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: 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=JfeldhausMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:37:23ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/CommentsWeek 15 Questions/Comments2007-12-06T00:43:37Z<p>Jfeldhaus: </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 />
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 />
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 />
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~</div>Jfeldhaushttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/CommentsWeek 12 Questions/Comments2007-11-15T02:13:42Z<p>Jfeldhaus: </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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 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 />
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 />
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</div>Jfeldhaushttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/CommentsWeek 12 Questions/Comments2007-11-15T02:02:03Z<p>Jfeldhaus: </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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 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 />
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 />
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 />
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</div>Jfeldhaushttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/CommentsWeek 10 Questions/Comments2007-11-01T01:00:54Z<p>Jfeldhaus: </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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 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 />
<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 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</div>Jfeldhaushttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T01:33:20Z<p>Jfeldhaus: </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 />
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 />
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 />
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 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 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 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 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 />
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</div>Jfeldhaushttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/CommentsWeek 5 Questions/Comments2007-09-27T03:41:42Z<p>Jfeldhaus: </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 />
<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 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 />
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 />
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 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>Jfeldhaushttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/CommentsWeek 3 Questions/Comments2007-09-13T01:11:54Z<p>Jfeldhaus: </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 />
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 />
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 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 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 />
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 />
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</div>Jfeldhaushttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/CommentsWeek 2 Questions/Comments2007-09-06T01:49:53Z<p>Jfeldhaus: </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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 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 />
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</div>Jfeldhaushttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T03:12:02Z<p>Jfeldhaus: </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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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</div>Jfeldhaus 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