. --Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
I would first like to start by commenting to Allison’s opening statement about women’s history in relation to men and would like to throw out another question. Considering the time period we are focusing on in this class and the mostly male-dominated/patriarchal society of the time is it contextually appropriate to only focus on women without considering important men both publicly and privately in women’s lives? I think Haulman brings up an extremely important part of understanding women’s historiography and that was the need and desire to have a history of all types, classes, races, etc. of women but can we do that without some comparison to men? (particularly in this half of the course). I also think Haulman, Castaneda, and Alexander brought up an important point about titles and incorporating women of color. In my research for my 299 paper I came across research and studies about minority groups in the 1960s women’s movement, how they viewed the women’s movement, how they participated, and how they viewed the predominantly white, middle class woman’s struggle compared to theirs. It made me think of other titles such as the “History of African Americans” and what that title would mean broken down. ----Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting in Antonia Castaneda's essay how she mentions that the women, who wrote the history of women in the West, only wrote about white women. I think that it is difficult to write a through history of women in the West without highlighting the accomplishments of Native American, Hispanic and Asian women. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Going along with Katherine's comment, think of how little we know about the American (and when I say American I mean US) southeast and the Native American tribes. Most of what we are taught is that they were fighting a battle they were ultimately going to lose -- isn't most history biased in that sort of way and not just women's history? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting how Leslie Alexander mentions that the feminist movement was not very successful with African American women. It was not successful because African American families were very close knit and the movement required women to distance themselves a little bit from their families. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me the most in the reading was the section about equality versus difference. As I was reading it I kept thinking Why is it so difficult for women to be equal. I believe that we (as women) should not be treated exactly like men because we are different and have different issues that cannot be addressed that way, such as what was mentioned in the text of rape, abortion, and spousal abuse (pg12). I think Bock's question of "why is it, for instance, that "equality" and "justice" seem to complement each other in the case of men, but be opposed to each other in the case of women." (pg12) is a very important question and sums up the women's struggle to be visible. ~Mary Beth C~<br />
<br />
I found the various references to the complications of writing to represent a whole sex interesting. The progression from the inclusion of "important and influential" figures in women's history, to a history that strives to incorporate the vast meanings of what it means to be a woman in all respects in all periods is daunting, if not hopeless. But, striving for such complete understanding seems to be a crucial goal of the modern historian. Diversity of study is finding an important prominence, but in such the danger of dilution of the subject field becomes apparent. -- Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
Vanessa's question hit on an issue that we're starting to see the pendulum sort of swing in the opposite direction on, but for so long we have only wanted to talk about and recognize the active and "exciting" action taking parts of history. No one wants to talk about keeping a family on the homefront or making the parts for the planes that dropped the bombs, they want to talk about flying in to drop the bombs. At the same time, as we try to recognize the importance of raising families, and women like Abigail Adams who were intellectually advanced and deserve credit for being recognized as leaders within their own time, we neglect to give attention to women who assumed active roles equal or comparable to male roles--why do we know Jack Jouett and Paul Revere, but we don't know Sybil Luddington and Dicey Langston? Women's history seems to have gone to extremes, resulting in attention being devoted most unequally. --Andrea<br />
<br />
Bock and Haulman seemed to do an excellent job of articulating key themes in gender and women's studies, themes I have not seen articulated as succintly and clearly elsewhere. Bock's numbered themes simply identify issues my women's studies class spent weeks discussing, issues that I believe we will find continually reappear and connect in subtle ways we would never anticipate...These are issues that apply to other minorities on some level in many situations--like the integration discussion. Are any neglected/minority accounts of history better taught on their own independently or better off integrated into mainstream history? African American, Latino or even Irish History/Studies could easily be substituted for Women's Studies/History in many of these essays. Haulman's explanation of the sexuality nature vs. nurture debate is significantly clearer than the essays used in the same series' book on Sexual History by Weeks and Rictor Norton, which fail to address many examples like mannerisms, which Haulman uses well. Leslie Alexander's discussion of historians' use of the contributionist model with African American history also seemed to apply to women's history in general, or really any history that's been neglected from the "Dead White Men" version of history. It made me realize that women's history really is discussed in terms of contributions or assistance or help, never in terms of achievements or actions, contrary to the "he did" history of DWM. That thought left me frustrated and asking "What would Gerda say?" (besides to keep insisting on the recognition of obscure minority examples of women which derail Dr. McClurken's classes). --Andrea<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth’s question about how important it is to incorporate men into our study of women, I think it is important to include them because they did play an important role in influencing women’s lives and choices. While the degree is debatable, the fact remains that Women were influenced by the male dominated society in which they lived. We wouldn’t be getting the full picture if we failed to incorporate men into that history.<br />
For me, the equality v. difference argument in the Gisella Bock essay was very interesting. Though I am all for female independence, equal education and job opportunities, etc. I’m not convinced that women and men should be treated as gender neutral. Biologically we are different and face different issues in society. –- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
Jennifer- I completely agree. Men and Women should not be treated as gender neutral. The difference between us- not just physically- but mentally, emotionally, and physcologically, are to extreme to be considered equal. That is not to say that we should not have equal rights- but not only do we face different issues in society differenty, we react differently to those issues. - Talya.<br />
<br />
I thought this article raised interesting questions about gender and the role that men and women are asked to preform in society. While I think that equal pay for the same work is important, I would be cautious in saying that gender should be a neutral. If its neutral than would what would we base our differences on? --Katelynn<br />
<br />
These were posted in another area accidentally:<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
--Not sure if this is really what you're looking for but I believe Gerda Lerner started the first(?) women's history department at the University of Wisconsin...which would make it somewhat linked to the feminist movements, but partially independent?--Andrea<br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
--I really liked this question, the first thing I can think of is feminism has traditionally had less respect and interest in traditional women's roles as homemakers, etc. --Andrea<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that so many different groups identified themselves as "American" women, like the Cherokees. While I think the four major bolded themes in the Haulman essay are useful, they are also major themes in Gender Studies and Women's Studies. In the History of U.S. Sexuality, we are reading nature vs. culture/constructionist vs. essentialist essays, and I believe Haulman's part 1 addresses important issues like mannerisms and hobbies, which I haven't seen articulated as well elsewhere. Unfortunately, I agree with the vicious cycle Haulman identifies on p. 11, whereby women's efforts to be more historically recognized and gain rights limited them. --Andrea<br />
<br />
Lesile Alexander raised some interesting points in her essay about how the feminist movement affects African American women’s history. I have always seen women’s history as inextricably linked to the feminist movement but never considered the ramifications that it would have for African American women. While Lesile Alexander states that the feminist movement was useful in liberating white women she says it also forced Black women into the same mold and has therefore prevented a full understanding of black women’s lives. Throughout the essay Alexander states the importance of incorporating race into women’s history going so far as to say that black women’s lives cannot be understood if they are continually viewed through the “lens of whiteness and oppression.” I wanted to see if people agreed with Alexander that African American women’s history has been misunderstood for years because racial differences have not been examined fully enough.-Caitlin Quinn</div>Jcast2lx 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