McClurken Wiki

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php</b> on line <b>195</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>571</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>585</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>578</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>603</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>553</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>186</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>203</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>196</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>212</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>175</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php</b> on line <b>135</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php</b> on line <b>234</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php</b> on line <b>292</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php</b> on line <b>755</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php</b> on line <b>907</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php</b> on line <b>908</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>627</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>629</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>630</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>631</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>633</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>634</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php</b> on line <b>402</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Jmarshal</id>
		<title>McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Jmarshal"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jmarshal"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T22:20:51Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-22T02:19:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* Jamala McFadden Tells Her Story of Welfare Assistance in the 1990s, 2002 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference.  What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that  had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn&amp;#039;t just get support from other &amp;quot;hard hatted&amp;quot; women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the &amp;quot;sisterhood&amp;quot; aspect of the women&amp;#039;s lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving.  Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through.   Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy.  It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy.  She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them.  She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women.  As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field.  -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, &amp;quot;Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two&amp;quot; (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss.  I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married.   I enjoyed Eisenberg&amp;#039;s perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can&amp;#039;t imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive.  “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important thing that kept these women going, despite the difficult working conditions was the camaraderie among these women and without this, working in construction and life would of been more difficult.  The higher graduation rate in the trade school was &amp;quot;owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other&amp;quot; (278).  They also formed groups for personal support and to discuss the varied problems they faced on the job-site.  It seems when times are desperate, women have constantly bonded together to acheive a goal weather it be the right to vote, or just gaining respect and fitting in on a constuction site.  They have an immense sense of pride in what they accomplish and this is demonstrated at the end of this excerpt where an older Eisenberg drove around showing her daughter the buildings she had a part in. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I always pay vague attention when I pass by construction work. The reading said that before the 1970s construction related work was dominated almost one hundred percent by white males. And that number is still high if the sites I see are anything to go by, though I think there are many non-white men entering the field, particularly Hispanics. Last week, when I went by the Eagle Village construction, I actually saw a woman walking amongst the men. One woman. I actually looked for more because I was so surprised (and almost confused a long haired man in a ponytail with woman but that’s another story). I almost did want to cheer her like some women did for Eisenberg. The field seems to be becoming more ethnically diverse, but it’s nowhere near becoming more sexually diverse. I can only recall seeing about two or three women doing construction in most of my lifetime. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. &lt;br /&gt;
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jamala McFadden Tells Her Story of Welfare Assistance in the 1990s, 2002==&lt;br /&gt;
Jamala McFadden&amp;#039;s story was very inspiring to me. She was pregnant at 15, which probably made it seem like her life was over. Instead, Jamala made the best out of the situation and worked extremely hard to prove everyone wrong. Many times, I think people assume that other people on welfare don&amp;#039;t deserve it or use it for the wrong reasons. Jamala was not one of those people. She attended college and was almost a 4.0 student, took care of her son, and had a job all at the same time. I can only imagine how rewarding it was when she finished law school. It was interesting that there was not any type of childcare service for the university. I&amp;#039;m not sure if that was something that was normal at large universities, but I feel like childcare should have been offered. I think it is admirable of those single parents who have children to go out and get an education. By not having childcare services, I feel like that is a disservice to women, and it is also discouraging them from reaching their full potential. Lack of childcare, whether it be in the workplace or at universities, is wrong because it inhibits women from being successful. Why restrict someone who is trying to better their own life? In my opinion, the welfare money Jamala McFadden used throughout her life was paid back to society through her amazing successes. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The show 16 &amp;amp; Pregnant , which runs on MTV, follows the lives of teen moms who all initially come to the conclusion that their lives are over (at least as they know it.) I think if those girls were able to read about Jamala they would have a role model to look to because of her ambition and her desire to achieve despite the obstacles. She is the type of person, not just the type of woman, who demonstrates that people are sometimes the victim of their circumstances, and not passive bystanders. She worked so hard to attain her education and took care of her son by working as well as caring for him. Had she had childcare available, it may have been a slight relief for her and a small decrease in her daily pressure. Even today there are places of employment where childcare is not openly available, however I have heard of some community colleges providing childcare so that single mothers can get their education which I feel is an important service to offer and a true benefit that will allow more single parents to gain the education needed to support their child (children). –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Real &amp;quot;Norma Rae&amp;quot; Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277)  It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper.  My interviewee&amp;#039;s father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did.  &amp;quot;[They] didn&amp;#039;t think I ought to go&amp;quot; (274).  However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity.  Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable.  Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class.  Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions.  This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton&amp;#039;s determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Norma Rae was an interesting piece.  Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together.  Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions.  Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it.  A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up.  When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I!  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn&amp;#039;t sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, &amp;quot;Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter.&amp;quot;(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268).  We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Morgan has stated.  It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify.  The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon&amp;#039;s distinction between &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man.  She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare.  Her line, &amp;quot;The truth is that A.F.D.C  is like a supersexist marriage.  You trade in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man for &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man&amp;quot; (287).  It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence.  This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states,  &amp;quot;There&amp;#039;s one good thing about welfare.  It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don&amp;#039;t make it.  If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything&amp;quot; (289).  If this doesn&amp;#039;t read like empowerment, I&amp;#039;m not sure what else does.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan&amp;#039;s and Abratchi&amp;#039;s comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn&amp;#039;t say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like &amp;quot;In this country if you&amp;#039;re any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you&amp;#039;re all those things you don&amp;#039;t count at all except as a statistic.&amp;quot; ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today&amp;#039;s society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn&amp;#039;t read a testimonial of today&amp;#039;s Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too thought there were similarities between 1972 and today when reading this article. When Johnnie Tillmon points out that &amp;quot;the truth is a job doesn&amp;#039;t necessarily mean an adequate income&amp;quot; (pg. 288) she could be talking about today, especially for women. We talked about the wage gap in class a bit yesterday, but it was fitting because yesterday was actually Equal Pay Day. With the current wage gap, women who worked for all of 2009 had to work until April 20, 2010 to earn the same amount that men made in 2009 alone. That illustrates how significant a problem pay differences are today, and they were worse for women like Tillmon trying to support their families. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sex and Sports, Mariah Burton Nelson, 1994==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article highlights the transition Nelson was forced to make from the community she found as a young woman where she felt free and empowered to celebrate herself and express herself as a lesbian, to the &amp;quot;real world&amp;quot; where she was forced to choose between being open about her homosexuality or continue playing professional basketball.  I couldn&amp;#039;t believe they sent the women on the California team to charm school in order to &amp;quot;portray a feminine (that is, heterosexual) image.&amp;quot; [311]  The focus on this transition effectively illustrates the societal stifling of those perceived to be different, particularly those who challenge socially-encouraged gender roles.  This transition is reflected in a sort of reverse in the following account &amp;quot;La Mujer,&amp;quot; where the writer finds her individuality and strength when she is finally able to explore her identity after a stifling adolescence.  -Erin B. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn&amp;#039;t had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it&amp;#039;s just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem  to be a &amp;quot;size&amp;quot; 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its&amp;#039; true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement &amp;quot;Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success&amp;quot; (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don&amp;#039;t understand how a male who isn&amp;#039;t exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it&amp;#039;s hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won&amp;#039;t run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it&amp;#039;s okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn&amp;#039;t make sense. I&amp;#039;m not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It&amp;#039;s a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society&amp;#039;s standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn&amp;#039;t an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it?  --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a ridiculously moving account of an extremely common issue.  The help that she got was exceptional as well and, sadly, most girls don&amp;#039;t get this kind of treatment.  I worked in emotional and behavioral facilities for close to two years and saw girls like this all the time.  A couple of the women i met didn&amp;#039;t make it.  Chernik articulates a lot of the pathology behind this disease powerfully.  &amp;quot;I had reduced my world to a plate of steamed carrots, and over this tiny kingdom I proudly crowned myself queen.&amp;quot; [322] This passage illustrated her desire to shrink (and ultimately disappear) not just in size, but in character, in personality and strength.  The writer uses the word &amp;quot;impotence&amp;quot; to describe the effects of the disease, which struck me as a powerful characterization.  The social significance of the prevalence of this disorder can&amp;#039;t be understated.  I&amp;#039;m sure I can&amp;#039;t speak for all women, but I&amp;#039;d guess that a lot of the females who read this can identify (or could in the past) with some of the mentality associated with an unhealthy body image.  The praise that she received was the scariest part.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, &amp;quot;It doesn&amp;#039;t take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,...&amp;quot;(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points.  I think her willingness to show that the issue of &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; actually produces a negative view on women is interesting.  She believes that &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings.  I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious.  Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings.  Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual.   -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am still unsure how I feel about this article. I have known people who have come extremely close to being date raped (luckily they had a friend or two that recognized what had happened and came to their aide) and to think that at any point it could be swept away as “hysteria” is hard to understand. From other classes I have taken, it is more common for women to be characterized as “hysterical” (a long time ago women were called hysterical when they menstruated or had severe mood swings due to PMS, now it is more understood and while the term hysterical is still used today, it still almost always refers to women. Just a random tid-bit of information) than men and the actions taken against women falls the same way.  I think there is a difference between being sexual and consenting to sex, saying that a girl does not take responsibility for “date-rape” is almost saying the same thing as “she was asking for it” by wearing a certain outfit. I do agree with CBrau that today the term “rape” is used much too loosely and has as a result made the idea of rape less common (the shock value is not as high as it was when the term first came into use).—jmarshal  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would have to agree with Roiphe that when it comes to rape, some people really do go overboard with it.  It is of course a very serious issue, but I at least agree with her irritation with women who are suspcious of all their male friends.  Those poor guys!  And rape including including more than the physical act (i.e. verbal coercion)?  I think this warping of the definition can be likened to how the seriousness of rape is really downplayed in our culture today.  People have it in their every day vocabulary (it&amp;#039;s a commonly used internet and gaming term) and many people still don&amp;#039;t realize just how traumatizing rape can be (not to mention, some people don&amp;#039;t seem to treat it like the crime it is!).  I am just wondering how we went from one extreme to the other; from hysteria to disinterest?  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, &amp;quot;cripple&amp;quot; and said, &amp;quot;[people]-wince at the word &amp;#039;&amp;#039;cripple&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, as they do not at handicapped or disabled.&amp;quot;(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the &amp;quot;World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits,&amp;quot; 1978==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the disparity between men and women&amp;#039;s pay, such as this woman: &amp;quot;whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Times&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Washington bureau.&amp;quot; (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, &amp;quot;sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper.&amp;quot; (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a &amp;quot;genteel form&amp;quot; that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn&amp;#039;t understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, &amp;quot;If she weren&amp;#039;t a woman, she&amp;#039;d be in the bullpen right now!&amp;quot; (P. 465) Why didn&amp;#039;t he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Day in the Kitchen (photograph) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I saw this picture, I immediately had the thought that this woman is proud of her job.  Just the way that she carries herself and her facial expression, she seems to take great pride in her work.  And yet, we have to ask ourselves at least two things.  Has she been posed?  And is she actually happy with what she is doing?  Her expression seems genuine, but maybe she is a woman that makes the best out of what she has.  Perhaps if she had the option to become a chef or not, she would not have.  It could only be through society&amp;#039;s limited career options for blacks that she became a chef.  And in the caption, it is implied that even though African American women have held jobs longer than white women, they are still discriminated against and pushed aside by those lesser experienced white women.  This certainly makes one think.  Do employers really look at skill?  Or are they still blindsided by prejudices?  They probably were when this photo was taken (1976).  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Target Women, Critiquing Depictions of Women in the Media==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken discussed on Tuesday the continually questionable depiction of women in the media and the criticisms of it. I can’t say the number of times my mother has seen a commercial and made a derisive comment about why it has to be mom cleaning up after her incompetent husband and kids, or why around Mother’s Day there are commercials about getting appliances and jewelry while during Father’s Day it’s electronics or actually cool things, or how only women seem to have digestive or plumbing problems. I wanted to share with you all [http://current.com/shows/infomania/target-women/ Target Women with Sarah Haskins], which is basically a humorous and sarcastic challenge to all those ridiculous, shallow commercials. How to be a [http://current.com/shows/infomania/89771812_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-super-special.htm lady] according to commercials: yogurt! looking cute while exercising! cleaning the house! cooking! heart to hearts with girlfriends! jewelry face! marriage! -- Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-22T02:18:47Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference.  What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that  had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn&amp;#039;t just get support from other &amp;quot;hard hatted&amp;quot; women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the &amp;quot;sisterhood&amp;quot; aspect of the women&amp;#039;s lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving.  Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through.   Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy.  It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy.  She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them.  She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women.  As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field.  -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, &amp;quot;Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two&amp;quot; (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss.  I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married.   I enjoyed Eisenberg&amp;#039;s perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can&amp;#039;t imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive.  “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important thing that kept these women going, despite the difficult working conditions was the camaraderie among these women and without this, working in construction and life would of been more difficult.  The higher graduation rate in the trade school was &amp;quot;owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other&amp;quot; (278).  They also formed groups for personal support and to discuss the varied problems they faced on the job-site.  It seems when times are desperate, women have constantly bonded together to acheive a goal weather it be the right to vote, or just gaining respect and fitting in on a constuction site.  They have an immense sense of pride in what they accomplish and this is demonstrated at the end of this excerpt where an older Eisenberg drove around showing her daughter the buildings she had a part in. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I always pay vague attention when I pass by construction work. The reading said that before the 1970s construction related work was dominated almost one hundred percent by white males. And that number is still high if the sites I see are anything to go by, though I think there are many non-white men entering the field, particularly Hispanics. Last week, when I went by the Eagle Village construction, I actually saw a woman walking amongst the men. One woman. I actually looked for more because I was so surprised (and almost confused a long haired man in a ponytail with woman but that’s another story). I almost did want to cheer her like some women did for Eisenberg. The field seems to be becoming more ethnically diverse, but it’s nowhere near becoming more sexually diverse. I can only recall seeing about two or three women doing construction in most of my lifetime. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. &lt;br /&gt;
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jamala McFadden Tells Her Story of Welfare Assistance in the 1990s, 2002==&lt;br /&gt;
Jamala McFadden&amp;#039;s story was very inspiring to me. She was pregnant at 15, which probably made it seem like her life was over. Instead, Jamala made the best out of the situation and worked extremely hard to prove everyone wrong. Many times, I think people assume that other people on welfare don&amp;#039;t deserve it or use it for the wrong reasons. Jamala was not one of those people. She attended college and was almost a 4.0 student, took care of her son, and had a job all at the same time. I can only imagine how rewarding it was when she finished law school. It was interesting that there was not any type of childcare service for the university. I&amp;#039;m not sure if that was something that was normal at large universities, but I feel like childcare should have been offered. I think it is admirable of those single parents who have children to go out and get an education. By not having childcare services, I feel like that is a disservice to women, and it is also discouraging them from reaching their full potential. Lack of childcare, whether it be in the workplace or at universities, is wrong because it inhibits women from being successful. Why restrict someone who is trying to better their own life? In my opinion, the welfare money Jamala McFadden used throughout her life was paid back to society through her amazing successes. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Real &amp;quot;Norma Rae&amp;quot; Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277)  It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper.  My interviewee&amp;#039;s father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did.  &amp;quot;[They] didn&amp;#039;t think I ought to go&amp;quot; (274).  However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity.  Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable.  Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class.  Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions.  This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton&amp;#039;s determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Norma Rae was an interesting piece.  Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together.  Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions.  Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it.  A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up.  When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I!  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn&amp;#039;t sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, &amp;quot;Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter.&amp;quot;(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268).  We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Morgan has stated.  It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify.  The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon&amp;#039;s distinction between &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man.  She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare.  Her line, &amp;quot;The truth is that A.F.D.C  is like a supersexist marriage.  You trade in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man for &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man&amp;quot; (287).  It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence.  This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states,  &amp;quot;There&amp;#039;s one good thing about welfare.  It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don&amp;#039;t make it.  If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything&amp;quot; (289).  If this doesn&amp;#039;t read like empowerment, I&amp;#039;m not sure what else does.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan&amp;#039;s and Abratchi&amp;#039;s comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn&amp;#039;t say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like &amp;quot;In this country if you&amp;#039;re any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you&amp;#039;re all those things you don&amp;#039;t count at all except as a statistic.&amp;quot; ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today&amp;#039;s society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn&amp;#039;t read a testimonial of today&amp;#039;s Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too thought there were similarities between 1972 and today when reading this article. When Johnnie Tillmon points out that &amp;quot;the truth is a job doesn&amp;#039;t necessarily mean an adequate income&amp;quot; (pg. 288) she could be talking about today, especially for women. We talked about the wage gap in class a bit yesterday, but it was fitting because yesterday was actually Equal Pay Day. With the current wage gap, women who worked for all of 2009 had to work until April 20, 2010 to earn the same amount that men made in 2009 alone. That illustrates how significant a problem pay differences are today, and they were worse for women like Tillmon trying to support their families. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sex and Sports, Mariah Burton Nelson, 1994==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article highlights the transition Nelson was forced to make from the community she found as a young woman where she felt free and empowered to celebrate herself and express herself as a lesbian, to the &amp;quot;real world&amp;quot; where she was forced to choose between being open about her homosexuality or continue playing professional basketball.  I couldn&amp;#039;t believe they sent the women on the California team to charm school in order to &amp;quot;portray a feminine (that is, heterosexual) image.&amp;quot; [311]  The focus on this transition effectively illustrates the societal stifling of those perceived to be different, particularly those who challenge socially-encouraged gender roles.  This transition is reflected in a sort of reverse in the following account &amp;quot;La Mujer,&amp;quot; where the writer finds her individuality and strength when she is finally able to explore her identity after a stifling adolescence.  -Erin B. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn&amp;#039;t had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it&amp;#039;s just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem  to be a &amp;quot;size&amp;quot; 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its&amp;#039; true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement &amp;quot;Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success&amp;quot; (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don&amp;#039;t understand how a male who isn&amp;#039;t exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it&amp;#039;s hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won&amp;#039;t run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it&amp;#039;s okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn&amp;#039;t make sense. I&amp;#039;m not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It&amp;#039;s a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society&amp;#039;s standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn&amp;#039;t an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it?  --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a ridiculously moving account of an extremely common issue.  The help that she got was exceptional as well and, sadly, most girls don&amp;#039;t get this kind of treatment.  I worked in emotional and behavioral facilities for close to two years and saw girls like this all the time.  A couple of the women i met didn&amp;#039;t make it.  Chernik articulates a lot of the pathology behind this disease powerfully.  &amp;quot;I had reduced my world to a plate of steamed carrots, and over this tiny kingdom I proudly crowned myself queen.&amp;quot; [322] This passage illustrated her desire to shrink (and ultimately disappear) not just in size, but in character, in personality and strength.  The writer uses the word &amp;quot;impotence&amp;quot; to describe the effects of the disease, which struck me as a powerful characterization.  The social significance of the prevalence of this disorder can&amp;#039;t be understated.  I&amp;#039;m sure I can&amp;#039;t speak for all women, but I&amp;#039;d guess that a lot of the females who read this can identify (or could in the past) with some of the mentality associated with an unhealthy body image.  The praise that she received was the scariest part.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, &amp;quot;It doesn&amp;#039;t take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,...&amp;quot;(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points.  I think her willingness to show that the issue of &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; actually produces a negative view on women is interesting.  She believes that &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings.  I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious.  Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings.  Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual.   -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am still unsure how I feel about this article. I have known people who have come extremely close to being date raped (luckily they had a friend or two that recognized what had happened and came to their aide) and to think that at any point it could be swept away as “hysteria” is hard to understand. From other classes I have taken, it is more common for women to be characterized as “hysterical” (a long time ago women were called hysterical when they menstruated or had severe mood swings due to PMS, now it is more understood and while the term hysterical is still used today, it still almost always refers to women. Just a random tid-bit of information) than men and the actions taken against women falls the same way.  I think there is a difference between being sexual and consenting to sex, saying that a girl does not take responsibility for “date-rape” is almost saying the same thing as “she was asking for it” by wearing a certain outfit. I do agree with CBrau that today the term “rape” is used much too loosely and has as a result made the idea of rape less common (the shock value is not as high as it was when the term first came into use).—jmarshal  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would have to agree with Roiphe that when it comes to rape, some people really do go overboard with it.  It is of course a very serious issue, but I at least agree with her irritation with women who are suspcious of all their male friends.  Those poor guys!  And rape including including more than the physical act (i.e. verbal coercion)?  I think this warping of the definition can be likened to how the seriousness of rape is really downplayed in our culture today.  People have it in their every day vocabulary (it&amp;#039;s a commonly used internet and gaming term) and many people still don&amp;#039;t realize just how traumatizing rape can be (not to mention, some people don&amp;#039;t seem to treat it like the crime it is!).  I am just wondering how we went from one extreme to the other; from hysteria to disinterest?  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, &amp;quot;cripple&amp;quot; and said, &amp;quot;[people]-wince at the word &amp;#039;&amp;#039;cripple&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, as they do not at handicapped or disabled.&amp;quot;(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the &amp;quot;World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits,&amp;quot; 1978==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the disparity between men and women&amp;#039;s pay, such as this woman: &amp;quot;whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Times&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Washington bureau.&amp;quot; (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, &amp;quot;sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper.&amp;quot; (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a &amp;quot;genteel form&amp;quot; that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn&amp;#039;t understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, &amp;quot;If she weren&amp;#039;t a woman, she&amp;#039;d be in the bullpen right now!&amp;quot; (P. 465) Why didn&amp;#039;t he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Day in the Kitchen (photograph) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I saw this picture, I immediately had the thought that this woman is proud of her job.  Just the way that she carries herself and her facial expression, she seems to take great pride in her work.  And yet, we have to ask ourselves at least two things.  Has she been posed?  And is she actually happy with what she is doing?  Her expression seems genuine, but maybe she is a woman that makes the best out of what she has.  Perhaps if she had the option to become a chef or not, she would not have.  It could only be through society&amp;#039;s limited career options for blacks that she became a chef.  And in the caption, it is implied that even though African American women have held jobs longer than white women, they are still discriminated against and pushed aside by those lesser experienced white women.  This certainly makes one think.  Do employers really look at skill?  Or are they still blindsided by prejudices?  They probably were when this photo was taken (1976).  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Target Women, Critiquing Depictions of Women in the Media==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken discussed on Tuesday the continually questionable depiction of women in the media and the criticisms of it. I can’t say the number of times my mother has seen a commercial and made a derisive comment about why it has to be mom cleaning up after her incompetent husband and kids, or why around Mother’s Day there are commercials about getting appliances and jewelry while during Father’s Day it’s electronics or actually cool things, or how only women seem to have digestive or plumbing problems. I wanted to share with you all [http://current.com/shows/infomania/target-women/ Target Women with Sarah Haskins], which is basically a humorous and sarcastic challenge to all those ridiculous, shallow commercials. How to be a [http://current.com/shows/infomania/89771812_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-super-special.htm lady] according to commercials: yogurt! looking cute while exercising! cleaning the house! cooking! heart to hearts with girlfriends! jewelry face! marriage! -- Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-16T21:03:56Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /*  */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;THIS WEEK&amp;#039;S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING.  You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers.  A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class discussion:  We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see that &amp;quot;typical housewife and mother&amp;quot; trend with a majority of the women interviewed.  The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs.  I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn&amp;#039;t been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn&amp;#039;t what society expected.  However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later.  With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching).  Overall, I think it&amp;#039;s important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with CBrau. I was surprised by how many other women had experiences that were similar to the woman that I interviewed. Like CBrau stated, women seemed to enter into nursing and teaching the most, but it seemed like they were forced into these positions for lack of opportunity elsewhere. It also seems like most of the women were forced into these positions because their fathers or husbands believed that they would be starting a family and spending money on an education was wasteful. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was very interesting and amusing that in Alices&amp;#039; paper, Lois Wagner had miniature army corps suits and have fake machine guns and little did they know that the real women in the WAC never saw any action in battle.  Also, these were just young girls and had no idea of a feminist movement or what women were going through at this particular period yet they were supporting the efforts of women, even if they were too young to understand. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the story about the WAC suits!  Normally you would think of boys putting on uniforms and imitating soldiers, and yet here was a little girl doing it.  I&amp;#039;ve honestly never thought about little girls being interested in the military or what children had to balance during WWII (&amp;quot;fun and fear&amp;quot;).  -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw many similarities between the women who were interviewed including the roles they had as mothers, wives, and women in the workforce and society. I definitely saw the pattern of many women who worked in the domestic sphere who also sometimes worked in careers outside the home. Most of the women seemed to have had children of the baby boom generation or were baby boomers themselves. In Dvorak&amp;#039;s paper, the woman she interviewed challenged some of the trends of the time by focusing on her education and career of dentistry rather than on finding a husband and starting a family right away. I also noticed in Rowley&amp;#039;s paper, the woman got a divorce about the time in the 1960s that we talked about in class when there seemed to be a high divorce rate. I think it&amp;#039;s interesting so see the similarities between the people who were interviewed but good to also note that all of their stories are still unique in their own way. -Avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The similarities between the women interviewed are clearly defined, many became mothers and housewives right after graduation and a few had careers but the majority of women thought they should fulfill the roles they were told to. They produced the children who led further reforms for women and I saw in a few papers such as Mary Ann&amp;#039;s the women, who produced the baby boomers, did not have time to be politically active and brushed it aside. It reminded me of the woman I interviewed who admitted they were too tied up in their worlds to pay attention to outside influences. In a few papers I thought the women who were single mothers and able to support themselves and children were leaders of the Women&amp;#039;s Movement even if they did not openly admit it. Those women started the trend towards independence and without their mark in the workplace and challenging &amp;quot;male dominated roles&amp;quot; women may not have acheived what they did in the 1960-1970s era. I agree with Avanness it is important to note that even with all the similarities all of the women were exceptional in their stories. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the sentiments already expressed here, that the majority of women who were interviewed and written about had similar experiences and how interesting that is. It also seemed that many of these women remembered feeling alone in their struggle to maintain the family and the struggles to either work or not to work. I find this very interesting because many of these women had friends who were having similar struggles, but I think that earlier in the 20th century talking about and sharing the daily struggles that individuals went through was not considered appropriate. I would have thought that these women would not have felt so secluded and alone in their struggle, but I think they lived in a different world than our generation does now and I think technology plays a major role in that openness that is seen now. These women were not raised in a technologically based culture and the technology that was around literally was new and never seen before which sometimes made life more difficult than it needed to be. &lt;br /&gt;
I also found it interesting that these women remember the role of women as housewives and mothers, and some of them had fonder views of those roles than others. A few thought of housework as something other than unpaid labor (just something they had to do that didn’t affect the structure and stability of the family) and I think that those would remembered it as something they were expected to do rather than what they wanted to do voluntarily  seemed to remember it less fondly. Would anyone else agree? Maybe I’m reading too far into things. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I read through these papers, many of us focused on working women because I think that is something that changed continuously throughout the 20th century. The trends of women working never remained the same; they changed almost decade to decade. It seemed that many of the women interviewed returned to work after raising their children and I think for most women that was a way of raising self-esteem, that women were capable of being both a wife and a career women. I think the idea of women not working because of the influence it would have on their children was another recurring trend. In Taylor Brann’s paper, she talked about a woman who left her job in the 1980s to take care of her children. It was almost socially unacceptable for women to even think of balancing work and a career at the time, espeically when the focus was transitioning more and more towards the family. Although I say that most experiences seemed similar, I think some stood out, such as Meg’s interview and Fitch’s interview. In both these interviews, the women they interviewed seemed to have no problem finding jobs or even moving into the professional world and I think that was definitely a step in the right direction. These women seemed to have defied some of the odds against women, especially for Meg&amp;#039;s interviewee, who worked as a dental professional. Another noticeable feature was the jobs women traditionally took on. Many of them were related to nursing, or clerical work. Along with everyone else, it amazed me that although these women lived their life at different times in the 20th century, their experiences were quite similar, with history being passed down from generation to generation. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, I’d like to add a detail to my own paper that was in my footnotes, but since the footnotes did not show up in Google Docs, I want to say it here, because I think it’s important.  Why exactly Lois left Mary Washington is uncertain, since in previous conversations I’ve had with her, she claimed that the school kicked her out for getting married.  Though, if it’s true that the school kicked her out, I’m under the suspicion that it’s more likely because she was pregnant.  However, when I sat down with her in the interview, she changed the story to the one presented in the main body of my paper.  In the long run, it doesn’t change the fact that she has no regrets about never finishing college, but it would effect how we view the college’s policy towards such a situation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a different topic, I found it interesting to see the women’s reactions to the feminist movement.  Ms. Blalock outright opposed the movement, not because she objected to women working or equality between men and women, but because she saw it as detrimental to children.  There is no denying the authority she has on the subject of children, having been an educator for so long, but it makes me think of our earlier discussions of how someone always sees the American family as being on the brink of failure.    Other women, like Deb Lee and Sue Ward, don’t seem to particularly dislike the movement, but it did not appear to really play much into their lives, which judging from my own interview as well, seems typical.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms. Bobbi Blalock had an interesting outlook on women’s view of the family.  She seems to have traditional views based in older generations.  Though this is not prevalent in the other interviews, it does seem striking because she placed a strong importance on the woman being in the home and that offering security to children.  It does make me question if the brashness of the 1960’s and 70’s was a little too over the top for some women.  -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time. Working mothers have struggled with maintaining both for many decades, but for the most part (aside from WWII), society was against them working. As was mentioned in the lecture (which I wish I could have used in my paper), society’s view on working women began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. Some women, as the papers showed, managed to balance work and family and do it successfully, and for once they had the backing of the public while they were doing it. Daycares, for instance, were a great help in maintaining this balance. However, many mothers still struggled with the balance, and while they had society more willing to support them working, they now had a new ideal to live up to. My interviewee, for instance, drove herself into depression in her attempt to “have it all,” and she believes that the media helped trick women into thinking they can do it all. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting how strikingly similar the experiences of many of the interviewed women were. Among the slew of really well written papers that I read, I focused on three in particular, Taylor Braun&amp;#039;s, Catherine Brau&amp;#039;s, and Ellen Fritz&amp;#039;s paper. These three interviewees shared a similar view to each other in the fact that they rejected or simply cared not to participate in the NOW movement and women&amp;#039;s liberation. In Braun and Fritz&amp;#039;s papers the women felt that they wanted to focus on raising their children and maintaining a healthy family. In Brau&amp;#039;s paper, her interviewee had very little time to devote to the women&amp;#039;s lib movement, though, like my interview subject, she was involved in the anti-war movement. These women expressed many of the concerns and comments that we have been discussing in class about a women&amp;#039;s balance between domestic and public life, with their family and work, and the roles they played in all of these arenas. I appreciated how some of the other papers focused on the academic efforts that their interviewees pursued. My interviewee also received a college degree and returned to school later in life to pursue her law degree.  What I thought was really interesting is that my interviewee felt that she did not live the “typical” life that many baby boomer women did, but after reading these papers, her answers turned out to be so similar to many of the others. I agree with Megan to an extent about how the women fulfilled the roles that they were “supposed to” fill, but some of them really seemed to want that life. In Taylor’s paper, her interviewee felt guilty and wrong for returning to work once the children were in school. It seems that some of the women did not want to fulfill the typical roles but others seemed content in their actions. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Coming off what Caryn said I think it is interesting that her subject felt that her experiences were not typical yet this project showed that alot of women had similar experiences. I think it reflects that perhaps some women felt they were alone in there desire to continue there life after children and marriage. It reminded me of Betty Friedans article where she found women discussing this &amp;quot;unnameable problem&amp;quot; as if it were taboo. I know my interviewee felt isolated in her experiences as a working mother and eventually a divorcee yet this study shows that many women were dealing with the same issues. But i do think it is interesting that the subjects would feel like there experience was atypical of other women, yet in reality it may not have been. -Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Caryn, I noticed that a lot of the women had similar life experiences, or that there were at least some common themes among a lot of the papers. The fact that so many women were happy being housewives always strikes me, because I always revert to the image of the depressed and oppressed mid-century wife and mother. Yes, some women felt restricted by that life, but not all, and we shouldn&amp;#039;t forget that many women were happy when we look at what, to many of us, appears to have been a pretty limiting situation. Socioeconomic status also played a huge role in these women&amp;#039;s lives in terms of the education and opportunities open to them but also in the expectations set for them. For example, Women whose parents had some money were expected to go to college, meaning that they probably weren&amp;#039;t marrying while still in high school. Finally, many of the women broke traditional norms in different ways, from not marrying at all, to going to dental school, to raising children as a single parent. The big name leaders of the women&amp;#039;s rights movement did a lot, but it&amp;#039;s really the collective actions of all of these everyday women that created the more egalitarian society we have today, yet most of them seem largely unaware of the changes they were helping to bring about. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann how it can be a little surprising to hear how women could be happy being housewives.  I think sometimes in class we forget that many people were happy with society&amp;#039;s expectations.  This ties back into what we talked about earlier in the semester with paid vs. unpaid work.  It is interesting how some of the woman took the role of being a mother as the focus on their life, while others did not seem to compare it to a job at all.  There seems to be a little difference in how some of the women who raised kids view their life versus the way those who choose not to, though really each woman is just as much of an individual regardless of what choices they made.  -J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even if women were limited to specific fields when trying to obtain work, I found that many were working for at least a point in their lives.  Many of these women were middle class and attended high school and even college.  Most women got jobs after college or after high school and either kept working or got married.  It seems like a fair amount of women stayed in the home, but it was becoming less expected of them and many worked even if they were also raising families.  There were a few single mothers and they worked mostly because they had no choice and were the sole provider&amp;#039;s for their family.  Working women were certainly becoming more prominent. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of these women had similar life experiences regarding their role in the latter half of the 20th century.  What I found fascinating was that the women that had children at an early age often sought a career after their children were older.  These women found a second life at the age of 40 or 45 in which they had raised their family and now had the opportunity and freedom to pursue their dreams.  Additionally, these women have the benefit of life experiences which would affect their choices for the future.  The professional women who had gone to college right from high school often waited to their late 20&amp;#039;s or early 30&amp;#039;s to start a family and then were either forced to choose between their career or their kids; or to put their children into daycare.  They are also more financially secure and stable than the women who married at a young age.  Who&amp;#039;s to say which option is better.  Women, unlike men in society, are forced to be put in the position of making these decisions and living with any ramifications. - EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, reading through a couple of these papers, I started to notice a trend around the third paper of women who were being (what is recognized today as) oppressed, but never really felt that it was that much of an issue to them. By that I mean, most of these women recognized that &amp;quot;women&amp;quot; in general were not permitted the same opportunity as men, but that it wouldn&amp;#039;t affect them (Holman’s paper even says “Although she never felt restricted from any job she desired, she did observe that there were only so many positions open to women.8” which I think perfectly exemplifies my point). And of these women, I have to say, it seems to have produced a biased opinion that it worked out for every woman. I feel like these women in particular were very successful in their lives. They are now fairly old, have lived a long life, and seem to not fret and worry about the money or other particulars in their lives now. Maybe their life wasn&amp;#039;t always easy, but it still says something that they made it to be over the age of 55. I think sometimes it is forgotten that that is a huge life accomplishment, to be old. I think it also may have been to the benefit of these women to ignore the fact that the oppression of women may affect them, because if they ignore it, then they can surpass it. As all of the women who are mentioned in the 4 papers, (Holman, Brau, Whiteaker, Makarios) in particular that I noticed this trend of not noticing the oppression of themselves in, have done. It also really surprises me that no one above me seemed to have noticed this.    –ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As most people have stated, I noticed a lot of similarities between a lot of the papers I read.  I noticed that a lot of women worked and attended school.  After doing my own interview and comparing it with the trends discussed in class, it feels like more women were able to attend school than actually did.  I agree with a lot of what Taylor stated above, &amp;quot;Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time.&amp;quot; This was a trend I noticed as well among the papers.  It appears that a lot of these women who were interviewed either had to work or chose to work, but there was some ultimate cost to it.  Whether it was relationships or their own health.  I think that Sarah brings up a good point that I myself did not catch until reading her post.  A lot of these women are old and their opinion is biased. My interviewee for example never once stated that her situation was hard, even though she worked as a full-time nurse, with four children and a husband who was a doctor and in the navy.  I think that a lot of time as older people look back, things might not seem as bad as they were.   -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There seemed to be trend in which the women in these interviews maintained motherhood and work so well in spite of society saying that you cannot achieve both. These women overcame challenges, heartaches, and divorce and at the same time embraced life, love, and raised their children.  The women coming out of middle class families had more opportunities.  I recognized the shift in expectations and push for oneself to go to college in these women’s experiences also. But I agree with Sarah, these are reflective memories, so we can&amp;#039;t get a total feeling of what that person felt at that time, it&amp;#039;s more glossed over sometimes.  I think it&amp;#039;s important to remember that we only captured pieces of their lives in the interview.  There was a lot of really interesting things that I couldn&amp;#039;t all fit in 2 pages, did anyone else have that problem?  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it fascinating that despite the geographical location, many of the women who shared similar socioeconomic statuses had similar experiences. For example, Mrs. Ripley, who Megan interviewed, seemed to be a well-off woman from the South. She had a very similar story to the upper class Northern woman that I interviewed. The main difference I found was that the Northern woman I interviewed was very progressive, while the Southern woman Megan interviewed seemed to be more conservative. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A very surprising trend that I noticed was how easily many of these women would drop what they were doing to get married! Alice Wagner, for example, described the life of Lois Wagner who was attending Mary Washington and quit school in her junior year to get married. This is similar to the person I interviewed who got a highly prestigious grant to do medical research at the Rockefeller Institute for sickle cell anemia and methadone, but met her husband and chose not to attend Rockefeller Institute. These women put so much work towards their education, and they just stop as soon as they got married. That is why I am not surprised that the U.S. Government eventually saw women as a misused resource. – Erin Sanderson&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-08T03:23:41Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie&amp;quot; (p. 225).  We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail.  I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played.  I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women.  They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike.  White women also understood the important of keeping black women&amp;#039;s involvement in the boycotts a secret.  It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired.  I&amp;#039;m just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement?  Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so.  To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two.  My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it.  Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized.  The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well.  I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret.  The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott.   -- Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I&amp;#039;m sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly  content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on &amp;quot;suspicion,&amp;quot; and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. &amp;quot;The white people really believed that. They didn&amp;#039;t see through it all.&amp;quot;(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I&amp;#039;m sure this wasn&amp;#039;t the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie.  I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change.  The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case?   The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen?  Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was.  It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear.  Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed.  It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I&amp;#039;m just more cynical, but I don&amp;#039;t believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the &amp;quot;roar of indignation&amp;quot; over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery&amp;#039;s white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of &amp;quot;respectable women&amp;quot; themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann about not believing that most of the white women wanted to help in the civil rights movement.  There are always going to be those going along with the status quo, especially involving race relations of the times in and around the civil rights movement.  Many white women did NEED those black women to come to work for them for their own reasons, not just to help out those black women who needed a job.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that &amp;quot;the black women needed those jobs&amp;quot; (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with what has been said above about how &amp;quot;helpful&amp;quot; white women were to the civil rights movement. I too am cynical of their real motives for helping and have a sneaky suspicion that they were more motivated by not having to do the work that the black women were do (hence driving them to the jobs that white women avoided) than the innocent desire to help. If black women were fired then white women would have to take up some of the jobs (especially domestic labor)that would not have been acceptable for &amp;quot;respectable women&amp;quot; to work in. Should these women be remembered as helpful or self seeking are personal opinions (I lean more toward self seeking) and it is interesting that they are remembered somewhat fondly here. Perhaps it was an olive branch-remember the white women&amp;#039;s work so they do not get lumped in the same category as the men and maybe they will eventually not have the same beliefs as men? It still strikes me as interesting. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
The line that struck me in this piece was from Mary, &amp;quot;Well, I tell you, Mr. Cliff, I tell you, I learned one thing in my life and that is, when your hand&amp;#039;s in the lion&amp;#039;s mouth, it&amp;#039;s just better to pat it on the head.&amp;quot; (226). The black women knew, like ssellers said, they needed the meager paying jobs in order to survive and it was better to appease the whites than fight them. This also made me relate to Martin Luther King Jr.&amp;#039;s teachings he preached non-violence so in a way the women were acting on his words by not fighting the whites and doing what they needed to in order to get by. This piece made me wonder if without Rosa Parks defiance would MLK Jr. have been as prominent without his speeches on the bus boycott? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has stated, this article was really informative on many levels.  I guess the first thing that struck me was the fact that even though I had heard many times the story of Rosa Parks, it had always been presented that Rosa was just an unsuspecting black woman in the South who was pushed around just one too many times.  I cheered for Rosa standing up to the bigotry.  What I didn’t know was Rosa Parks was no ordinary “typical” black woman.  Instead, she was a Civil Rights activist who stood her ground when her civil liberties were being threatened.  It makes no difference to the circumstances surrounding her arrest and I still cheer her strength, but the facts were never presented completely.  I always wondered how they got that famous picture of the white cop fingerprinting Rosa Parks; now I have some idea.  Second, when learning of the bus boycott, I was never aware of the camaraderie between the black working women and their white employers.  It seems to me that this was due to a combination of things; first the close relationship a number of these women must have had within the household and second the high level of reliability white women had for their help.  EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, lots of comments on this.  The first thing that struck me was, when Mr. Nixon was trying to get Mrs. Parks out of jail, he needed to call white friends to help him.  The white police officers could just deny him the opportunity to talk to Rosa or to bail her out.  The level of prejudice and discrimination in the south through these years is so deep that it kind of never fails to surprise me.  Just to begin with changing the laws of segregation and discrimination must have seemed like a small first step in light of such major social ignorance and prejudice.  -Erin&lt;br /&gt;
 B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the more interesting in this article was the lengths that the whites went to even when blacks were boycotting the busses.  For example, it says the policemen would give white people tickets for giving blacks rides to and from work because they would not take the busses.  It seems like they were turning on their own race and I am incredibly suprised that they would ticket whites for this.  In addition, it is completely illegal, and there is no law about who you can give rides to.  These white women would not quit giving rides because they needed these women to work on time and the best way for that was to help them out and give them rides.  This seems like one of the few times in history where black and white women bonded together, and white women were indirectly helping the civil rights cause. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was a little surprised to hear that it wasn&amp;#039;t the boycott that desegregated the Alabama bus system, but the Supreme Court Decision.  Furr&amp;#039;s writing almost makes it seem that the boycott and the court decision were parallel events.  I know that the boycott put an economic hardship on the bus system, but now I realize that may have not been the only goal.  I am sure public attention was just as important.  Do you think that more people were willing to help the boycott knowing that there was a case going to the supreme court?  Do you think the boycott helped the judicial case?  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was a little surprised to hear that it wasn&amp;#039;t the boycott that desegregated the Alabama bus system, but the Supreme Court Decision.  Furr&amp;#039;s writing almost makes it seem that the boycott and the court decision were parallel events.  I know that the boycott put an economic hardship on the bus system, but now I realize that may have not been the only goal.  I am sure public attention was just as important.  Do you think that more people were willing to help the boycott knowing that there was a case going to the supreme court?  Do you think the boycott helped the judicial case?  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What caught my &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced.  In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;:  &amp;quot;forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies.&amp;quot;  So, the procedure was a permanent birth control.  I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455).  I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking.  Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I&amp;#039;ve only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin.  The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression.  They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable.  The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from  multiplying.  I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane.  When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing.  The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women.  Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace.  Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies.  I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities?   I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior.  I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with abratchi.The Chicanas were vehemently fighting for control over their own bodies, but isn&amp;#039;t that what every woman wants, regardless of race or class? --Anna Holman &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, but I think it can be extended further than just what every WOMAN wants, and can be broadened to include men as well. No one wants to feel as if they have no control over thier own bodies or life and when that personal sense of control is taken away is when people revolt against their oppressor. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality.  I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455).  Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too.  The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against.  – Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reading is a good reminder that the rights movements were about more than just African Americans and white women, though those are the movements that tend to be recognized the most. In this case, Chicanas were challenging both a racial and sexual social oppression. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think it’s interesting that they were encouraged away from activism because it was considered an “Anglo thing,” at least according to the men who wanted them to stay out it. Considering the first national convention for Raza women was in 1971, how could anyone even have gotten away with that argument, when African Americans had been in the public eye fighting for their social equality for many years&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve read a bit previously about the double burden of black women, and it seemed to me that this description of triple discrimination is really the same thing. I&amp;#039;m a bit skeptical of the third designation, that of job discrimination--not that it doesn&amp;#039;t exist (for of course it does), but rather because of the implication that this discrimination is only an issue with Chicanas, and it almost seems that Vidal is trying to elevate the issue to seem as if Chicanas are more oppressed than women of other minorities, which is not entirely true (much depends on region, etc). I found Vidal&amp;#039;s arguments much more successful when she focused on the sterilization, an instance of extreme racism and sexism that is specific to the Chicana community. It was interesting to hear some of the same rhetoric that I&amp;#039;ve encountered in feminist arguments published last year, much less 40 years ago. At one point I forgot it was the early seventies altogether!  --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Vidal is simply explaining the obstacles and prejudices Chicanas face. It sounds like she&amp;#039;s asserting their cultural identity and drawing attention to specific ways in which they as women, Chicanas and working class are oppressed or discriminated against and not necessarily comparing this to the tribulations of other women or minorities. I loved that she points out that &amp;#039;machismo&amp;#039; is a product of the cultural introduction of European sex roles to the new world.  I&amp;#039;m always happy to read about all of the civil rights movements inspired by the African American Civil Rights movement. -Erin b&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting when I read pieces about women of different ethnicities speak about women&amp;#039;s rights. A lot of times women of ethnicities other than white were not able to come together in the fight for equal rights with those white women because of the color of their skin. They do seem to have many of the same issues, however. In this piece Mirta Vidal talks about being seen as inferior to the opposite sex, women fought to end all forced sterilizations, and the Chicana women were even concerned about having childcare available to them. I find it so interesting that many blacks and Hispanic women had to form their own women&amp;#039;s groups for equal rights when they were facing many of the same problems that other white women were at the same time. Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Sarah about the third form of discrimination, I think that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Vidal is commenting on the exploitation of Latino’s by employers in agriculture. I am not saying that this did not, and does not continue to happen to workers of other races, but I think a large portion of those exploited farm, nursery, orchard etc. workers that were and are  Latino&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Going off of that, I was struck by the trifecta of oppression that Vidal was illustrating. “Raza women suffer a triple form of oppression: as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers and as women” (455). Not only are these women oppressed in these ways, but she explained that they were oppressed within their culture by male chauvinism. Furthermore, she blames this “machismo” on European colonists in what seems like an argument against European Imperialism. I cannot say either way if I agree with that notion because I really don’t know enough about Latino culture prior to European occupation of the America’s, but I would venture to say, from what I know about history, she is probably making a valid point. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;More Than a Lady&amp;quot; Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women&amp;#039;s Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn&amp;#039;t completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike &amp;amp; proper, even when shipping off to jail.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; If she didn&amp;#039;t truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn&amp;#039;t have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson&amp;#039;s voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man&amp;#039;s voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;must&amp;#039;&amp;#039; belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it&amp;#039;s sad that she didn&amp;#039;t live to see all the progress that&amp;#039;s been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson&amp;#039;s actions &amp;quot;fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness&amp;quot; (pg 557), a trait we&amp;#039;ve seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more &amp;quot;feminine&amp;quot; when they tried to speak out or organize. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Anna&amp;#039;s comment, I do not think it is necessarily a bad thing that Robinson was attributed male qualities. The action of gifting a woman masculine qualities as a result of her endeavors or opinions is something that we have seen time and time again. Rather than looking at it in a derogatory light, maybe we should embrace it for all it is worth because like Mary Ann said, she is a strong individual. Even today, women struggle  male dominated in male dominated environments and the hard work that requires them to get there. Case in point: the US military or the US Naval Academy.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;More than a Lady&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women.  I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how &amp;quot;Ebony&amp;quot; tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman.  The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job.  An interesting example she used  was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work.  An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities.  These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility.  With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in?  As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together.  If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were.  To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman.   --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really was interested by the experience of the black model who was too light skinned to represent the African Americans, but too dark to represent the whites. That is just ridiculous to me in today&amp;#039;s terms, especially since in black and white print you probably wouldn&amp;#039;t be able to differentiate between whether she was white or light skinned black or a subtle shade of orange. It&amp;#039;s not often that you think about the hardships of the models in the modeling industry, but it was enlighening to read about this experience of exclusion solely because you happened to be too light skinned, but not light skinned enough. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Laila Haidarali, &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds,&amp;quot; African American Women, Popular Magazines, and Modeling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was interested to read about magazines lightening the skin tones of models for white magazines. I’m far from surprised, even if I hadn’t heard of it being done before reading this article. It’s sort of a way to keep that “exotic” look, yet with more acceptable skin color. What’s most interesting to me is that it is still goes on today. For instance, check out a comparison of [http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/img/blog/aug08/blog080808_beyonce2.jpg Beyonce] in a Paris L’Oreal ad to what she actually looks like. As if Beyonce didn’t already have fairly light skin. I’d say she probably fits into the “Brownskin” the article talks about. So, how would you like to explain yourself Paris L’Oreal? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this article spoke of &amp;quot;Brownskin&amp;quot; models, I was not aware of how racially ambiguous they appeared. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;[http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1364/1294691395_9722feeb99.jpg Sylvia Fitt]&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article though eye-opening was not incredibly surprising. It is sad to see that though blacks were being accepted in some aspects of life and society, they process of &amp;quot;fitting in&amp;quot; or perhaps aesthetic assimilation is something that will never come to fruition.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taylor and Anna thanks for the links! The Beyonce one is really creepy--even the amount of touching up they do to so-called &amp;quot;perfect&amp;quot; women&amp;#039;s photos is enough to set me off, but she&amp;#039;s really a totally different shade! And I would have assumed that Sylvia Fitt was Caucasian, except that the picture is in Jet! I knew to some extent that darker-skinned models and those with what are considered &amp;quot;African&amp;quot; features (as opposed to &amp;quot;European,&amp;quot; I assume) were discriminated against in the modeling industry, and this article definitely reinforced that, but the racial ambiguity of these &amp;quot;Brownskin&amp;quot; models is really something else. I also was very intrigued by the description of the &amp;quot;What Happened to the Brandford Models?&amp;quot; article, and how these models were presented as not only body or beauty ideals, but also as models of femininity and motherhood and all that &amp;quot;cult of domesticity&amp;quot; business. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;We Marched for Our Rights,&amp;quot; Rev. Naomi Craig ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last line of this article struck me the most, &amp;quot;I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to.&amp;quot; If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article was really inspiring to me and also showed me the true difference between the North and South, it was not something we just read about, it was a reality. Naomi Craig was scared for her son and daughter&amp;#039;s welfare but never stopped them from growing into the people they wanted to be, amongst all the racial differences she let them attend school in the South and travel to a place that appeared to be on a different continent, not states inside the United States. I also wanted to note on the line she stated, &amp;quot;I had never been around so many Blacks before; I thought it was wonderful. I felt they were all so pretty, all different colors.&amp;quot; That was the most inspiring line for me, Mrs. Craig saw beyond first appearances she believed color was beautiful why could America not do the same? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was going to quote that same like Megan did! I found it so interesting that she commented on the various skin tones of the other African-Americans at her daughter&amp;#039;s school. You always hear of black and white, not normally of all the varying skin tones.  Her reasoning for not protesting the Vietnam war was admirable. &amp;quot;How could I protest it, when he was already in there and his mother was heartbroken. I couldn&amp;#039;t protest. One woman protesting, making a mother feel her son was over there in vain.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m sure there were many others who feel that way, as I feel many people today feel that way about our current wars in the Middle East... Her reactions to MLK Jr&amp;#039;s death was felt by many across the nation as well I&amp;#039;m sure. &amp;quot;Here was a man who stood for beauty. He stood for everybody. He didn&amp;#039;t just fight for Blacks, he fought for anyone who needed rights.&amp;quot;  Such a lasting impact one individual could make on an entire nation.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked reading this piece on Naomi Craig. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I love reading personal stories of people who actually got to experience what we learn about in class.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Mrs.Craig&amp;#039;s point of view was a unique one because she was from the North. She said she felt naive. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I wonder if a lot of black people from the North felt naive that they didn&amp;#039;t really know how bad it really was in the South.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; There were two parts that struck me in particular. One was when she was talking about the war in Vietnam. She said that even though she didn&amp;#039;t agree with the war she didn&amp;#039;t protest it either because she felt bad for those soldiers who went in and for their mothers. This was interesting because she gave an African American view of the Vietnam war. I also liked the part about when she went to Washington DC for the March on Washington. She said, &amp;quot;Look, this is history. We need to be in this.&amp;quot; Her desire to be a part of this historical day and event reminded me of how I think a lot of black Americans and even white Americans felt about the inauguration of President Obama. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rev. Naomi Craig’s interview was quite interesting. We hear and read so much about the Southern African Americans during this time; it is nice to have a perspective of a Northern African American.  I was touched by the same section as Megan and Christine. Craig’s description of her naivety of the south and how beautiful it was to see so many black people in one place at the college  was touching. I was also intrigued by her comments on finding employment and searching for a home. Craig explains “here I was dressed lovely, thinking that was the first step. And here was some dowdy, ugly woman telling me I couldn&amp;#039;t have a job.” Illustrating that during the depression era there were limited jobs and even further limitations for African American women. Her description of the trouble she faced buying a house in Rhode Island was kind of heart breaking. I couldn’t imagine getting my hopes up in a phone conversation with a realtor just to have him see the color of my skin and tell me there are no houses available. She couldn&amp;#039;t even hold her own mortgage, she had to have a white man hold it! This just proves that it is a great misconception that racial discrimination only took place in the South.-Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have never really connected the Vietnam War with the Civil Rights movement before.  I know that many groups like the Black Panthers were against it, but they were only part of it.  I would think that the Vietnam would take away momentum from the Civil Rights movement, as it was more than just a race issue.  Is it possible to protest a war from just a view on how it is racist?  It seems to me that would take away from both the Civil Rights and the anti-war cause.  - J Rowley&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-08T03:22:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie&amp;quot; (p. 225).  We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail.  I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played.  I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women.  They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike.  White women also understood the important of keeping black women&amp;#039;s involvement in the boycotts a secret.  It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired.  I&amp;#039;m just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement?  Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so.  To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two.  My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it.  Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized.  The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well.  I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret.  The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott.   -- Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I&amp;#039;m sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly  content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on &amp;quot;suspicion,&amp;quot; and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. &amp;quot;The white people really believed that. They didn&amp;#039;t see through it all.&amp;quot;(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I&amp;#039;m sure this wasn&amp;#039;t the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie.  I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change.  The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case?   The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen?  Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was.  It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear.  Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed.  It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I&amp;#039;m just more cynical, but I don&amp;#039;t believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the &amp;quot;roar of indignation&amp;quot; over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery&amp;#039;s white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of &amp;quot;respectable women&amp;quot; themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann about not believing that most of the white women wanted to help in the civil rights movement.  There are always going to be those going along with the status quo, especially involving race relations of the times in and around the civil rights movement.  Many white women did NEED those black women to come to work for them for their own reasons, not just to help out those black women who needed a job.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that &amp;quot;the black women needed those jobs&amp;quot; (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with what has been said above about how &amp;quot;helpful&amp;quot; white women were to the civil rights movement. I too am cynical of their real motives for helping and have a sneaky suspicion that they were more motivated by not having to do the work that the black women were do (hence driving them to the jobs that white women avoided) than the innocent desire to help. If black women were fired then white women would have to take up some of the jobs (especially domestic labor)that would not have been acceptable for &amp;quot;respectable women&amp;quot; to work in. Should these women be remembered as helpful or self seeking are personal opinions (I lean more toward self seeking) and it is interesting that they are remembered somewhat fondly here. Perhaps it was an olive branch-remember the white women&amp;#039;s work so they do not get lumped in the same category as the men and maybe they will eventually not have the same beliefs as men? It still strikes me as interesting. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
The line that struck me in this piece was from Mary, &amp;quot;Well, I tell you, Mr. Cliff, I tell you, I learned one thing in my life and that is, when your hand&amp;#039;s in the lion&amp;#039;s mouth, it&amp;#039;s just better to pat it on the head.&amp;quot; (226). The black women knew, like ssellers said, they needed the meager paying jobs in order to survive and it was better to appease the whites than fight them. This also made me relate to Martin Luther King Jr.&amp;#039;s teachings he preached non-violence so in a way the women were acting on his words by not fighting the whites and doing what they needed to in order to get by. This piece made me wonder if without Rosa Parks defiance would MLK Jr. have been as prominent without his speeches on the bus boycott? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has stated, this article was really informative on many levels.  I guess the first thing that struck me was the fact that even though I had heard many times the story of Rosa Parks, it had always been presented that Rosa was just an unsuspecting black woman in the South who was pushed around just one too many times.  I cheered for Rosa standing up to the bigotry.  What I didn’t know was Rosa Parks was no ordinary “typical” black woman.  Instead, she was a Civil Rights activist who stood her ground when her civil liberties were being threatened.  It makes no difference to the circumstances surrounding her arrest and I still cheer her strength, but the facts were never presented completely.  I always wondered how they got that famous picture of the white cop fingerprinting Rosa Parks; now I have some idea.  Second, when learning of the bus boycott, I was never aware of the camaraderie between the black working women and their white employers.  It seems to me that this was due to a combination of things; first the close relationship a number of these women must have had within the household and second the high level of reliability white women had for their help.  EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, lots of comments on this.  The first thing that struck me was, when Mr. Nixon was trying to get Mrs. Parks out of jail, he needed to call white friends to help him.  The white police officers could just deny him the opportunity to talk to Rosa or to bail her out.  The level of prejudice and discrimination in the south through these years is so deep that it kind of never fails to surprise me.  Just to begin with changing the laws of segregation and discrimination must have seemed like a small first step in light of such major social ignorance and prejudice.  -Erin&lt;br /&gt;
 B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the more interesting in this article was the lengths that the whites went to even when blacks were boycotting the busses.  For example, it says the policemen would give white people tickets for giving blacks rides to and from work because they would not take the busses.  It seems like they were turning on their own race and I am incredibly suprised that they would ticket whites for this.  In addition, it is completely illegal, and there is no law about who you can give rides to.  These white women would not quit giving rides because they needed these women to work on time and the best way for that was to help them out and give them rides.  This seems like one of the few times in history where black and white women bonded together, and white women were indirectly helping the civil rights cause. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was a little surprised to hear that it wasn&amp;#039;t the boycott that desegregated the Alabama bus system, but the Supreme Court Decision.  Furr&amp;#039;s writing almost makes it seem that the boycott and the court decision were parallel events.  I know that the boycott put an economic hardship on the bus system, but now I realize that may have not been the only goal.  I am sure public attention was just as important.  Do you think that more people were willing to help the boycott knowing that there was a case going to the supreme court?  Do you think the boycott helped the judicial case?  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was a little surprised to hear that it wasn&amp;#039;t the boycott that desegregated the Alabama bus system, but the Supreme Court Decision.  Furr&amp;#039;s writing almost makes it seem that the boycott and the court decision were parallel events.  I know that the boycott put an economic hardship on the bus system, but now I realize that may have not been the only goal.  I am sure public attention was just as important.  Do you think that more people were willing to help the boycott knowing that there was a case going to the supreme court?  Do you think the boycott helped the judicial case?  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What caught my &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced.  In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;:  &amp;quot;forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies.&amp;quot;  So, the procedure was a permanent birth control.  I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455).  I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking.  Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I&amp;#039;ve only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin.  The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression.  They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable.  The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from  multiplying.  I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane.  When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing.  The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women.  Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace.  Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies.  I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities?   I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior.  I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with abratchi.The Chicanas were vehemently fighting for control over their own bodies, but isn&amp;#039;t that what every woman wants, regardless of race or class? --Anna Holman &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, but I think it can be extended further than just what every WOMAN wants, and can be broadened to include men as well. No one wants to feel as if they have no control over thier own bodies or life and when that personal sense of control is taken away is when people revolt against their oppressor. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality.  I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455).  Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too.  The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against.  – Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reading is a good reminder that the rights movements were about more than just African Americans and white women, though those are the movements that tend to be recognized the most. In this case, Chicanas were challenging both a racial and sexual social oppression. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think it’s interesting that they were encouraged away from activism because it was considered an “Anglo thing,” at least according to the men who wanted them to stay out it. Considering the first national convention for Raza women was in 1971, how could anyone even have gotten away with that argument, when African Americans had been in the public eye fighting for their social equality for many years&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve read a bit previously about the double burden of black women, and it seemed to me that this description of triple discrimination is really the same thing. I&amp;#039;m a bit skeptical of the third designation, that of job discrimination--not that it doesn&amp;#039;t exist (for of course it does), but rather because of the implication that this discrimination is only an issue with Chicanas, and it almost seems that Vidal is trying to elevate the issue to seem as if Chicanas are more oppressed than women of other minorities, which is not entirely true (much depends on region, etc). I found Vidal&amp;#039;s arguments much more successful when she focused on the sterilization, an instance of extreme racism and sexism that is specific to the Chicana community. It was interesting to hear some of the same rhetoric that I&amp;#039;ve encountered in feminist arguments published last year, much less 40 years ago. At one point I forgot it was the early seventies altogether!  --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Vidal is simply explaining the obstacles and prejudices Chicanas face. It sounds like she&amp;#039;s asserting their cultural identity and drawing attention to specific ways in which they as women, Chicanas and working class are oppressed or discriminated against and not necessarily comparing this to the tribulations of other women or minorities. I loved that she points out that &amp;#039;machismo&amp;#039; is a product of the cultural introduction of European sex roles to the new world.  I&amp;#039;m always happy to read about all of the civil rights movements inspired by the African American Civil Rights movement. -Erin b&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting when I read pieces about women of different ethnicities speak about women&amp;#039;s rights. A lot of times women of ethnicities other than white were not able to come together in the fight for equal rights with those white women because of the color of their skin. They do seem to have many of the same issues, however. In this piece Mirta Vidal talks about being seen as inferior to the opposite sex, women fought to end all forced sterilizations, and the Chicana women were even concerned about having childcare available to them. I find it so interesting that many blacks and Hispanic women had to form their own women&amp;#039;s groups for equal rights when they were facing many of the same problems that other white women were at the same time. Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Sarah about the third form of discrimination, I think that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Vidal is commenting on the exploitation of Latino’s by employers in agriculture. I am not saying that this did not, and does not continue to happen to workers of other races, but I think a large portion of those exploited farm, nursery, orchard etc. workers that were and are  Latino&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Going off of that, I was struck by the trifecta of oppression that Vidal was illustrating. “Raza women suffer a triple form of oppression: as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers and as women” (455). Not only are these women oppressed in these ways, but she explained that they were oppressed within their culture by male chauvinism. Furthermore, she blames this “machismo” on European colonists in what seems like an argument against European Imperialism. I cannot say either way if I agree with that notion because I really don’t know enough about Latino culture prior to European occupation of the America’s, but I would venture to say, from what I know about history, she is probably making a valid point. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;More Than a Lady&amp;quot; Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women&amp;#039;s Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn&amp;#039;t completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike &amp;amp; proper, even when shipping off to jail.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; If she didn&amp;#039;t truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn&amp;#039;t have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson&amp;#039;s voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man&amp;#039;s voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;must&amp;#039;&amp;#039; belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it&amp;#039;s sad that she didn&amp;#039;t live to see all the progress that&amp;#039;s been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson&amp;#039;s actions &amp;quot;fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness&amp;quot; (pg 557), a trait we&amp;#039;ve seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more &amp;quot;feminine&amp;quot; when they tried to speak out or organize. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Anna&amp;#039;s comment, I do not think it is necessarily a bad thing that Robinson was attributed male qualities. The action of gifting a woman masculine qualities as a result of her endeavors or opinions is something that we have seen time and time again. Rather than looking at it in a derogatory light, maybe we should embrace it for all it is worth because like Mary Ann said, she is a strong individual. Even today, women struggle  male dominated in male dominated environments and the hard work that requires them to get there. Case in point: the US military or the US Naval Academy.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;More than a Lady&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women.  I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how &amp;quot;Ebony&amp;quot; tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman.  The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job.  An interesting example she used  was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work.  An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities.  These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility.  With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in?  As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together.  If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were.  To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman.   --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really was interested by the experience of the black model who was too light skinned to represent the African Americans, but too dark to represent the whites. That is just ridiculous to me in today&amp;#039;s terms, especially since in black and white print you probably wouldn&amp;#039;t be able to differentiate between whether she was white or light skinned black or a subtle shade of orange. It&amp;#039;s not often that you think about the hardships of the models in the modeling industry, but it was enlighening to read about this experience of exclusion solely because you happened to be too light skinned, but not light skinned enough. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Laila Haidarali, &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds,&amp;quot; African American Women, Popular Magazines, and Modeling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was interested to read about magazines lightening the skin tones of models for white magazines. I’m far from surprised, even if I hadn’t heard of it being done before reading this article. It’s sort of a way to keep that “exotic” look, yet with more acceptable skin color. What’s most interesting to me is that it is still goes on today. For instance, check out a comparison of [http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/img/blog/aug08/blog080808_beyonce2.jpg Beyonce] in a Paris L’Oreal ad to what she actually looks like. As if Beyonce didn’t already have fairly light skin. I’d say she probably fits into the “Brownskin” the article talks about. So, how would you like to explain yourself Paris L’Oreal? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this article spoke of &amp;quot;Brownskin&amp;quot; models, I was not aware of how racially ambiguous they appeared. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;[http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1364/1294691395_9722feeb99.jpg Sylvia Fitt]&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article though eye-opening was not incredibly surprising. It is sad to see that though blacks were being accepted in some aspects of life and society, they process of &amp;quot;fitting in&amp;quot; or perhaps aesthetic assimilation is something that will never come to fruition.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taylor and Anna thanks for the links! The Beyonce one is really creepy--even the amount of touching up they do to so-called &amp;quot;perfect&amp;quot; women&amp;#039;s photos is enough to set me off, but she&amp;#039;s really a totally different shade! And I would have assumed that Sylvia Fitt was Caucasian, except that the picture is in Jet! I knew to some extent that darker-skinned models and those with what are considered &amp;quot;African&amp;quot; features (as opposed to &amp;quot;European,&amp;quot; I assume) were discriminated against in the modeling industry, and this article definitely reinforced that, but the racial ambiguity of these &amp;quot;Brownskin&amp;quot; models is really something else. I also was very intrigued by the description of the &amp;quot;What Happened to the Brandford Models?&amp;quot; article, and how these models were presented as not only body or beauty ideals, but also as models of femininity and motherhood and all that &amp;quot;cult of domesticity&amp;quot; business. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;We Marched for Our Rights,&amp;quot; Rev. Naomi Craig ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last line of this article struck me the most, &amp;quot;I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to.&amp;quot; If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article was really inspiring to me and also showed me the true difference between the North and South, it was not something we just read about, it was a reality. Naomi Craig was scared for her son and daughter&amp;#039;s welfare but never stopped them from growing into the people they wanted to be, amongst all the racial differences she let them attend school in the South and travel to a place that appeared to be on a different continent, not states inside the United States. I also wanted to note on the line she stated, &amp;quot;I had never been around so many Blacks before; I thought it was wonderful. I felt they were all so pretty, all different colors.&amp;quot; That was the most inspiring line for me, Mrs. Craig saw beyond first appearances she believed color was beautiful why could America not do the same? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was going to quote that same like Megan did! I found it so interesting that she commented on the various skin tones of the other African-Americans at her daughter&amp;#039;s school. You always hear of black and white, not normally of all the varying skin tones.  Her reasoning for not protesting the Vietnam war was admirable. &amp;quot;How could I protest it, when he was already in there and his mother was heartbroken. I couldn&amp;#039;t protest. One woman protesting, making a mother feel her son was over there in vain.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m sure there were many others who feel that way, as I feel many people today feel that way about our current wars in the Middle East... Her reactions to MLK Jr&amp;#039;s death was felt by many across the nation as well I&amp;#039;m sure. &amp;quot;Here was a man who stood for beauty. He stood for everybody. He didn&amp;#039;t just fight for Blacks, he fought for anyone who needed rights.&amp;quot;  Such a lasting impact one individual could make on an entire nation.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked reading this piece on Naomi Craig. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I love reading personal stories of people who actually got to experience what we learn about in class.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Mrs.Craig&amp;#039;s point of view was a unique one because she was from the North. She said she felt naive. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I wonder if a lot of black people from the North felt naive that they didn&amp;#039;t really know how bad it really was in the South.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; There were two parts that struck me in particular. One was when she was talking about the war in Vietnam. She said that even though she didn&amp;#039;t agree with the war she didn&amp;#039;t protest it either because she felt bad for those soldiers who went in and for their mothers. This was interesting because she gave an African American view of the Vietnam war. I also liked the part about when she went to Washington DC for the March on Washington. She said, &amp;quot;Look, this is history. We need to be in this.&amp;quot; Her desire to be a part of this historical day and event reminded me of how I think a lot of black Americans and even white Americans felt about the inauguration of President Obama. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rev. Naomi Craig’s interview was quite interesting. We hear and read so much about the Southern African Americans during this time; it is nice to have a perspective of a Northern African American.  I was touched by the same section as Megan and Christine. Craig’s description of her naivety of the south and how beautiful it was to see so many black people in one place at the college  was touching. I was also intrigued by her comments on finding employment and searching for a home. Craig explains “here I was dressed lovely, thinking that was the first step. And here was some dowdy, ugly woman telling me I couldn&amp;#039;t have a job.” Illustrating that during the depression era there were limited jobs and even further limitations for African American women. Her description of the trouble she faced buying a house in Rhode Island was kind of heart breaking. I couldn’t imagine getting my hopes up in a phone conversation with a realtor just to have him see the color of my skin and tell me there are no houses available. She couldn&amp;#039;t even hold her own mortgage, she had to have a white man hold it! This just proves that it is a great misconception that racial discrimination only took place in the South.-Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have never really connected the Vietnam War with the Civil Rights movement before.  I know that many groups like the Black Panthers were against it, but they were only part of it.  I would think that the Vietnam would take away momentum from the Civil Rights movement, as it was more than just a race issue.  Is it possible to protest a war from just a view on how it is racist?  It seems to me that would take away from both the Civil Rights and the anti-war cause.  - J Rowley&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-08T03:20:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie&amp;quot; (p. 225).  We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail.  I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played.  I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women.  They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike.  White women also understood the important of keeping black women&amp;#039;s involvement in the boycotts a secret.  It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired.  I&amp;#039;m just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement?  Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so.  To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two.  My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it.  Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized.  The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well.  I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret.  The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott.   -- Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I&amp;#039;m sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly  content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on &amp;quot;suspicion,&amp;quot; and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. &amp;quot;The white people really believed that. They didn&amp;#039;t see through it all.&amp;quot;(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I&amp;#039;m sure this wasn&amp;#039;t the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie.  I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change.  The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case?   The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen?  Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was.  It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear.  Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed.  It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I&amp;#039;m just more cynical, but I don&amp;#039;t believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the &amp;quot;roar of indignation&amp;quot; over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery&amp;#039;s white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of &amp;quot;respectable women&amp;quot; themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann about not believing that most of the white women wanted to help in the civil rights movement.  There are always going to be those going along with the status quo, especially involving race relations of the times in and around the civil rights movement.  Many white women did NEED those black women to come to work for them for their own reasons, not just to help out those black women who needed a job.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that &amp;quot;the black women needed those jobs&amp;quot; (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with what has been said above about how &amp;quot;helpful&amp;quot; white women were to the civil rights movement. I too am cynical of their real motives for helping and have a sneaky suspicion that they were more motivated by not having to do the work that the black women were do (hence driving them to the jobs that white women avoided) than the innocent desire to help. If black women were fired then white women would have to take up some of the jobs (especially domestic labor)that would not have been acceptable for &amp;quot;respectable women&amp;quot; to work in. Should these women be remembered as helpful or self seeking are personal opinions (I lean more toward self seeking) and it is interesting that they are remembered somewhat fondly here. Perhaps it was an olive branch-remember the white women&amp;#039;s work so they do not get lumped in the same category as the men and maybe they will eventually not have the same beliefs as men? It still strikes me as interesting. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
The line that struck me in this piece was from Mary, &amp;quot;Well, I tell you, Mr. Cliff, I tell you, I learned one thing in my life and that is, when your hand&amp;#039;s in the lion&amp;#039;s mouth, it&amp;#039;s just better to pat it on the head.&amp;quot; (226). The black women knew, like ssellers said, they needed the meager paying jobs in order to survive and it was better to appease the whites than fight them. This also made me relate to Martin Luther King Jr.&amp;#039;s teachings he preached non-violence so in a way the women were acting on his words by not fighting the whites and doing what they needed to in order to get by. This piece made me wonder if without Rosa Parks defiance would MLK Jr. have been as prominent without his speeches on the bus boycott? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has stated, this article was really informative on many levels.  I guess the first thing that struck me was the fact that even though I had heard many times the story of Rosa Parks, it had always been presented that Rosa was just an unsuspecting black woman in the South who was pushed around just one too many times.  I cheered for Rosa standing up to the bigotry.  What I didn’t know was Rosa Parks was no ordinary “typical” black woman.  Instead, she was a Civil Rights activist who stood her ground when her civil liberties were being threatened.  It makes no difference to the circumstances surrounding her arrest and I still cheer her strength, but the facts were never presented completely.  I always wondered how they got that famous picture of the white cop fingerprinting Rosa Parks; now I have some idea.  Second, when learning of the bus boycott, I was never aware of the camaraderie between the black working women and their white employers.  It seems to me that this was due to a combination of things; first the close relationship a number of these women must have had within the household and second the high level of reliability white women had for their help.  EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, lots of comments on this.  The first thing that struck me was, when Mr. Nixon was trying to get Mrs. Parks out of jail, he needed to call white friends to help him.  The white police officers could just deny him the opportunity to talk to Rosa or to bail her out.  The level of prejudice and discrimination in the south through these years is so deep that it kind of never fails to surprise me.  Just to begin with changing the laws of segregation and discrimination must have seemed like a small first step in light of such major social ignorance and prejudice.  -Erin&lt;br /&gt;
 B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the more interesting in this article was the lengths that the whites went to even when blacks were boycotting the busses.  For example, it says the policemen would give white people tickets for giving blacks rides to and from work because they would not take the busses.  It seems like they were turning on their own race and I am incredibly suprised that they would ticket whites for this.  In addition, it is completely illegal, and there is no law about who you can give rides to.  These white women would not quit giving rides because they needed these women to work on time and the best way for that was to help them out and give them rides.  This seems like one of the few times in history where black and white women bonded together, and white women were indirectly helping the civil rights cause. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was a little surprised to hear that it wasn&amp;#039;t the boycott that desegregated the Alabama bus system, but the Supreme Court Decision.  Furr&amp;#039;s writing almost makes it seem that the boycott and the court decision were parallel events.  I know that the boycott put an economic hardship on the bus system, but now I realize that may have not been the only goal.  I am sure public attention was just as important.  Do you think that more people were willing to help the boycott knowing that there was a case going to the supreme court?  Do you think the boycott helped the judicial case?  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was a little surprised to hear that it wasn&amp;#039;t the boycott that desegregated the Alabama bus system, but the Supreme Court Decision.  Furr&amp;#039;s writing almost makes it seem that the boycott and the court decision were parallel events.  I know that the boycott put an economic hardship on the bus system, but now I realize that may have not been the only goal.  I am sure public attention was just as important.  Do you think that more people were willing to help the boycott knowing that there was a case going to the supreme court?  Do you think the boycott helped the judicial case?  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What caught my &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced.  In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;:  &amp;quot;forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies.&amp;quot;  So, the procedure was a permanent birth control.  I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455).  I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking.  Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I&amp;#039;ve only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin.  The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression.  They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable.  The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from  multiplying.  I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane.  When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing.  The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women.  Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace.  Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies.  I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities?   I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior.  I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with abratchi.The Chicanas were vehemently fighting for control over their own bodies, but isn&amp;#039;t that what every woman wants, regardless of race or class? --Anna Holman &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality.  I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455).  Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too.  The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against.  – Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reading is a good reminder that the rights movements were about more than just African Americans and white women, though those are the movements that tend to be recognized the most. In this case, Chicanas were challenging both a racial and sexual social oppression. I think it’s interesting that they were encouraged away from activism because it was considered an “Anglo thing,” at least according to the men who wanted them to stay out it. Considering the first national convention for Raza women was in 1971, how could anyone even have gotten away with that argument, when African Americans had been in the public eye fighting for their social equality for many years? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve read a bit previously about the double burden of black women, and it seemed to me that this description of triple discrimination is really the same thing. I&amp;#039;m a bit skeptical of the third designation, that of job discrimination--not that it doesn&amp;#039;t exist (for of course it does), but rather because of the implication that this discrimination is only an issue with Chicanas, and it almost seems that Vidal is trying to elevate the issue to seem as if Chicanas are more oppressed than women of other minorities, which is not entirely true (much depends on region, etc). I found Vidal&amp;#039;s arguments much more successful when she focused on the sterilization, an instance of extreme racism and sexism that is specific to the Chicana community. It was interesting to hear some of the same rhetoric that I&amp;#039;ve encountered in feminist arguments published last year, much less 40 years ago. At one point I forgot it was the early seventies altogether!  --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Vidal is simply explaining the obstacles and prejudices Chicanas face. It sounds like she&amp;#039;s asserting their cultural identity and drawing attention to specific ways in which they as women, Chicanas and working class are oppressed or discriminated against and not necessarily comparing this to the tribulations of other women or minorities. I loved that she points out that &amp;#039;machismo&amp;#039; is a product of the cultural introduction of European sex roles to the new world.  I&amp;#039;m always happy to read about all of the civil rights movements inspired by the African American Civil Rights movement. -Erin b&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting when I read pieces about women of different ethnicities speak about women&amp;#039;s rights. A lot of times women of ethnicities other than white were not able to come together in the fight for equal rights with those white women because of the color of their skin. They do seem to have many of the same issues, however. In this piece Mirta Vidal talks about being seen as inferior to the opposite sex, women fought to end all forced sterilizations, and the Chicana women were even concerned about having childcare available to them. I find it so interesting that many blacks and Hispanic women had to form their own women&amp;#039;s groups for equal rights when they were facing many of the same problems that other white women were at the same time. Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Sarah about the third form of discrimination, I think that Vidal is commenting on the exploitation of Latino’s by employers in agriculture. I am not saying that this did not, and does not continue to happen to workers of other races, but I think a large portion of those exploited farm, nursery, orchard etc. workers that were and are  Latino. Going off of that, I was struck by the trifecta of oppression that Vidal was illustrating. “Raza women suffer a triple form of oppression: as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers and as women” (455). Not only are these women oppressed in these ways, but she explained that they were oppressed within their culture by male chauvinism. Furthermore, she blames this “machismo” on European colonists in what seems like an argument against European Imperialism. I cannot say either way if I agree with that notion because I really don’t know enough about Latino culture prior to European occupation of the America’s, but I would venture to say, from what I know about history, she is probably making a valid point. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;More Than a Lady&amp;quot; Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women&amp;#039;s Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn&amp;#039;t completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike &amp;amp; proper, even when shipping off to jail.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; If she didn&amp;#039;t truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn&amp;#039;t have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson&amp;#039;s voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man&amp;#039;s voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;must&amp;#039;&amp;#039; belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it&amp;#039;s sad that she didn&amp;#039;t live to see all the progress that&amp;#039;s been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson&amp;#039;s actions &amp;quot;fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness&amp;quot; (pg 557), a trait we&amp;#039;ve seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more &amp;quot;feminine&amp;quot; when they tried to speak out or organize. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Anna&amp;#039;s comment, I do not think it is necessarily a bad thing that Robinson was attributed male qualities. The action of gifting a woman masculine qualities as a result of her endeavors or opinions is something that we have seen time and time again. Rather than looking at it in a derogatory light, maybe we should embrace it for all it is worth because like Mary Ann said, she is a strong individual. Even today, women struggle  male dominated in male dominated environments and the hard work that requires them to get there. Case in point: the US military or the US Naval Academy.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;More than a Lady&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women.  I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how &amp;quot;Ebony&amp;quot; tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman.  The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job.  An interesting example she used  was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work.  An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities.  These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility.  With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in?  As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together.  If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were.  To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman.   --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really was interested by the experience of the black model who was too light skinned to represent the African Americans, but too dark to represent the whites. That is just ridiculous to me in today&amp;#039;s terms, especially since in black and white print you probably wouldn&amp;#039;t be able to differentiate between whether she was white or light skinned black or a subtle shade of orange. It&amp;#039;s not often that you think about the hardships of the models in the modeling industry, but it was enlighening to read about this experience of exclusion solely because you happened to be too light skinned, but not light skinned enough. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Laila Haidarali, &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds,&amp;quot; African American Women, Popular Magazines, and Modeling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was interested to read about magazines lightening the skin tones of models for white magazines. I’m far from surprised, even if I hadn’t heard of it being done before reading this article. It’s sort of a way to keep that “exotic” look, yet with more acceptable skin color. What’s most interesting to me is that it is still goes on today. For instance, check out a comparison of [http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/img/blog/aug08/blog080808_beyonce2.jpg Beyonce] in a Paris L’Oreal ad to what she actually looks like. As if Beyonce didn’t already have fairly light skin. I’d say she probably fits into the “Brownskin” the article talks about. So, how would you like to explain yourself Paris L’Oreal? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this article spoke of &amp;quot;Brownskin&amp;quot; models, I was not aware of how racially ambiguous they appeared. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;[http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1364/1294691395_9722feeb99.jpg Sylvia Fitt]&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article though eye-opening was not incredibly surprising. It is sad to see that though blacks were being accepted in some aspects of life and society, they process of &amp;quot;fitting in&amp;quot; or perhaps aesthetic assimilation is something that will never come to fruition.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taylor and Anna thanks for the links! The Beyonce one is really creepy--even the amount of touching up they do to so-called &amp;quot;perfect&amp;quot; women&amp;#039;s photos is enough to set me off, but she&amp;#039;s really a totally different shade! And I would have assumed that Sylvia Fitt was Caucasian, except that the picture is in Jet! I knew to some extent that darker-skinned models and those with what are considered &amp;quot;African&amp;quot; features (as opposed to &amp;quot;European,&amp;quot; I assume) were discriminated against in the modeling industry, and this article definitely reinforced that, but the racial ambiguity of these &amp;quot;Brownskin&amp;quot; models is really something else. I also was very intrigued by the description of the &amp;quot;What Happened to the Brandford Models?&amp;quot; article, and how these models were presented as not only body or beauty ideals, but also as models of femininity and motherhood and all that &amp;quot;cult of domesticity&amp;quot; business. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;We Marched for Our Rights,&amp;quot; Rev. Naomi Craig ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last line of this article struck me the most, &amp;quot;I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to.&amp;quot; If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article was really inspiring to me and also showed me the true difference between the North and South, it was not something we just read about, it was a reality. Naomi Craig was scared for her son and daughter&amp;#039;s welfare but never stopped them from growing into the people they wanted to be, amongst all the racial differences she let them attend school in the South and travel to a place that appeared to be on a different continent, not states inside the United States. I also wanted to note on the line she stated, &amp;quot;I had never been around so many Blacks before; I thought it was wonderful. I felt they were all so pretty, all different colors.&amp;quot; That was the most inspiring line for me, Mrs. Craig saw beyond first appearances she believed color was beautiful why could America not do the same? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was going to quote that same like Megan did! I found it so interesting that she commented on the various skin tones of the other African-Americans at her daughter&amp;#039;s school. You always hear of black and white, not normally of all the varying skin tones.  Her reasoning for not protesting the Vietnam war was admirable. &amp;quot;How could I protest it, when he was already in there and his mother was heartbroken. I couldn&amp;#039;t protest. One woman protesting, making a mother feel her son was over there in vain.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m sure there were many others who feel that way, as I feel many people today feel that way about our current wars in the Middle East... Her reactions to MLK Jr&amp;#039;s death was felt by many across the nation as well I&amp;#039;m sure. &amp;quot;Here was a man who stood for beauty. He stood for everybody. He didn&amp;#039;t just fight for Blacks, he fought for anyone who needed rights.&amp;quot;  Such a lasting impact one individual could make on an entire nation.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked reading this piece on Naomi Craig. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I love reading personal stories of people who actually got to experience what we learn about in class.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Mrs.Craig&amp;#039;s point of view was a unique one because she was from the North. She said she felt naive. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I wonder if a lot of black people from the North felt naive that they didn&amp;#039;t really know how bad it really was in the South.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; There were two parts that struck me in particular. One was when she was talking about the war in Vietnam. She said that even though she didn&amp;#039;t agree with the war she didn&amp;#039;t protest it either because she felt bad for those soldiers who went in and for their mothers. This was interesting because she gave an African American view of the Vietnam war. I also liked the part about when she went to Washington DC for the March on Washington. She said, &amp;quot;Look, this is history. We need to be in this.&amp;quot; Her desire to be a part of this historical day and event reminded me of how I think a lot of black Americans and even white Americans felt about the inauguration of President Obama. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rev. Naomi Craig’s interview was quite interesting. We hear and read so much about the Southern African Americans during this time; it is nice to have a perspective of a Northern African American.  I was touched by the same section as Megan and Christine. Craig’s description of her naivety of the south and how beautiful it was to see so many black people in one place at the college  was touching. I was also intrigued by her comments on finding employment and searching for a home. Craig explains “here I was dressed lovely, thinking that was the first step. And here was some dowdy, ugly woman telling me I couldn&amp;#039;t have a job.” Illustrating that during the depression era there were limited jobs and even further limitations for African American women. Her description of the trouble she faced buying a house in Rhode Island was kind of heart breaking. I couldn’t imagine getting my hopes up in a phone conversation with a realtor just to have him see the color of my skin and tell me there are no houses available. She couldn&amp;#039;t even hold her own mortgage, she had to have a white man hold it! This just proves that it is a great misconception that racial discrimination only took place in the South.-Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have never really connected the Vietnam War with the Civil Rights movement before.  I know that many groups like the Black Panthers were against it, but they were only part of it.  I would think that the Vietnam would take away momentum from the Civil Rights movement, as it was more than just a race issue.  Is it possible to protest a war from just a view on how it is racist?  It seems to me that would take away from both the Civil Rights and the anti-war cause.  - J Rowley&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-01T04:57:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family,&amp;quot; Betty Jeanne Boggs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Always this-- &amp;#039;because you&amp;#039;re a woman&amp;#039;&amp;quot; (page 208). I was really moved by this article and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn&amp;#039;t pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I still felt strong emotions towards her statement &amp;quot;For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn&amp;#039;t know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby&amp;quot; (page 210)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because it&amp;#039;s something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can&amp;#039;t imagine it&amp;#039;s ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don&amp;#039;t allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it&amp;#039;s nice to imagine. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also noticed her husband&amp;#039;s willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she &amp;quot;wanted to be in two places at one time.&amp;quot; &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today&amp;#039;s working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs&amp;#039; story, and  I feel that it&amp;#039;s a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs&amp;#039; case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs&amp;#039; did want to eventually continue her career she didn&amp;#039;t do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, &amp;quot;...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go,&amp;quot; (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible to juggle both or weren&amp;#039;t sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible otherwise the &amp;quot;problem that has no name&amp;quot; would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Betty Bogs said, &amp;quot;I worked in a war plant and it was one of the things you did when your country was at war.&amp;quot; (P. 208) Just the way she said it made it sound like it was normal, and I think she is right in a sense&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. It was normal for women to go out and work; it was a way to help with the war effort. Her experience of loving her job seemed quite similar to the other Rosie the Riveters we have read about. I was surprised though, to see that she was going to school for a math degree, and even considered becoming a lab technician. At the time, I think it was frowned upon for women to be anything other than a housewife or a teacher. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Even when I did my interview for our paper, my interviewee said the only jobs you went to school for were to be a teacher or a secretary.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Betty enjoyed working; I&amp;#039;m sure it was liberating to her because she was doing something many people frowned upon. It was also interesting how there was a prominent role reversal between Betty and her husband Josh. She was the one working, and her husband was the one who was with their baby more often and seemed to have a closer relationship with the child. Bogs said, &amp;quot;Josh had a good relationship built up, because he&amp;#039;d have Tad to himself.&amp;quot; (P. 210). And, her husband was completely okay with staying at home with the children while she worked!  The surprising part was, though, that although Betty loved her job and enjoyed working, she encouraged women to stay home with their children because it was important to their development. I guess that was the most surprising part to me. She worked so hard and had come so far, but realized that in the end, her family came first. -- Alex M. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article.  I find it rather ironic that today’s woman still struggles with the choice between staying home and raising her children and going out into the workplace.  Being an older student, I notice a number of my friends who have college degrees, including post-graduate degrees and have made the decision to forego a career or postpone their career to stay home with their children. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think that it is difficult to say what decision you will make regarding your kids until you are in the position of having to make the decision of leaving your child with someone else or working.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Betty Jeanne Boggs was fortunate to be married to someone willing to sacrifice his time to give her the opportunity to further her career and her husband was lucky to have a woman willing to support him while he finished school. - EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boggs obviously believed that a woman should be able to do anything a man could do, such as go to school and work in certain jobs.  However &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;for raising a kid she thinks that &amp;quot;a mother should be there the first couple of years of a child&amp;#039;s life,&amp;quot; (30)  Does this mean that she did not think it was a man&amp;#039;s place to raise a kid?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Obviously she felt that a man should help, as Josh helped plenty with Tad but their was never any mention of him giving up his education or his job.  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As EFritz was saying above, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it really is hard for a woman to judge another about their struggle of work and home until they are in that position.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Boggs was able to keep working, but mainly just because her husband was home more while continuing his education.  Had he already finished school, she would have had to end her career earlier.  It wasn&amp;#039;t as if he was like &amp;quot;Hey Honey, you keep on keepin&amp;#039; on at that job of yours and make me some money!&amp;quot; He understood how much easier it would be at the time to have the arrangement of work and home that way... In response to J Rowley&amp;#039;s question, I don&amp;#039;t think Boggs was implying that it was not a man&amp;#039;s place to raise a child.  As a mother, you feel a certain bond or connection with your child and not only want to be there in those initial year, but you feel a NEED to be there for your child.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this article was chosen to be the first for this section because it is still relevant to the struggles that women-and especially mothers, go through today. The struggle between wanting to be a full time caregiver and the desire to have a career and be successful in the field of your choosing do not always go hand in hand, and some places of employment are not as accommodating as one would like them to be. Rarely are “stay at home” dads the ideal image of American families even today. A stay at home dad contrasts to what people see as the “normal” family situation, while a stay at home mom is still seen as the norm. Women who choose to work full time, for any reason, still have to face criticism from other people about how they choose to raise their children. And sometimes those critics do not take into account the improvements in the standard of living that the child (or children) can potentially attain if the mother works or both parents work. Supporting the children should be the main objective, but many times that idea gets lost in what outsiders consider proper. –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson Answers Her Critics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not the world&amp;#039;s biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Ridiculous that her response &amp;quot;No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now&amp;quot; (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that &amp;quot;A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world&amp;quot; (page 228). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She certainly won me over. (And I would especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;buy some more Samoas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to support her environmentalist cause.)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that earlier in this class we had talked about how women were often linked to the environmentalist cause so I tried to keep that in mind when I was reading this piece. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I am not sure if I could picture a man writing this with the same effect.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Most of the points she makes are very strong and she even seems to go against the point that she is saving nature only to save the beauty of it.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;However, if women were still connected to the environmentalist cause would she have an easier time winning them over because she was a woman?  Would she have a tougher time gaining support from men?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J Rowley--good questions. What if Silent Spring had been written by a man? Gotta love theoreticals... I agreed that this was a very strong answer to all of her critics--stronger still because she didn&amp;#039;t specifically target any one person or company, and made it clear that she was not taking any of the criticism personally, and was thus not bothered by it:  &amp;quot;I am confident that the verdict of history will show that we...&amp;quot; She invokes history to her side, claiming that time will tell, as it ultimately did. Very smart.  --Sarah Smethurst &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;(Samoas FTW)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Sarah&amp;#039;s post, I think that it was Carson&amp;#039;s intention not to target one person, company, or group of people. During this period of time, when America was still feeling a backlash against women&amp;#039;s rights, it was tougher for women to gain momentum in anything they said or did. I think Carson realized this, and perhaps realized that she would be more effective if she left the boundaries opened and made a general statement, therefore gaining more support and respect from those who supported, and even more importantly those who opposed her.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has achieved complete control over &amp;#039;&amp;#039;himself&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and his environment. Only then can &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erin, I noticed that Church uses &amp;#039;he&amp;#039; throughout the piece, but I don&amp;#039;t necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;a quirk of grammar&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women &amp;quot;will be taking their rightful place in world affairs,&amp;quot; and so girls should be &amp;quot;provided with the same opportunities&amp;quot; (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of &amp;#039;parents&amp;#039; rather than simply the role of &amp;#039;mother. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann&amp;#039;s statement above. One of Church&amp;#039;s main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that &amp;quot;neither the father nor mother should reign supreme&amp;quot; (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that &amp;quot;girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys&amp;quot; (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don&amp;#039;t believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also found the wording of Church&amp;#039;s essay interesting when she states &amp;quot;women will be taking their &amp;#039;&amp;#039;rightful&amp;#039;&amp;#039; places in society&amp;quot; (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of one&amp;#039;s moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn&amp;#039;t mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn&amp;#039;t fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;)in today&amp;#039;s world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said &amp;quot;Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual&amp;quot; (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman&amp;#039;s right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I&amp;#039;m happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I&amp;#039;m also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;) because if she hadn&amp;#039;t had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson&amp;#039;s decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn&amp;#039;t a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It&amp;#039;s amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation.  Why was that?  Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure?  And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – Alice W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like Alice found interesting that the doctor described other procedures he performed but would not dare mention abortion. I do not think he really cared about women&amp;#039;s health, I think he was worried that if women came to him who were pregnant and wanted abortions one he would know they were pregnant outside of marriage and two he did not want people (government) to find out he was performing them, at the time I feel like he could of lost his license if it was found out. Maybe he did care about women but with all the precautions he took and the way he spoke to Joyce I have to say I do not think he did, he may of just been a doctor who did not believe in having children outside of marriage. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot;, by Joanna Rubin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;fascinating, insightful and harrowing&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I wonder &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, &amp;quot;When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics&amp;quot; (217).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, &amp;quot;Although I didn&amp;#039;t for a minute think I didn&amp;#039;t want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn&amp;#039;t &amp;#039;Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.&amp;#039;&amp;quot;(217) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;taking the easy way out,&amp;quot; it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury,  and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so.  It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control.  I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50&amp;#039;s and 60&amp;#039;s and what would lead to the landmark courtcase &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Roe v Wade&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did women even think about an abortion possibly killing them?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Such as the woman in Margaret Sanger’s Epiphany over Birth Control article who died from a self induced abortion because she couldn’t handle another child. Of course there is always the possibility that child birth could also kill them. Abortion seems a lot more risky though, especially being illegal like it was. Abortion clinics surely couldn’t be regulated and keep safe because there weren’t any governmental policies or standards to be enforced. I would much rather have the child and give it up for an abortion, quietly, than risk dying from a painful abortion that could lead to a deadly infection. That’s just my opinion though; maybe they were too afraid of being pregnant in the first place to think straight and logically. Even though Ms. Rubin thinks that this is a “real clinic” and it “alleviated a tremendous amount of anxiety and fear,” (216) obviously it wasn’t much of facility because she did get “a low-grade infection,” (217). I know that she was in hast to rid herself of being pregnant, but you would think that she would be smarter about her decisions. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She obviously wasn’t going to tell her family, as Rubin describes, “I didn’t have any support from my parents,” (216), possibly because being a sexual women was taboo? Even if that was so, the least they could do was help her or were families that unsupportive of their daughters? I really can’t see a father and, partially, a mother abandoning their child in such a desperate situation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Morgan above, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I feel pretty much the opposite way about everything she said.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Yes abortion was risky but so was pregnancy and childbirth. This woman was young, unwed, and in school.  If she were to have had the child she would have lost everything in life that she worked so hard for.  She may have been able to have the child quietly and gave it up, but who would have paid for it and where would she have gone? Her parents would have likely shunned her out of their lives, she didn&amp;#039;t have the money, the &amp;quot;father&amp;quot; of the baby didn&amp;#039;t have money. She would have had to take months off of school, and how would she have explained that?  And perhaps she could have gotten an infection from the abortion, but women were not sitting around gabbing about abortions so it&amp;#039;s not like they had first-hand accounts to go off of, just heresay and gossip.  I feel she was not &amp;quot;in hast,&amp;quot; she clearly weighed her options and knew what would have happen if she would have had a baby in her position.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joanna Rubin’s piece “An Unplanned Pregnancy” was touching and interesting. I think that Rubin was attempting to express the fact that there was regret involved but she did what she thought was right. I agree with Christine, here is a young woman who did not love the person that impregnated her, in her first year of Grad school. If she did love him, she “might have kept it” (217) but she didn’t.  Which is a better choice, to live a life with a child and a husband whom you do not love and resent? Or go to any lengths, in this case, Puerto Rico, to have an abortion. She admits that this was a hard decision with consequences.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It also seems that her personal doctor was not completely opposed to her choice “When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor and he had told me to come and see him afterwards”&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (217). He even gave her antibiotics. I was wondering how often doctors helped patients who went to have abortions out of the country or illegally? –Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name,&amp;quot; Betty Friedan, 1963==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women&amp;#039;s lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they&amp;#039;d still feel isolated in that they couldn&amp;#039;t share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It&amp;#039;s telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry &amp;quot;just to know they are not alone.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them?  In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife?  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It became a moral dilemma.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women at this time were dealing with such an immense problem. Prior to WWII, they had obtained universal suffrage, and then more independence through the work place while their husbands were in combat. Suddenly, when their husbands returned their extensive independence disappeared as well. Many would would have been scrutinized by their husbands or their peers for complaining about the lifestyle changes they encountered. It is not surprising to see them internalize many of their doubts and fears regarding their complacency or position in society. Over time, it is evident that the problem that women encountered disappeared, and women began to obtain more control of their own lives and leverage in society. Friedan was a pioneer in exploring communication and bonds between women.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this passage very interesting and thought provoking.  Women had a brief glimpse of life in the workplace during World War II, but when the men came home, they again assumed their traditional role as a housewife.  This excerpt mainly revolves around the question: Is this all our lives&amp;#039; will amount to?  Many obviously wanted more than what a housewife provided and some felt almost incomplete doing the monotonous work of daily chores.  However, I think now, especially after doing my interview that this work could not only be difnified but also quite challenging.  The person who I interviewed said her daughter in law is a stay at home mom and she works harder than anybody she knows.  I expect these women to wish for more after many of them had jobs for years, but their work can be just as hard as many respects as what the men are doing. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Psychiatrist Marynia F. Farnham and Sociologist Ferdinand Lundberg Denounce the Modern Woman as the &amp;quot;Lost Sex,&amp;quot; 1947 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;have jobs themselves&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities.  But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home.  Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations.  Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements.  I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated.  They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children.  They seem to really find danger to a woman&amp;#039;s feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men.  They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first glance, these writers describe the &amp;quot;Modern Woman&amp;quot; of 1947, as one who appears to have her own destiny within her grasp.  She is now conflicted however, because she has more responsibility; to the home, children, and to work. I found this article interesting because the writers argue the modern woman of their time is now struggling to retain femininity because she is in the &amp;quot;dangerous position of having to live one part of her life on the masculine level, [and] another on the feminine.&amp;quot;(413) Is the need to be equal to men and their accomplishments what caused this rivalry? I never really thought of how damaging the social and psychological barriers were in Post-War War II America. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I understand women proved what they were capable of, but what I am still curious about is how hard was it for women to switch back to dependence of their husbands when they knew they were just as capable in the workforce.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; From the videos we saw in class, I gathered that many women found pride that they could do skilled labor, but this article brings up a good perspective I think. From my interpretation the perspective is that women&amp;#039;s success has to be achieved through a balance of dependence and independence in their role in the household. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Just imagine being in that courtroom. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how &amp;quot;women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making&amp;quot; (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can&amp;#039;t handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I saw WSP as more sly and manipulative.  They knew that the most effective way to get a woman&amp;#039;s voice heard was to play up those female stereotypes, especially in court&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  No judge would throw out a bunch of sweet women who weren&amp;#039;t doing anything wrong!  And they couldn&amp;#039;t go militant or get too forceful with their protests.  That kind of thing tends to irritate and annoy people rather than make them agreeable to the cause.  I just think that if you&amp;#039;re going to go with that method, you can&amp;#039;t complain about being treated like a stereotype afterwards.  So, Taylor complaining about wanting to be treated equally while manipulating the female stereotypes is definitely hypocritical.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with CBrau. I love the women of the WSP! I found them hilarious and very manipulative. These women obviously knew exactly how to get attention and to use there femininity against political figures to buy for attention. But did these women really think that just because they were women nothing would happen to them? “They’re not going to electrocute me, They’re not going to shoot me,” (218) said Taylor while she was deciding to cross the street or not. Did she think this because she was a woman and surely men wouldn’t hurt her? I guess the stereotypes of that generation weren’t to hurt women, even if they were criminals? They were so outspoken though, even when in the presence of court, “we would present her with a bouquet, and we would applaud,” (220) but they weren’t thrown out of court. I wonder if in the decades before if they were even allowed in court, much less speak out. It appears to me that they were mainly a spectacle looking for attention towards their cause, even if it endangered them. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was charming.  I absolutely love the visual of these women in their pretty little dresses with matching shoes and handbag, white gloves, hats and perfectly coiffed hair being brought in to testify before Congress.  I am no anti-war activist but I think these women had the backbone to petition their government to change the course of history, all before they had to get home and prepare dinner for their families and help their children with their homework.  And they still wanted to be treated as ladies, even while they were being hauled off to jail.  What irony. - EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t necessarily agree with their political opinions, but I&amp;#039;m just saying...their personality would be a good thing to have. Their spunk would continue to entertain people.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Star Struck,&amp;quot; Vicki L. Ruiz ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920&amp;#039;s to 1950&amp;#039;s written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.”&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article could easily be related to today and how women are percieved or told how they should be percieved in the media. While I feel that many immigrant groups wanted to promote their culture, especially the Mexican Americans through language and traditions, the children of immigrant parents wanted to assimilate into American culture, and the leading way in California was through &amp;quot;the public fascination with Hollywood.&amp;quot;(367). Today, things have still not changed infact I believe we as a society have become more fascinated with Hollywood and how it defines America, I cannot even count how many times I have heard the story about Sandra Bullock and her husband and very little on world affairs or even the healthcare bill. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being from Southern California, I can definately relate to this article and many of the points that are made here are definately still relevant today, many years later.  Many still live in poverty and are often treated as second class citizens.  There are tons of farming fields in the area, and you can generally only see mexicans out there picking.  It&amp;#039;s not that they choose this lifestyle, just that they are somehow relegated to do it.  One interesting thing the article mentions is that there was no gradual immersion language program and it was just &amp;quot;sink or swim in an English-only environment&amp;quot; (365).  I beleive this still holds true today, although it is somewhat better.  I knew some who hardly spoke english and were just thrown into an english-speaking environment, and this incredibly difficult to adapt.  Another interesting point is that being &amp;quot;Spanish&amp;quot; had a somewhat positive connotation whereas being &amp;quot;Mexican&amp;quot; was a negative connotation.  They speak the same language yet being from Mexico somehow makes you worse than being from Spain.  The thing that stands out to me the most is that people then and even now seem to have a pre-conceived notion that mexicans are inherently lower class than Americans, but they are people, just like we are. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==&lt;br /&gt;
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212).  This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially.  It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives.  Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well.  This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of Native Americans deserves just as much credit as African Americans or Women&amp;#039;s history. This story of Indian relocation is just one of the many very sad experiences of what  United States policy has put them through.  The sadist part of it all is that they were here first! This particular story shows that even in the 1950s the US was still relocating 60,000 Indians thinking we had the right to &amp;quot;mainstream &amp;quot; them into Urban areas. After reading this depressing story it make me feel extremely grateful that Native Americans are no longer treated in this way and made me realize if anyone in the USA should be the most proud to be American, it should be all the Native Americans left today that still retain their cultures. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as with the Japanese internment camps during World War II, I feel like the US government was good at alienating various racial/ethnic groups in America. The Indians had already been forcibly removed once (The Trail of Tears) but to do it again is just horrible. The fact that the government changed it mind all of a sudden was both disturbing to the American Indian way of life, but also scarred them emotionally and in many other ways, which is similar to what abratchi said above. What is most awful is how the Mankiller family had so much trouble adapting.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; How could the government just take the Indians from their old way of life and drop them into bustling urban/industrial cities, where they have no idea what to do, how to act, and are seen as aliens to the country, even though they were Americans.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It was sad to read about how the girls were made fun of at school, and as a result they &amp;quot;sat up late every night reading aloud to each other to get rid of our accents.&amp;quot; (P. 214). These girls were so ashamed of their ancestry, which was even sadder. Why was it so necessary to assimilate different cultures into American culture? Why couldn&amp;#039;t white Americans just simply coexist with minority groups and accept one another for their differences instead of displacing them physically as well as emotionally? Wilma Mankiller used the word &amp;quot;alienation&amp;quot; which I think is a perfect word to describe this situation. These Indians were alienated from their homes, culture and just life in general and the worst part of all of it was that this relocation didn&amp;#039;t help the government in any way. So in the end, both the government and the Indians lost. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This line really caught my attention:  &amp;quot;He (Wilma&amp;#039;s father) must have honestly believed that in a distant city he could provide a better life for his children, with all the modern amenities&amp;quot; (p. 212).  Interesting, considering Wilma and her family were very poor and I&amp;#039;m assuming isolated from modern civilization at Mankiller Flats.  So how did Wilma&amp;#039;s father know about modern civilization and the chances it offered?  From talking to the BIA?  From going to Boarding School?  From working?  Or perhaps it really was their poverty that convinced him they needed to move and try for a new life (despite the risks and separation from home).  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how she almost plays off the decision to move to California as her parents decisions that they made without the force of governmental pressure. Yes there were no weapons forcing them to move or marching them down a path they did not want to take, but the propaganda for leaving (the promise of a better life, the false advertisements of wealth and opportunity) would have been enough to get any group of people to leave their homelands, especially if they had been used to poverty for an extended period of time. The American government does not have the best track record when it comes to handling relations with other ethnicities and races in terms of making equal opportunities available. Ghettos turned ethnic enclaves seem to be a recurring theme in American minority history, and each minority group has had an impact on the development of the America that exists today, therefore each group does deserve to have recognition, not just the African Americans and women, but the Japanese Americans who were placed in internment camps, the chicano Americans who were limited in their migration but who were instrumental in making the US a transcontinental commerce, and finally the Native Americans, who suffered every time white Americans wanted to move and take their land. No group should be excluded in American history and none should be excluded in how they are remembered and honored today. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Letter to the Editor of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Ladder&amp;#039;&amp;#039; from an African American Lesbian, 1957==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society.  On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.”  The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses  the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422).  It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Letter to the editor of The Ladder was very interesting.  I agree with Alice on many points. I was also intrigued by her account of the struggle that women faced in general, whether they were homosexual or not. She explains “Women, like other oppressed groups of one kind or another, have particularly had to pay a price for the intellectual impoverishment that the second class status imposed on us for centuries” (421). It must have been comforting for lesbian women to have these publications out there.  As  MP explained in the preface to the chapter, The Ladder was the first American lesbian publication. Upon further research, I found that The Ladder was the first nationally distributed lesbian publication in the United States and was edited by Phyllis Lyon, co founder of Daughters of Bilitis, a lesbian organization. As the writer of the letter noted, this publication was “a fine elementary step in a rewarding direction” (421). It seems like a publication such as The Ladder was a step forward in bringing the lesbian community together while portraying a positive image of lesbian women to the public, something that was beyond taboo at the time. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reminded me so much of this wonderful non-fiction piece called &amp;quot;The Ghetto Girls&amp;#039; Guide to Dating and Romance&amp;quot; by Sonja Livingston. Check it out. ANYWAYS  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also heard echoes of the &amp;quot;double burden&amp;quot; idea of being both black and a woman:  &amp;quot;the Negro woman finds herself at the bottom of the economic and social scale.&amp;quot;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I imagine that Murray&amp;#039;s article was pretty darn controversial at the time--she talks unabashedly about the failings of black men, throwing her lot in with ostracized women who have spoken out with similar opinions. She makes a bold call to arms, and I&amp;#039;d be interested to know how that was taken. I&amp;#039;d imagine there was a lot of hate mail involved. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-01T04:15:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family,&amp;quot; Betty Jeanne Boggs */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family,&amp;quot; Betty Jeanne Boggs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Always this-- &amp;#039;because you&amp;#039;re a woman&amp;#039;&amp;quot; (page 208). I was really moved by this article and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn&amp;#039;t pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I still felt strong emotions towards her statement &amp;quot;For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn&amp;#039;t know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby&amp;quot; (page 210)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because it&amp;#039;s something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can&amp;#039;t imagine it&amp;#039;s ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don&amp;#039;t allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it&amp;#039;s nice to imagine. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also noticed her husband&amp;#039;s willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she &amp;quot;wanted to be in two places at one time.&amp;quot; &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today&amp;#039;s working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs&amp;#039; story, and  I feel that it&amp;#039;s a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs&amp;#039; case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs&amp;#039; did want to eventually continue her career she didn&amp;#039;t do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, &amp;quot;...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go,&amp;quot; (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible to juggle both or weren&amp;#039;t sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible otherwise the &amp;quot;problem that has no name&amp;quot; would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Betty Bogs said, &amp;quot;I worked in a war plant and it was one of the things you did when your country was at war.&amp;quot; (P. 208) Just the way she said it made it sound like it was normal, and I think she is right in a sense&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. It was normal for women to go out and work; it was a way to help with the war effort. Her experience of loving her job seemed quite similar to the other Rosie the Riveters we have read about. I was surprised though, to see that she was going to school for a math degree, and even considered becoming a lab technician. At the time, I think it was frowned upon for women to be anything other than a housewife or a teacher. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Even when I did my interview for our paper, my interviewee said the only jobs you went to school for were to be a teacher or a secretary.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Betty enjoyed working; I&amp;#039;m sure it was liberating to her because she was doing something many people frowned upon. It was also interesting how there was a prominent role reversal between Betty and her husband Josh. She was the one working, and her husband was the one who was with their baby more often and seemed to have a closer relationship with the child. Bogs said, &amp;quot;Josh had a good relationship built up, because he&amp;#039;d have Tad to himself.&amp;quot; (P. 210). And, her husband was completely okay with staying at home with the children while she worked!  The surprising part was, though, that although Betty loved her job and enjoyed working, she encouraged women to stay home with their children because it was important to their development. I guess that was the most surprising part to me. She worked so hard and had come so far, but realized that in the end, her family came first. -- Alex M. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article.  I find it rather ironic that today’s woman still struggles with the choice between staying home and raising her children and going out into the workplace.  Being an older student, I notice a number of my friends who have college degrees, including post-graduate degrees and have made the decision to forego a career or postpone their career to stay home with their children. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think that it is difficult to say what decision you will make regarding your kids until you are in the position of having to make the decision of leaving your child with someone else or working.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Betty Jeanne Boggs was fortunate to be married to someone willing to sacrifice his time to give her the opportunity to further her career and her husband was lucky to have a woman willing to support him while he finished school. - EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boggs obviously believed that a woman should be able to do anything a man could do, such as go to school and work in certain jobs.  However &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;for raising a kid she thinks that &amp;quot;a mother should be there the first couple of years of a child&amp;#039;s life,&amp;quot; (30)  Does this mean that she did not think it was a man&amp;#039;s place to raise a kid?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Obviously she felt that a man should help, as Josh helped plenty with Tad but their was never any mention of him giving up his education or his job.  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As EFritz was saying above, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it really is hard for a woman to judge another about their struggle of work and home until they are in that position.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Boggs was able to keep working, but mainly just because her husband was home more while continuing his education.  Had he already finished school, she would have had to end her career earlier.  It wasn&amp;#039;t as if he was like &amp;quot;Hey Honey, you keep on keepin&amp;#039; on at that job of yours and make me some money!&amp;quot; He understood how much easier it would be at the time to have the arrangement of work and home that way... In response to J Rowley&amp;#039;s question, I don&amp;#039;t think Boggs was implying that it was not a man&amp;#039;s place to raise a child.  As a mother, you feel a certain bond or connection with your child and not only want to be there in those initial year, but you feel a NEED to be there for your child.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this article was chosen to be the first for this section because it is still relevant to the struggles that women-and especially mothers, go through today. The struggle between wanting to be a full time caregiver and the desire to have a career and be successful in the field of your choosing do not always go hand in hand, and some places of employment are not as accommodating as one would like them to be. Rarely are “stay at home” dads the ideal image of American families even today. A stay at home dad contrasts to what people see as the “normal” family situation, while a stay at home mom is still seen as the norm. Women who choose to work full time, for any reason, still have to face criticism from other people about how they choose to raise their children. And sometimes those critics do not take into account the improvements in the standard of living that the child (or children) can potentially attain if the mother works or both parents work. Supporting the children should be the main objective, but many times that idea gets lost in what outsiders consider proper. –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson Answers Her Critics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not the world&amp;#039;s biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Ridiculous that her response &amp;quot;No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now&amp;quot; (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that &amp;quot;A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world&amp;quot; (page 228). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She certainly won me over. (And I would especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;buy some more Samoas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to support her environmentalist cause.)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that earlier in this class we had talked about how women were often linked to the environmentalist cause so I tried to keep that in mind when I was reading this piece. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I am not sure if I could picture a man writing this with the same effect.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Most of the points she makes are very strong and she even seems to go against the point that she is saving nature only to save the beauty of it.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;However, if women were still connected to the environmentalist cause would she have an easier time winning them over because she was a woman?  Would she have a tougher time gaining support from men?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J Rowley--good questions. What if Silent Spring had been written by a man? Gotta love theoreticals... I agreed that this was a very strong answer to all of her critics--stronger still because she didn&amp;#039;t specifically target any one person or company, and made it clear that she was not taking any of the criticism personally, and was thus not bothered by it:  &amp;quot;I am confident that the verdict of history will show that we...&amp;quot; She invokes history to her side, claiming that time will tell, as it ultimately did. Very smart.  --Sarah Smethurst &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;(Samoas FTW)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Sarah&amp;#039;s post, I think that it was Carson&amp;#039;s intention not to target one person, company, or group of people. During this period of time, when America was still feeling a backlash against women&amp;#039;s rights, it was tougher for women to gain momentum in anything they said or did. I think Carson realized this, and perhaps realized that she would be more effective if she left the boundaries opened and made a general statement, therefore gaining more support and respect from those who supported, and even more importantly those who opposed her.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has achieved complete control over &amp;#039;&amp;#039;himself&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and his environment. Only then can &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erin, I noticed that Church uses &amp;#039;he&amp;#039; throughout the piece, but I don&amp;#039;t necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;a quirk of grammar&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women &amp;quot;will be taking their rightful place in world affairs,&amp;quot; and so girls should be &amp;quot;provided with the same opportunities&amp;quot; (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of &amp;#039;parents&amp;#039; rather than simply the role of &amp;#039;mother. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann&amp;#039;s statement above. One of Church&amp;#039;s main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that &amp;quot;neither the father nor mother should reign supreme&amp;quot; (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that &amp;quot;girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys&amp;quot; (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don&amp;#039;t believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also found the wording of Church&amp;#039;s essay interesting when she states &amp;quot;women will be taking their &amp;#039;&amp;#039;rightful&amp;#039;&amp;#039; places in society&amp;quot; (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of one&amp;#039;s moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn&amp;#039;t mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn&amp;#039;t fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;)in today&amp;#039;s world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said &amp;quot;Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual&amp;quot; (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman&amp;#039;s right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I&amp;#039;m happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I&amp;#039;m also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;) because if she hadn&amp;#039;t had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson&amp;#039;s decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn&amp;#039;t a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It&amp;#039;s amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation.  Why was that?  Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure?  And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – Alice W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like Alice found interesting that the doctor described other procedures he performed but would not dare mention abortion. I do not think he really cared about women&amp;#039;s health, I think he was worried that if women came to him who were pregnant and wanted abortions one he would know they were pregnant outside of marriage and two he did not want people (government) to find out he was performing them, at the time I feel like he could of lost his license if it was found out. Maybe he did care about women but with all the precautions he took and the way he spoke to Joyce I have to say I do not think he did, he may of just been a doctor who did not believe in having children outside of marriage. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot;, by Joanna Rubin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;fascinating, insightful and harrowing&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I wonder &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, &amp;quot;When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics&amp;quot; (217).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, &amp;quot;Although I didn&amp;#039;t for a minute think I didn&amp;#039;t want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn&amp;#039;t &amp;#039;Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.&amp;#039;&amp;quot;(217) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;taking the easy way out,&amp;quot; it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury,  and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so.  It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control.  I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50&amp;#039;s and 60&amp;#039;s and what would lead to the landmark courtcase &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Roe v Wade&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did women even think about an abortion possibly killing them?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Such as the woman in Margaret Sanger’s Epiphany over Birth Control article who died from a self induced abortion because she couldn’t handle another child. Of course there is always the possibility that child birth could also kill them. Abortion seems a lot more risky though, especially being illegal like it was. Abortion clinics surely couldn’t be regulated and keep safe because there weren’t any governmental policies or standards to be enforced. I would much rather have the child and give it up for an abortion, quietly, than risk dying from a painful abortion that could lead to a deadly infection. That’s just my opinion though; maybe they were too afraid of being pregnant in the first place to think straight and logically. Even though Ms. Rubin thinks that this is a “real clinic” and it “alleviated a tremendous amount of anxiety and fear,” (216) obviously it wasn’t much of facility because she did get “a low-grade infection,” (217). I know that she was in hast to rid herself of being pregnant, but you would think that she would be smarter about her decisions. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She obviously wasn’t going to tell her family, as Rubin describes, “I didn’t have any support from my parents,” (216), possibly because being a sexual women was taboo? Even if that was so, the least they could do was help her or were families that unsupportive of their daughters? I really can’t see a father and, partially, a mother abandoning their child in such a desperate situation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Morgan above, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I feel pretty much the opposite way about everything she said.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Yes abortion was risky but so was pregnancy and childbirth. This woman was young, unwed, and in school.  If she were to have had the child she would have lost everything in life that she worked so hard for.  She may have been able to have the child quietly and gave it up, but who would have paid for it and where would she have gone? Her parents would have likely shunned her out of their lives, she didn&amp;#039;t have the money, the &amp;quot;father&amp;quot; of the baby didn&amp;#039;t have money. She would have had to take months off of school, and how would she have explained that?  And perhaps she could have gotten an infection from the abortion, but women were not sitting around gabbing about abortions so it&amp;#039;s not like they had first-hand accounts to go off of, just heresay and gossip.  I feel she was not &amp;quot;in hast,&amp;quot; she clearly weighed her options and knew what would have happen if she would have had a baby in her position.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joanna Rubin’s piece “An Unplanned Pregnancy” was touching and interesting. I think that Rubin was attempting to express the fact that there was regret involved but she did what she thought was right. I agree with Christine, here is a young woman who did not love the person that impregnated her, in her first year of Grad school. If she did love him, she “might have kept it” (217) but she didn’t.  Which is a better choice, to live a life with a child and a husband whom you do not love and resent? Or go to any lengths, in this case, Puerto Rico, to have an abortion. She admits that this was a hard decision with consequences.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It also seems that her personal doctor was not completely opposed to her choice “When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor and he had told me to come and see him afterwards”&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (217). He even gave her antibiotics. I was wondering how often doctors helped patients who went to have abortions out of the country or illegally? –Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name,&amp;quot; Betty Friedan, 1963==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women&amp;#039;s lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they&amp;#039;d still feel isolated in that they couldn&amp;#039;t share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It&amp;#039;s telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry &amp;quot;just to know they are not alone.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them?  In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife?  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It became a moral dilemma.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women at this time were dealing with such an immense problem. Prior to WWII, they had obtained universal suffrage, and then more independence through the work place while their husbands were in combat. Suddenly, when their husbands returned their extensive independence disappeared as well. Many would would have been scrutinized by their husbands or their peers for complaining about the lifestyle changes they encountered. It is not surprising to see them internalize many of their doubts and fears regarding their complacency or position in society. Over time, it is evident that the problem that women encountered disappeared, and women began to obtain more control of their own lives and leverage in society. Friedan was a pioneer in exploring communication and bonds between women.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this passage very interesting and thought provoking.  Women had a brief glimpse of life in the workplace during World War II, but when the men came home, they again assumed their traditional role as a housewife.  This excerpt mainly revolves around the question: Is this all our lives&amp;#039; will amount to?  Many obviously wanted more than what a housewife provided and some felt almost incomplete doing the monotonous work of daily chores.  However, I think now, especially after doing my interview that this work could not only be difnified but also quite challenging.  The person who I interviewed said her daughter in law is a stay at home mom and she works harder than anybody she knows.  I expect these women to wish for more after many of them had jobs for years, but their work can be just as hard as many respects as what the men are doing. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Psychiatrist Marynia F. Farnham and Sociologist Ferdinand Lundberg Denounce the Modern Woman as the &amp;quot;Lost Sex,&amp;quot; 1947 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;have jobs themselves&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities.  But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home.  Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations.  Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements.  I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated.  They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children.  They seem to really find danger to a woman&amp;#039;s feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men.  They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first glance, these writers describe the &amp;quot;Modern Woman&amp;quot; of 1947, as one who appears to have her own destiny within her grasp.  She is now conflicted however, because she has more responsibility; to the home, children, and to work. I found this article interesting because the writers argue the modern woman of their time is now struggling to retain femininity because she is in the &amp;quot;dangerous position of having to live one part of her life on the masculine level, [and] another on the feminine.&amp;quot;(413) Is the need to be equal to men and their accomplishments what caused this rivalry? I never really thought of how damaging the social and psychological barriers were in Post-War War II America. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I understand women proved what they were capable of, but what I am still curious about is how hard was it for women to switch back to dependence of their husbands when they knew they were just as capable in the workforce.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; From the videos we saw in class, I gathered that many women found pride that they could do skilled labor, but this article brings up a good perspective I think. From my interpretation the perspective is that women&amp;#039;s success has to be achieved through a balance of dependence and independence in their role in the household. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Just imagine being in that courtroom. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how &amp;quot;women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making&amp;quot; (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can&amp;#039;t handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I saw WSP as more sly and manipulative.  They knew that the most effective way to get a woman&amp;#039;s voice heard was to play up those female stereotypes, especially in court&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  No judge would throw out a bunch of sweet women who weren&amp;#039;t doing anything wrong!  And they couldn&amp;#039;t go militant or get too forceful with their protests.  That kind of thing tends to irritate and annoy people rather than make them agreeable to the cause.  I just think that if you&amp;#039;re going to go with that method, you can&amp;#039;t complain about being treated like a stereotype afterwards.  So, Taylor complaining about wanting to be treated equally while manipulating the female stereotypes is definitely hypocritical.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with CBrau. I love the women of the WSP! I found them hilarious and very manipulative. These women obviously knew exactly how to get attention and to use there femininity against political figures to buy for attention. But did these women really think that just because they were women nothing would happen to them? “They’re not going to electrocute me, They’re not going to shoot me,” (218) said Taylor while she was deciding to cross the street or not. Did she think this because she was a woman and surely men wouldn’t hurt her? I guess the stereotypes of that generation weren’t to hurt women, even if they were criminals? They were so outspoken though, even when in the presence of court, “we would present her with a bouquet, and we would applaud,” (220) but they weren’t thrown out of court. I wonder if in the decades before if they were even allowed in court, much less speak out. It appears to me that they were mainly a spectacle looking for attention towards their cause, even if it endangered them. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was charming.  I absolutely love the visual of these women in their pretty little dresses with matching shoes and handbag, white gloves, hats and perfectly coiffed hair being brought in to testify before Congress.  I am no anti-war activist but I think these women had the backbone to petition their government to change the course of history, all before they had to get home and prepare dinner for their families and help their children with their homework.  And they still wanted to be treated as ladies, even while they were being hauled off to jail.  What irony. - EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t necessarily agree with their political opinions, but I&amp;#039;m just saying...their personality would be a good thing to have. Their spunk would continue to entertain people.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Star Struck,&amp;quot; Vicki L. Ruiz ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920&amp;#039;s to 1950&amp;#039;s written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.”&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article could easily be related to today and how women are percieved or told how they should be percieved in the media. While I feel that many immigrant groups wanted to promote their culture, especially the Mexican Americans through language and traditions, the children of immigrant parents wanted to assimilate into American culture, and the leading way in California was through &amp;quot;the public fascination with Hollywood.&amp;quot;(367). Today, things have still not changed infact I believe we as a society have become more fascinated with Hollywood and how it defines America, I cannot even count how many times I have heard the story about Sandra Bullock and her husband and very little on world affairs or even the healthcare bill. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==&lt;br /&gt;
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212).  This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially.  It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives.  Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well.  This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of Native Americans deserves just as much credit as African Americans or Women&amp;#039;s history. This story of Indian relocation is just one of the many very sad experiences of what  United States policy has put them through.  The sadist part of it all is that they were here first! This particular story shows that even in the 1950s the US was still relocating 60,000 Indians thinking we had the right to &amp;quot;mainstream &amp;quot; them into Urban areas. After reading this depressing story it make me feel extremely grateful that Native Americans are no longer treated in this way and made me realize if anyone in the USA should be the most proud to be American, it should be all the Native Americans left today that still retain their cultures. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as with the Japanese internment camps during World War II, I feel like the US government was good at alienating various racial/ethnic groups in America. The Indians had already been forcibly removed once (The Trail of Tears) but to do it again is just horrible. The fact that the government changed it mind all of a sudden was both disturbing to the American Indian way of life, but also scarred them emotionally and in many other ways, which is similar to what abratchi said above. What is most awful is how the Mankiller family had so much trouble adapting.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; How could the government just take the Indians from their old way of life and drop them into bustling urban/industrial cities, where they have no idea what to do, how to act, and are seen as aliens to the country, even though they were Americans.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It was sad to read about how the girls were made fun of at school, and as a result they &amp;quot;sat up late every night reading aloud to each other to get rid of our accents.&amp;quot; (P. 214). These girls were so ashamed of their ancestry, which was even sadder. Why was it so necessary to assimilate different cultures into American culture? Why couldn&amp;#039;t white Americans just simply coexist with minority groups and accept one another for their differences instead of displacing them physically as well as emotionally? Wilma Mankiller used the word &amp;quot;alienation&amp;quot; which I think is a perfect word to describe this situation. These Indians were alienated from their homes, culture and just life in general and the worst part of all of it was that this relocation didn&amp;#039;t help the government in any way. So in the end, both the government and the Indians lost. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This line really caught my attention:  &amp;quot;He (Wilma&amp;#039;s father) must have honestly believed that in a distant city he could provide a better life for his children, with all the modern amenities&amp;quot; (p. 212).  Interesting, considering Wilma and her family were very poor and I&amp;#039;m assuming isolated from modern civilization at Mankiller Flats.  So how did Wilma&amp;#039;s father know about modern civilization and the chances it offered?  From talking to the BIA?  From going to Boarding School?  From working?  Or perhaps it really was their poverty that convinced him they needed to move and try for a new life (despite the risks and separation from home).  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Letter to the Editor of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Ladder&amp;#039;&amp;#039; from an African American Lesbian, 1957==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society.  On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.”  The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses  the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422).  It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Letter to the editor of The Ladder was very interesting.  I agree with Alice on many points. I was also intrigued by her account of the struggle that women faced in general, whether they were homosexual or not. She explains “Women, like other oppressed groups of one kind or another, have particularly had to pay a price for the intellectual impoverishment that the second class status imposed on us for centuries” (421). It must have been comforting for lesbian women to have these publications out there.  As  MP explained in the preface to the chapter, The Ladder was the first American lesbian publication. Upon further research, I found that The Ladder was the first nationally distributed lesbian publication in the United States and was edited by Phyllis Lyon, co founder of Daughters of Bilitis, a lesbian organization. As the writer of the letter noted, this publication was “a fine elementary step in a rewarding direction” (421). It seems like a publication such as The Ladder was a step forward in bringing the lesbian community together while portraying a positive image of lesbian women to the public, something that was beyond taboo at the time. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reminded me so much of this wonderful non-fiction piece called &amp;quot;The Ghetto Girls&amp;#039; Guide to Dating and Romance&amp;quot; by Sonja Livingston. Check it out. ANYWAYS  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also heard echoes of the &amp;quot;double burden&amp;quot; idea of being both black and a woman:  &amp;quot;the Negro woman finds herself at the bottom of the economic and social scale.&amp;quot;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I imagine that Murray&amp;#039;s article was pretty darn controversial at the time--she talks unabashedly about the failings of black men, throwing her lot in with ostracized women who have spoken out with similar opinions. She makes a bold call to arms, and I&amp;#039;d be interested to know how that was taken. I&amp;#039;d imagine there was a lot of hate mail involved. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-25T02:29:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it&amp;#039;s almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable &amp;quot;Rosie&amp;quot; to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It&amp;#039;s amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it&amp;#039;d be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman.  She was able to make more money than she had before the War.  Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child.  I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities.   -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill&amp;#039;s experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I&amp;#039;m glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn&amp;#039;t, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller&amp;#039;s poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill&amp;#039;s off hand comment of &amp;quot;they weren&amp;#039;t hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse&amp;quot; (186). I know this is a women&amp;#039;s history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Putting it into context and the time period, its not that surprising there were more opportunities for black women during the war, there was more opportunities for everybody.  As with all the sources we read, having an individual story, a tangible person does make things seem more real, more personal, more easily relateable. - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job&amp;quot; (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today&amp;#039;s understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it&amp;#039;s easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply &amp;quot;didn&amp;#039;t click&amp;quot; for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn&amp;#039;t someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II&amp;#039;s new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family&amp;#039;s heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it&amp;#039;s not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that &amp;quot;she&amp;#039;d never had the time&amp;quot; to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It&amp;#039;s easy to see how real-life women in Gertie&amp;#039;s situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Doll maker&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of  what they wanted their life to be like.  I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage.  Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted.  As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages.    -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine.  Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression.  This family moved to Detroit due to the country&amp;#039;s massive mobilization and hopefully a job.  I think their experience there was nothing like they expected.  They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status.  But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work.  Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring.  The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was &amp;quot;adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room.&amp;quot;  I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living.  Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, &amp;quot;Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall.&amp;quot; (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband&amp;#039;s job.  I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie&amp;#039;s life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, &amp;quot;When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?&amp;quot; (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this story provided a good contrast to the readings that talk about all of the success people found because of the war. The war did improve the lives of many people, and following the war was there was unprecedented wealth, but there were also people who didn’t find success and continued in the same poor conditions they always had. Though this reading is part of a fictional novel, I think it provides a balance for all of the improvements in Americans lives that we’ve read about. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women&amp;#039;s Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were &amp;quot;perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater&amp;quot; (pg. 375) was on to something. It&amp;#039;s noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn&amp;#039;t seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to &amp;quot;less exhausting&amp;quot; positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army.  “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m not sure that I would call them submissive or passive at all. These women were carefully selected for unusual military situations the same way men were selected then and both sexes are selected nowadays. Character flaws may not be such a big deal in the regular infantry or a typical steno pool, but under stressful conditions &amp;quot;irritating habits&amp;quot; can severely damage the morale of the entire unit. For such an elite unit, grouchy or talkative MEN would not be chosen, nor would overqualified men OR women (not just because they can&amp;#039;t be promoted, but more because the unit has to work together and every member has to carry out orders given by authority to make the unit run smoothly. If one member thinks they are better than the rest--has had more training or a higher IQ or anything--that causes unrest in the unit, which is the last thing you need on the front lines, which is where these women were). It seems to me that men would be held to these same standards when selecting an elite unit. Self-reliance, the ability to handle stress, and the ability to work well with others--these are not specific to females. These courageous and ground-breaking women challenged perceptions of both the soldiers and their commanding officers, and I&amp;#039;m sure the public reading about them on the home front. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt for these Japanese-American people.  There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a terrible time in American History.  We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.  The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps.  This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S.  In continuing with Morgan&amp;#039;s mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower.  These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad.  The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Morgan&amp;#039;s comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler&amp;#039;s concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America&amp;#039;s internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities.  Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting.  I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all of the above statements but I feel even more strongly about the internment camps. While I agree with what kokeefe said that the internment camps were different from concentration camps, how Americans de-humanized the Japanese was similar. Japanese-Americans became a number much like a test rat in a labratory, they were organized by numbers and letters and were not allowed outside of the high fences, much like a cage. They had poor shelter, food, and were watched everyday including giving the Japanese a bedtime of 10:00, and thinking it was okay. I think there should be a museum representing the stories and lives of the Japanese who were forced into these internment camps much like the Holocaust museum so more Americans can understand what we did as a nation in World War II. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember learning about Japanese internment camps when i was young being just totally confused by it.  In part, because it did seem eerily similar to what had been going on in Nazi Germany, as many others had mentioned.  This passage really brings out a lot of the degradation that i imagine many Japanese-Americans must have felt to have been controlled and suspected and discriminated against because of what was for many, including the author of this piece, a relatively distant ancestry.  She&amp;#039;d grown up being an &amp;quot;American&amp;quot;, and now she was alienated from that identity without really being able to identify with the &amp;quot;Japanese&amp;quot; for which she was interned.  I think that the author&amp;#039;s discussion of the issei and nisei sort of gets at that struggle to pin down an identity and differences between generational reactions. -Erin B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it says a lot about the meaning of Japanese internment camps to the Japanese who were in them when Monica Sone says, &amp;quot;Maybe I wasn&amp;#039;t considered an American anymore.&amp;quot; (Page 201) Just that mere sentence probably sums up the thoughts of the Japanese Americans at the time. Many of the Japanese were not immigrants but were born in America, making them citizens. Besides the fact that the government&amp;#039;s decision to use internment camps resembled the Nazi labor/concentration camps, the government was more or less imprisoning its own citizens. What happened to all the rights American citizens had? They just simply overlooked. Was there nobody in the government who thought that this was wrong in so many ways? I understand the American fear because of the war and because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but Germany was a watching enemy at the time also, but German-American citizens weren&amp;#039;t sent to internment camps. The internment camps just seem inconsistent with what America stood for. I thought it was interesting how Monica Sone talked about the &amp;quot;wire fence.&amp;quot; She says, &amp;quot;Of one thing I was sure. The wire fence was real. I no longer had the right to walk out of it. It was also because some people had little faith in the ideas and ideals of democracy.&amp;quot; (p. 201). I think it was extremely sad that at this point in time, Monica and other Japanese/Japanese Americans were not proud to be Americans or be in America, and to be honest, I don&amp;#039;t blame them one bit. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this, and already knowing of the internment camps, it just shows the the good ole US of A isn&amp;#039;t always as cracked up as it&amp;#039;s supposed to be.  America makes laws and does thing that can be just as horrendous as the next guy (Hello Chinese Exclusion Acts). This wasn&amp;#039;t the first time they had issues with our Asian neighbors across the Pacific. Yes the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor, but that doesn&amp;#039;t mean every single Japanese should be sent away.  If Americans received the same treatment somewhere else in the world, mirroring what we did to the Japanese, it just wouldn&amp;#039;t fly. As Alex said, I completely understand the not being proud to be American bit.  Ummm hello they just locked you away and took all of your rights from you!!- Christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece to be fairly hard to read because this was definitely not a highlight in American history. Sometimes I think that japanese internment gets over looked and pushed under the carpet, but the notion of labeling a family (who had been an active and participating member of American society, sometimes for more than one generation) as a number and forcing them to move from their homes and into something barely better than horse stables, is not something that Americans associate with WWII. Many times the US is looked at as a protector of freedom and responsible for helping bring down the Nazi regime and ending the Holocost, and even though internment camps wer far from death camps, the idea of separating one ethnicity or nationality from the rest of society and keeping them in a fenced in, cramped area, was present in America. Fear makes people do crazy scary things. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was particularly interesting.  I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women.  She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her.  I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth&amp;#039;s husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work.  All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how &amp;quot;The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives.&amp;quot; (205)  I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties?  She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts.  Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness.  She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it.  There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work.  However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children.  – Alice W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a &amp;quot;new woman&amp;quot; and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, &amp;quot;fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death.&amp;quot; (MAW, 191). Marion&amp;#039;s letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC&amp;#039;s wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marion Stegeman is really having a field day with her war-time piloting experience.  Her story about getting blown off-course is hilarious.  As has already been mentioned, the language she uses in these letters is extremely 1940&amp;#039;s colorful and seems care-free - which was totally cloying at first to read - which made her last letter seem somewhat sad, as she sounds rather deflated and is obviously fishing for reassurance that she&amp;#039;s doing the right thing.  The experience of having so much freedom as a pilot along with the constant patriotism-fueled encouragement must have been exhilarating for a lot of women, and work of any kind - particularly if you get to fly - must have been a good distraction from the reality of war.  -Erin B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this section, especially the language that Marion used (&amp;quot;smackers&amp;quot; made my day and I may have to use that at some point). I found it interesting that once she felt that she &amp;quot;had&amp;quot; to do something or report to someone in contrast to being a pilot for her own enjoyment, she made the decsion that she wanted to get married. Wouldn&amp;#039;t she have to report to her husband at that point? I feel as if she was care-free and almost living in her own personal world, and was out to find personal enjoyment rather than work, which was a different way of looking at things than the previous excerts that we have read. Most of the women that we have read are looking for work for extra spending money (or survival money during the Depression) and if they enjoy it then its a bonus, whereas Marion is looking for enjoyment first. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Photos taken during WWII by Esther Bubley==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, I want to say that I found the photos to be really helpful. Not only can I understand the history of women during WWII but I can see them, I think this makes a big difference in fully understanding the time. Next, I want to say that what stood out to me was the different ways that women were dressed. All of these pictures were taken during the war, however, some women were wearing typical woman&amp;#039;s clothing of the time, while other women were wearing pants. What is more interesting is that women in the skirts all seemed to sit in a really uncomfortable, uptight looking way with their legs crossed at the bottom or held tightly together with their hands in their laps. The women in pants, on the other hand, are sitting in traditionally male positions as we would see them today, slouched with legs wide open, leaning on the thighs. I&amp;#039;m not sure if that means anything, but it stood out to me. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed looking at these photographs, Esther Bubley truly captured “average Americans” just as she intended to.  The image that struck me the most was the Instructor of the Capital Transit Company.  The title from the website describes exactly what I was thinking: “Bending gender roles for ‘the duration’”.  This is the image that was painted in class on Tuesday when we were talking about women working outside the home in “men’s” positions.  I wonder how the men behind the instructor felt when they were being taught by a woman. They look about 40 in the photo so it must have been quite a transition for them.  I wonder how the men who stayed behind during the war felt in general, I know that this is a Women’s History course but WWII was a turning point for women in the work place, and I wonder how much, if any, resistance they were met with from the men who had stayed behind.  Just a thought. – Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mary McLeod Bethune Urges President Roosevelt to Turn to Qualified Negro Women for Help, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be really interesting because it shows that black women felt the need to help their country just as much as the white women did. The reason it is so interesting to me is because up until this time, the country had not done much for the black community, so why should they feel like they need to be helping their country? The answer to that question is sort of what Bethune is getting at. She is saying that the black community has earned the right to be patriotic and defensive of their country because they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;are&amp;#039;&amp;#039; citizens. She wants to be treated like the white citizens who are defending their country because she is a hardworking citizen too. On page 372, she says while speaking about the black community, &amp;quot;they, too, have earned the right to be numbered among the active forces who are working towards the protection of our democratic stronghold.&amp;quot; I think that Mary Bethune wants the President to know that black women love their country and want to protect it, and they should be given the right to do so.  - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, A Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought reading this article was really kind of sad because of how much Jeanne didn&amp;#039;t seem to want anything to do with her Japanese culture. I don&amp;#039;t think it was really a conscious decision on her part, its just that she was American and wanted to do American things. She didn&amp;#039;t want to learn the traditional Japanese form of dance but instead wanted to do baton twirling and go to catechism. Furthermore, it was pretty obvious that she didn&amp;#039;t care whether or not she found a Japanese husband or not. Jeanne and probably many other girls just like her really were not foreign at all. Jeanne didn&amp;#039;t even speak Japanese. Americans at this time were terrified of anyone of that race and threw them all into the same category whether they belonged or not. This is a perfect example of someone who didn&amp;#039;t belong. Women were already fighting hard for more equality and these girls had it even harder because, just like African Americans, they didn&amp;#039;t have gender OR race on their side. - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ve always thought that Japanese American internment/relocation camps were probably the worst decision FDR ever made in office. A lot of the people put into camps had lived in America for many years, and their children had never been to Japan in their lives. They were Americans, and some of them, as in the case of Jeanne, were very much disconnected from Japanese culture. Jeanne didn’t speak Japanese, and she twirled batons and wanted to be a Catholic. How much far removed from Japan could you get?&lt;br /&gt;
The Sone reading mentioned that “some people had little faith in the ideas and ideals of democracy” so they put Japanese Americans in camps to ensure loyalty. But it wasn’t Japanese Americans that didn’t have faith in democracy, it was the people who put them into camps. -- Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-25T02:21:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it&amp;#039;s almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable &amp;quot;Rosie&amp;quot; to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It&amp;#039;s amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it&amp;#039;d be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman.  She was able to make more money than she had before the War.  Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child.  I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities.   -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill&amp;#039;s experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I&amp;#039;m glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn&amp;#039;t, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller&amp;#039;s poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill&amp;#039;s off hand comment of &amp;quot;they weren&amp;#039;t hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse&amp;quot; (186). I know this is a women&amp;#039;s history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Putting it into context and the time period, its not that surprising there were more opportunities for black women during the war, there was more opportunities for everybody.  As with all the sources we read, having an individual story, a tangible person does make things seem more real, more personal, more easily relateable. - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job&amp;quot; (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today&amp;#039;s understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it&amp;#039;s easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply &amp;quot;didn&amp;#039;t click&amp;quot; for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn&amp;#039;t someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II&amp;#039;s new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family&amp;#039;s heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it&amp;#039;s not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that &amp;quot;she&amp;#039;d never had the time&amp;quot; to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It&amp;#039;s easy to see how real-life women in Gertie&amp;#039;s situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Doll maker&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of  what they wanted their life to be like.  I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage.  Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted.  As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages.    -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine.  Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression.  This family moved to Detroit due to the country&amp;#039;s massive mobilization and hopefully a job.  I think their experience there was nothing like they expected.  They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status.  But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work.  Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring.  The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was &amp;quot;adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room.&amp;quot;  I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living.  Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, &amp;quot;Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall.&amp;quot; (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband&amp;#039;s job.  I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie&amp;#039;s life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, &amp;quot;When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?&amp;quot; (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this story provided a good contrast to the readings that talk about all of the success people found because of the war. The war did improve the lives of many people, and following the war was there was unprecedented wealth, but there were also people who didn’t find success and continued in the same poor conditions they always had. Though this reading is part of a fictional novel, I think it provides a balance for all of the improvements in Americans lives that we’ve read about. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women&amp;#039;s Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were &amp;quot;perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater&amp;quot; (pg. 375) was on to something. It&amp;#039;s noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn&amp;#039;t seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to &amp;quot;less exhausting&amp;quot; positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army.  “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt for these Japanese-American people.  There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a terrible time in American History.  We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.  The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps.  This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S.  In continuing with Morgan&amp;#039;s mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower.  These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad.  The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Morgan&amp;#039;s comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler&amp;#039;s concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America&amp;#039;s internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities.  Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting.  I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all of the above statements but I feel even more strongly about the internment camps. While I agree with what kokeefe said that the internment camps were different from concentration camps, how Americans de-humanized the Japanese was similar. Japanese-Americans became a number much like a test rat in a labratory, they were organized by numbers and letters and were not allowed outside of the high fences, much like a cage. They had poor shelter, food, and were watched everyday including giving the Japanese a bedtime of 10:00, and thinking it was okay. I think there should be a museum representing the stories and lives of the Japanese who were forced into these internment camps much like the Holocaust museum so more Americans can understand what we did as a nation in World War II. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember learning about Japanese internment camps when i was young being just totally confused by it.  In part, because it did seem eerily similar to what had been going on in Nazi Germany, as many others had mentioned.  This passage really brings out a lot of the degradation that i imagine many Japanese-Americans must have felt to have been controlled and suspected and discriminated against because of what was for many, including the author of this piece, a relatively distant ancestry.  She&amp;#039;d grown up being an &amp;quot;American&amp;quot;, and now she was alienated from that identity without really being able to identify with the &amp;quot;Japanese&amp;quot; for which she was interned.  I think that the author&amp;#039;s discussion of the issei and nisei sort of gets at that struggle to pin down an identity and differences between generational reactions. -Erin B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it says a lot about the meaning of Japanese internment camps to the Japanese who were in them when Monica Sone says, &amp;quot;Maybe I wasn&amp;#039;t considered an American anymore.&amp;quot; (Page 201) Just that mere sentence probably sums up the thoughts of the Japanese Americans at the time. Many of the Japanese were not immigrants but were born in America, making them citizens. Besides the fact that the government&amp;#039;s decision to use internment camps resembled the Nazi labor/concentration camps, the government was more or less imprisoning its own citizens. What happened to all the rights American citizens had? They just simply overlooked. Was there nobody in the government who thought that this was wrong in so many ways? I understand the American fear because of the war and because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but Germany was a watching enemy at the time also, but German-American citizens weren&amp;#039;t sent to internment camps. The internment camps just seem inconsistent with what America stood for. I thought it was interesting how Monica Sone talked about the &amp;quot;wire fence.&amp;quot; She says, &amp;quot;Of one thing I was sure. The wire fence was real. I no longer had the right to walk out of it. It was also because some people had little faith in the ideas and ideals of democracy.&amp;quot; (p. 201). I think it was extremely sad that at this point in time, Monica and other Japanese/Japanese Americans were not proud to be Americans or be in America, and to be honest, I don&amp;#039;t blame them one bit. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this, and already knowing of the internment camps, it just shows the the good ole US of A isn&amp;#039;t always as cracked up as it&amp;#039;s supposed to be.  America makes laws and does thing that can be just as horrendous as the next guy (Hello Chinese Exclusion Acts). This wasn&amp;#039;t the first time they had issues with our Asian neighbors across the Pacific. Yes the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor, but that doesn&amp;#039;t mean every single Japanese should be sent away.  If Americans received the same treatment somewhere else in the world, mirroring what we did to the Japanese, it just wouldn&amp;#039;t fly. As Alex said, I completely understand the not being proud to be American bit.  Ummm hello they just locked you away and took all of your rights from you!!- Christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was particularly interesting.  I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women.  She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her.  I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth&amp;#039;s husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work.  All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how &amp;quot;The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives.&amp;quot; (205)  I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties?  She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts.  Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness.  She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it.  There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work.  However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children.  – Alice W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a &amp;quot;new woman&amp;quot; and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, &amp;quot;fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death.&amp;quot; (MAW, 191). Marion&amp;#039;s letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC&amp;#039;s wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marion Stegeman is really having a field day with her war-time piloting experience.  Her story about getting blown off-course is hilarious.  As has already been mentioned, the language she uses in these letters is extremely 1940&amp;#039;s colorful and seems care-free - which was totally cloying at first to read - which made her last letter seem somewhat sad, as she sounds rather deflated and is obviously fishing for reassurance that she&amp;#039;s doing the right thing.  The experience of having so much freedom as a pilot along with the constant patriotism-fueled encouragement must have been exhilarating for a lot of women, and work of any kind - particularly if you get to fly - must have been a good distraction from the reality of war.  -Erin B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this section, especially the language that Marion used (&amp;quot;smackers&amp;quot; made my day and I may have to use that at some point). I found it interesting that once she felt that she &amp;quot;had&amp;quot; to do something or report to someone in contrast to being a pilot for her own enjoyment, she made the decsion that she wanted to get married. Wouldn&amp;#039;t she have to report to her husband at that point? I feel as if she was care-free and almost living in her own personal world, and was out to find personal enjoyment rather than work, which was a different way of looking at things than the previous excerts that we have read. Most of the women that we have read are looking for work for extra spending money (or survival money during the Depression) and if they enjoy it then its a bonus, whereas Marion is looking for enjoyment first. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Photos taken during WWII by Esther Bubley==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, I want to say that I found the photos to be really helpful. Not only can I understand the history of women during WWII but I can see them, I think this makes a big difference in fully understanding the time. Next, I want to say that what stood out to me was the different ways that women were dressed. All of these pictures were taken during the war, however, some women were wearing typical woman&amp;#039;s clothing of the time, while other women were wearing pants. What is more interesting is that women in the skirts all seemed to sit in a really uncomfortable, uptight looking way with their legs crossed at the bottom or held tightly together with their hands in their laps. The women in pants, on the other hand, are sitting in traditionally male positions as we would see them today, slouched with legs wide open, leaning on the thighs. I&amp;#039;m not sure if that means anything, but it stood out to me. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed looking at these photographs, Esther Bubley truly captured “average Americans” just as she intended to.  The image that struck me the most was the Instructor of the Capital Transit Company.  The title from the website describes exactly what I was thinking: “Bending gender roles for ‘the duration’”.  This is the image that was painted in class on Tuesday when we were talking about women working outside the home in “men’s” positions.  I wonder how the men behind the instructor felt when they were being taught by a woman. They look about 40 in the photo so it must have been quite a transition for them.  I wonder how the men who stayed behind during the war felt in general, I know that this is a Women’s History course but WWII was a turning point for women in the work place, and I wonder how much, if any, resistance they were met with from the men who had stayed behind.  Just a thought. – Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mary McLeod Bethune Urges President Roosevelt to Turn to Qualified Negro Women for Help, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be really interesting because it shows that black women felt the need to help their country just as much as the white women did. The reason it is so interesting to me is because up until this time, the country had not done much for the black community, so why should they feel like they need to be helping their country? The answer to that question is sort of what Bethune is getting at. She is saying that the black community has earned the right to be patriotic and defensive of their country because they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;are&amp;#039;&amp;#039; citizens. She wants to be treated like the white citizens who are defending their country because she is a hardworking citizen too. On page 372, she says while speaking about the black community, &amp;quot;they, too, have earned the right to be numbered among the active forces who are working towards the protection of our democratic stronghold.&amp;quot; I think that Mary Bethune wants the President to know that black women love their country and want to protect it, and they should be given the right to do so.  - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, A Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought reading this article was really kind of sad because of how much Jeanne didn&amp;#039;t seem to want anything to do with her Japanese culture. I don&amp;#039;t think it was really a conscious decision on her part, its just that she was American and wanted to do American things. She didn&amp;#039;t want to learn the traditional Japanese form of dance but instead wanted to do baton twirling and go to catechism. Furthermore, it was pretty obvious that she didn&amp;#039;t care whether or not she found a Japanese husband or not. Jeanne and probably many other girls just like her really were not foreign at all. Jeanne didn&amp;#039;t even speak Japanese. Americans at this time were terrified of anyone of that race and threw them all into the same category whether they belonged or not. This is a perfect example of someone who didn&amp;#039;t belong. Women were already fighting hard for more equality and these girls had it even harder because, just like African Americans, they didn&amp;#039;t have gender OR race on their side. - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ve always thought that Japanese American internment/relocation camps were probably the worst decision FDR ever made in office. A lot of the people put into camps had lived in America for many years, and their children had never been to Japan in their lives. They were Americans, and some of them, as in the case of Jeanne, were very much disconnected from Japanese culture. Jeanne didn’t speak Japanese, and she twirled batons and wanted to be a Catholic. How much far removed from Japan could you get?&lt;br /&gt;
The Sone reading mentioned that “some people had little faith in the ideas and ideals of democracy” so they put Japanese Americans in camps to ensure loyalty. But it wasn’t Japanese Americans that didn’t have faith in democracy, it was the people who put them into camps. -- Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-18T00:11:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* Women in a Soup Line (photograph) */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work.  LeSueur describes women who &amp;quot;sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in&amp;quot; (146).  One can really feel the desperation in these women&amp;#039;s lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece  shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment.  Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity.  Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc.  I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn&amp;#039;t find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression.  I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.  I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat.  She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them.  That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily.  The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says &amp;quot;if she&amp;#039;s proud then she starves silently&amp;quot; (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today&amp;#039;s societal norms.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating.  It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was absolutely heart breaking to read. The images popped from the pages and really made these women become real and human. It is hard to understand the devestating effects the Depression had, and I think too often people look at the statistics (which are staggering and upsetting) but dont always stop and think about what really was going on. People were not sitting around passively going through the Depressio, they were lining up in hords to sit and wait hour after hour for, sometimes, months in hopes of any job opening up at all. LeSueur did an excellent job of being able to capture this feeling off deflated hope considering she was living it too, there was insight that can only be gained by seeing someone day in and day out desperate and needing that she was able to record in a manner that is heartbreaking. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==&lt;br /&gt;
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can&amp;#039;t afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur&amp;#039;s writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don&amp;#039;t want to admit that they haven&amp;#039;t achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn&amp;#039;t the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are.  (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters &amp;quot;were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action&amp;quot; (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn&amp;#039;t know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren&amp;#039;t working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women &amp;quot;are not good mothers and housekeepers&amp;quot; (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I feel that in times of crisis the government looks more for the ideal (which was never realized by most people anyway) and then makes it a national campaign. I liked her point about &amp;quot;who is to say when a man earns enough to suppor his family&amp;quot; (348) because it brings attention to the fact that during this time men really had an even harder time making enough t provide food for his family, and if he could do that, did that mean he earned enough? What standard are they basing &amp;quot;enough&amp;quot; on, because it may be different fro every person. So who really can judge a married woman as &amp;quot;needing a job&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;frivolous&amp;quot;? From the letters read earlier about the plight of most women workers (and a huge number of male workers as well), no job during the Depression was frivolous, every little bit counted for the family to survive.--jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==&lt;br /&gt;
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn&amp;#039;t stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change.  Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home.  She was knowledgeable of how the system worked.  It was no surprise that they took on this role.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money.  I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm.  It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm.  She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting.  In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities.  I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m sincerely impressed by the efforts of the housewives that were described in this section. My personal favorite is when &amp;quot;Black mothers in cleveland, unable to convince a local power company to delay shutting off electricity in the homes of families who had not paid their bills won resotration of power after they hung wet laundry over every utility line in the neighborhood.&amp;quot; (page 402)That is crafty AND it got what they wanted to get accomplished accomplished. Although I don&amp;#039;t support the logic that a woman&amp;#039;s place is in the home, I have to give the housewives their credit for being as politically active as was described. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the &amp;quot;Slave Markets&amp;quot; Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery&amp;#039;s end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women&amp;#039;s willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for &amp;quot;the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women&amp;quot; (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman&amp;#039;s domestic service would be labeled a &amp;quot;slave market.&amp;quot; Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week&amp;#039;s article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control.  However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression.  How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control?  Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards.  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books.  It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies. It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics.  It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition.  Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex. It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you&amp;#039;re already struggling to survive. It&amp;#039;s stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes &amp;quot;it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility&amp;quot; it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn&amp;#039;t afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn&amp;#039;t allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn&amp;#039;t allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn&amp;#039;t refrain from having them. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s. Mollie&amp;#039;s life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this. Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south.  While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161).  I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.  I found Carlotta&amp;#039;s family&amp;#039;s generosity amazing during such a rough time.  Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money.  They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate.  The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays.  Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community.  While I&amp;#039;m sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them.  And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity.  And they didn&amp;#039;t oppose to having a picture taken of them!  Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn&amp;#039;t actually the case?  Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it?  Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women.  Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that perhaps the women photographed were of a different mentality than those read in other primary sources we read. These women were Mexican American women, who were probably accustomed to not having the best that society can offer, they were not part of the prototypical white middle class ideal before the Depression. Also, they eithe had to go, or volunteered to go, around the back of the soup kitchen, so maybe they did face the same struggle with accepting cherity as other women we have read (or they were not allowed to go in because they didn&amp;#039;t qualify for aide), but after weighing the option of going hungry or being able to feed their family for the nigt, it cmes down to you do what you have to do to survive. --jmarshal&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-18T00:02:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work.  LeSueur describes women who &amp;quot;sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in&amp;quot; (146).  One can really feel the desperation in these women&amp;#039;s lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece  shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment.  Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity.  Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc.  I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn&amp;#039;t find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression.  I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.  I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat.  She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them.  That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily.  The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says &amp;quot;if she&amp;#039;s proud then she starves silently&amp;quot; (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today&amp;#039;s societal norms.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating.  It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was absolutely heart breaking to read. The images popped from the pages and really made these women become real and human. It is hard to understand the devestating effects the Depression had, and I think too often people look at the statistics (which are staggering and upsetting) but dont always stop and think about what really was going on. People were not sitting around passively going through the Depressio, they were lining up in hords to sit and wait hour after hour for, sometimes, months in hopes of any job opening up at all. LeSueur did an excellent job of being able to capture this feeling off deflated hope considering she was living it too, there was insight that can only be gained by seeing someone day in and day out desperate and needing that she was able to record in a manner that is heartbreaking. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==&lt;br /&gt;
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can&amp;#039;t afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur&amp;#039;s writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don&amp;#039;t want to admit that they haven&amp;#039;t achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn&amp;#039;t the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are.  (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters &amp;quot;were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action&amp;quot; (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn&amp;#039;t know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren&amp;#039;t working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women &amp;quot;are not good mothers and housekeepers&amp;quot; (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I feel that in times of crisis the government looks more for the ideal (which was never realized by most people anyway) and then makes it a national campaign. I liked her point about &amp;quot;who is to say when a man earns enough to suppor his family&amp;quot; (348) because it brings attention to the fact that during this time men really had an even harder time making enough t provide food for his family, and if he could do that, did that mean he earned enough? What standard are they basing &amp;quot;enough&amp;quot; on, because it may be different fro every person. So who really can judge a married woman as &amp;quot;needing a job&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;frivolous&amp;quot;? From the letters read earlier about the plight of most women workers (and a huge number of male workers as well), no job during the Depression was frivolous, every little bit counted for the family to survive.--jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==&lt;br /&gt;
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn&amp;#039;t stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change.  Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home.  She was knowledgeable of how the system worked.  It was no surprise that they took on this role.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money.  I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm.  It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm.  She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting.  In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities.  I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m sincerely impressed by the efforts of the housewives that were described in this section. My personal favorite is when &amp;quot;Black mothers in cleveland, unable to convince a local power company to delay shutting off electricity in the homes of families who had not paid their bills won resotration of power after they hung wet laundry over every utility line in the neighborhood.&amp;quot; (page 402)That is crafty AND it got what they wanted to get accomplished accomplished. Although I don&amp;#039;t support the logic that a woman&amp;#039;s place is in the home, I have to give the housewives their credit for being as politically active as was described. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the &amp;quot;Slave Markets&amp;quot; Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery&amp;#039;s end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women&amp;#039;s willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for &amp;quot;the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women&amp;quot; (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman&amp;#039;s domestic service would be labeled a &amp;quot;slave market.&amp;quot; Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week&amp;#039;s article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control.  However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression.  How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control?  Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards.  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books.  It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies. It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics.  It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition.  Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex. It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you&amp;#039;re already struggling to survive. It&amp;#039;s stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes &amp;quot;it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility&amp;quot; it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn&amp;#039;t afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn&amp;#039;t allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn&amp;#039;t allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn&amp;#039;t refrain from having them. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s. Mollie&amp;#039;s life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this. Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south.  While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161).  I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.  I found Carlotta&amp;#039;s family&amp;#039;s generosity amazing during such a rough time.  Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money.  They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate.  The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays.  Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community.  While I&amp;#039;m sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them.  And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity.  And they didn&amp;#039;t oppose to having a picture taken of them!  Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn&amp;#039;t actually the case?  Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it?  Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women.  Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-17T23:54:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work.  LeSueur describes women who &amp;quot;sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in&amp;quot; (146).  One can really feel the desperation in these women&amp;#039;s lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece  shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment.  Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity.  Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc.  I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn&amp;#039;t find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression.  I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.  I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat.  She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them.  That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily.  The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says &amp;quot;if she&amp;#039;s proud then she starves silently&amp;quot; (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today&amp;#039;s societal norms.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating.  It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was absolutely heart breaking to read. The images popped from the pages and really made these women become real and human. It is hard to understand the devestating effects the Depression had, and I think too often people look at the statistics (which are staggering and upsetting) but dont always stop and think about what really was going on. People were not sitting around passively going through the Depressio, they were lining up in hords to sit and wait hour after hour for, sometimes, months in hopes of any job opening up at all. LeSueur did an excellent job of being able to capture this feeling off deflated hope considering she was living it too, there was insight that can only be gained by seeing someone day in and day out desperate and needing that she was able to record in a manner that is heartbreaking. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==&lt;br /&gt;
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can&amp;#039;t afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur&amp;#039;s writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don&amp;#039;t want to admit that they haven&amp;#039;t achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn&amp;#039;t the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are.  (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters &amp;quot;were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action&amp;quot; (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn&amp;#039;t know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren&amp;#039;t working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women &amp;quot;are not good mothers and housekeepers&amp;quot; (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==&lt;br /&gt;
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn&amp;#039;t stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change.  Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home.  She was knowledgeable of how the system worked.  It was no surprise that they took on this role.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money.  I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm.  It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm.  She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting.  In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities.  I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m sincerely impressed by the efforts of the housewives that were described in this section. My personal favorite is when &amp;quot;Black mothers in cleveland, unable to convince a local power company to delay shutting off electricity in the homes of families who had not paid their bills won resotration of power after they hung wet laundry over every utility line in the neighborhood.&amp;quot; (page 402)That is crafty AND it got what they wanted to get accomplished accomplished. Although I don&amp;#039;t support the logic that a woman&amp;#039;s place is in the home, I have to give the housewives their credit for being as politically active as was described. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the &amp;quot;Slave Markets&amp;quot; Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery&amp;#039;s end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women&amp;#039;s willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for &amp;quot;the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women&amp;quot; (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman&amp;#039;s domestic service would be labeled a &amp;quot;slave market.&amp;quot; Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week&amp;#039;s article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control.  However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression.  How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control?  Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards.  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books.  It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies. It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics.  It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition.  Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex. It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you&amp;#039;re already struggling to survive. It&amp;#039;s stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes &amp;quot;it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility&amp;quot; it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn&amp;#039;t afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn&amp;#039;t allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn&amp;#039;t allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn&amp;#039;t refrain from having them. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s. Mollie&amp;#039;s life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this. Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south.  While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161).  I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.  I found Carlotta&amp;#039;s family&amp;#039;s generosity amazing during such a rough time.  Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money.  They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate.  The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays.  Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community.  While I&amp;#039;m sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them.  And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity.  And they didn&amp;#039;t oppose to having a picture taken of them!  Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn&amp;#039;t actually the case?  Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it?  Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women.  Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-16T03:50:15Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: /* Women of the Ku Klux Klan */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;EXTRA CREDIT:  Focusing only on the primary source readings, discuss the context within which one or two of these documents were created: What were the goals of the people writing?  Who were they writing for?  Consider the circumstances of their creation.  How would people at the time have received those ideas or claims and why?   (Think broadly; some people would like some ideas that others would not.) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith==&lt;br /&gt;
Since we didn&amp;#039;t get a chance to spend time on them in class, you can listen to some of their music [http://kokoro.umwblogs.org/2010/03/13/ma-rainey-and-bessie-smith/ here]. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks Taylor! - christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching.  I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so.  I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal.  -Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the phrase “hope in a jar” (P.360) was interesting because it showed how women depended so much on make up to bring them more importance in the world. They also expected make-up to make life smoother for them, bringing them new opportunities. So many acts, like using make up that were previously looked down upon, were suddenly accepted when society saw that movie stars/high class people would use cosmetics. Society and culture was so easily influenced by outside factors such as movies. I think during this time, cosmetics created a false sense of “the self.&amp;quot; “A woman’s personal success relied on her appearance.” (P.355) What about her abilities, her work ethic, etc? -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wonder what the guys in the class think about makeup in this class. I personally don&amp;#039;t like makeup, but that might be more of a personal opinion reflecting my upbringing and interpretations of media. I suppose the question is--if makeup is not linked to prostitution anymore, then what is, because for some reason I think that makeup still represents that oldest of professions to some degree. I have no idea how looking &amp;quot;exotic&amp;quot; is supposed to be less offensive...I don&amp;#039;t really understand the WASP middle class fascination with all things different--is this a new development or something that arose around this time period? I like Mary Ann&amp;#039;s interpretation of the rise of makeup, highlighting feminine features when increasing numbers of women were entering the public sphere. So my question is whether or not the rising popularity of makeup indicative of a new level of freedom experienced by women or something that more firmly entrenched and highlighted their separateness from men? I suppose this goes back to the arguments between the feminists and social feminists insofar as making a truly equal society or preserving protective legislation... -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time.  The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well.  I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why would Dr. Frederick &amp;quot;of course...tried to explain it away?&amp;quot; Didn&amp;#039;t Jane Addams, Louise DeKoven Brown and other Chicago reformers blame overwork, commercialized recreation and alcohol for &amp;quot;bringing out natural yearnings and instincts that THEY preferred to see repressed&amp;quot;? Why would these women want to see these instincts repressed? Wouldn&amp;#039;t a prominent woman such as Addams OF COURSE have approved of open sexual practices? And why would Dr. Frederick have bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex? Mosher&amp;#039;s study wasn&amp;#039;t common nor was it published, so why are we assuming today that it was a common thing to ask women about their attitudes towards sex a century ago? And didn&amp;#039;t the Mosher survey find that some women didn&amp;#039;t have an interest in sex? I&amp;#039;m sure that women&amp;#039;s history is a contentious topic but objectivity needs to be maintained and we need to make sure that we don&amp;#039;t project our modern day assumptions into history.  -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, no one’s assuming that it was common practice for women to be interviewed about sex at that time, or really for anyone to be interviewed about it at that time. Nor do I see anyone projecting modern day assumptions. Frederick’s suggesting that “sexual desire is entirely absent in a much larger number of women than is generally supposed&amp;quot; (291) and that any woman who expresses real sexual desire is pretty much a nymphomaniac. I simply pointed out that, despite the impropriety of asking such questions at the time and in particular coming from a man, if he had done &amp;#039;&amp;#039;actual&amp;#039;&amp;#039; scientific research, such as the interviews conducted by Mosher (and from the samples we saw, all of the women often found sex agreeable), that he would have probably disregarded the answers and tried to explain them away because it didn’t jive with his and society’s beliefs about women. A lot of people probably would have done the same. Yet, clearly the Mosher survey shows that there were some women of the period who were more open to sex and recognized that they enjoyed it or even that it was necessary to their health. So, sure, maybe there were women like Jane Addams who preferred to see sex repressed, but there were also women who didn’t want to repress their sexual desires. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Taylor here. The Mosher survey is an example of dialogue beginning to open, but certainly not the norm.  The doctor was not going door to door asking all women these questions; this was just a small sample group. That being said a survey such as this not only reveals that women at this time did harbor sexual desire, it also illustrates that types of marriages that they had. Though some of the women believed that sex was primarily for the purpose of procreation and male sexual satisfaction, others felt that it was a key component to the marriage. This was not a popular conversation at the time so I do not see how any of the former posts were projecting modern ideals onto the study.   –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses Discuss the Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses stressed the importance of the sexual relationship between the husband and wife, in order to obtain a fulfilled and happy marriage.  Their goals were to make sex education more available to the “average” person and not limited to only professional classes and to show the importance of women’s own active participation in the physical relationship of marriage.  They acknowledged that women had recognized themselves as sexual beings in this modern era and needed to be educated to fulfill those roles in a marriage of mutual companionship.  I think they were writing for those who restricted this information from getting out.  They are showing that by restricting this information that they are impairing (what they called handicapping) women from obtaining that fulfilled happy marriage and encouraging personality conflicts by allowing ignorance on the subject of sex.  In general, I don’t think people knew how to react to this information.  They probably felt it was needed and wanted but some were afraid to openly acknowledge this but secretly may have wanted to obtain it.  There were religious reasons that encouraged people to reject this in fear of being immoral and inappropriate.  Some women may have been comfortable with the rigidity of women’s role whereas others felt that it allowed women a  more equal partner in the marriage.  Blanchard and Manasses were saying that by educating women, they would meet the needs of their own sexual desires and expectations and being more apt to satisfying her partner.  These women are liberal in their thoughts on pre-marital sex and emphasized that one should try their partners out sexually before marriage to see if they would be compatible.  I don’t think that this was generally accepted though it wouldn’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t being practiced.  In the eyes of these two Psychologists, the modern marriage required a larger emphasis on the physical side and this made the importance of educating women about sex and contraceptives even more important.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carlton C. Fredericks, M.D.’s assessment of what he calls “Nymphomania” was absurd. He even goes as far to propose that women who view sex or masturbation as gratifying automatically classify them as perverts. It seems that any sexual expression that he deemed as improper was in some way perverse. It was such a contrast to the Mosher study because Fredericks views a women’s sexual appetite as “insane or mildly insane”(291) where Mosher is finding that many women feel it is necessary to carry on a healthy marriage. It is interesting as well because the Mosher&amp;#039;s study took place at around the same time, the duality between these two school of thought are amazing! –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If there was one article I read out loud incredulously as I forced my roommate to listen, it was this one. Fredericks gets the Women&amp;#039;s History prize for Official Idiot, and I hope he was recognized as such during his time, although I doubt it. His accusations are not only wildly speculative and libelous, but also unfounded and unsupported by neutral documentation. Even if you took out the ridiculous subject material, his disturbing lack of evidence and wild examples would make for an extremely weak argument.  --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wonder if I am finding this thread to be a bit ridiculous because I am a male or if there is just a little hint of a bias in peoples&amp;#039; interpretations of this primary source. First, unless I am mistaken and if I am, then someone please correct me, but I had thought that masturbation by anyone, males or females, was considered a perversion of sorts during this time period. Second, did Mosher find anything contrary to what Frederick did? I don&amp;#039;t remember reading any of Mosher&amp;#039;s own interpretations of the interview results, the reading is just the interview questions and answers--none of Mosher&amp;#039;s own analysis there, unless I forgot something. Differences between results? Where was Frederick based out of? Were Californians more liberal back then as they are now? Even if they weren&amp;#039;t, geographical considerations have to be taken into account before a comparison can be made. Why is Frederick&amp;#039;s study less convincing? Does it not represent the popular AND professional understanding of femininity and sexuality at the time? And before we dismiss his claim that the numbers and variations of practices were too various to include and such, this was published in a journal, and therefore couldn&amp;#039;t include whatever raw data he might or might not have collected. Again, why was Frederick an idiot--for publishing something that was in line with the prevalent medical opinion concerning this issue? Same argument for the other complaints about Frederick. I&amp;#039;m not defending Frederick as a person, I am only arguing for trying to retain some semblance of objectivity when reading primary documents and trying to put them in the context of their time period rather than impose our own conceptions onto history. -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that the people finding Frederick’s report ridiculous do recognize that it would have been in line with traditional medical assumptions of the day. You’re right that the survey has none of Mosher’s own analysis, but I think the answers (at least the ones we were able to read and that’s key for anything we say regarding it) speak for themselves. All of the women found sex agreeable, except for one woman who found it agreeable “usually.” All of them said there were times when they desired sex, and some of them said the ideal would be to have sex when both the husband and wife wanted it. The idea of a woman actually &amp;#039;&amp;#039;wanting&amp;#039;&amp;#039; sex, and not being a nympho, is the complete opposite of Frederick’s report. So, to answer your question, yes, the survey contradicts Frederick, and that’s putting it lightly. Reading the Mosher survey right before Frederick’s report really highlights his lack of evidence for his claims, and maybe that’s why people were reacting so harshly towards him in their comments. Wanting scientific evidence isn’t even out of line with the time period either. Frankly, for all of your talk about looking at primary sources within their context, I think you’re ignoring the Mosher survey within its context. To me, the survey (in the parts we read) suggests that perhaps Frederick’s assumptions about women and their sexual desire, or lack thereof, weren’t as prevalent in actual society as believed. Perhaps public assumptions about sex didn’t completely match up with personal assumptions about sex, if that makes any sense. Unfortunately, we don’t have many surveys like Mosher’s. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, Taylor I agree. The Fredericks report seems quite frankly, his opinion of women. I understand that this was a popular notion held by many medical professionals at the time, but he shows no objectivity, nor does he express any scientific evidence to back up his claim. The Mosher study, though it does not provide and analysis of the subject matter at the end, still demonstrates how WOMEN viewed sex and sexual satisfaction at the time. The Mosher survey is a sociological study where as the Fredericks Report is an editorialized account. I think when comparing these two primary sources, we have to remember that fact. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
This was a speech given by Carrie Chapman Catt, to the League of Women&amp;#039;s Voters right after the ninteenth amendment was passed and women were given the right to vote.  Now that they have this right, they need to excercise it and become involved in politics and this speech is intended to do just that.  The context for this speech is very important because if it was made before women had the right to vote, it would not carry as much weight.  However, now that they have this right, they can take immediate action and get involved politically.  I think in this slight time of confusion of what exactly to do with this huge, new important right, this speech can help give women much needed direction.  -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  &amp;quot;You won&amp;#039;t be so welcome there, but that is the place to be,&amp;quot; (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says &amp;quot;this is the same old struggle but in a new field.&amp;quot; She new that just because women had the right to vote didn&amp;#039;t mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights.  The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process.  Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak.  EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I concur (big word) with EFritz with the acknowledgement that Catt was fully aware of the impending struggles of women. She recognizes the difficulties women will now face as voters. Though they have the right to vote, it does not inherently mean that everything else they desired, namely equality with men, will be achieved. Though suffrage was obtained it does not bring about total reconstruction in societal norms, which have been in place for centuries. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that at the bottom of this article there is a very simple goal for Carrie Chapman Catt, to get recognition from the world of the actual substantiality of women. Since that is a rather large, ambiguous, and (considering it still has not been a completed goal)impossible goal she had to first start aiming that goal toward the women she expected to lead the fight to accomplish it. Although it almost seems as though Catt is talking to women she had already convinced to join her in the fight towards suffrage, I personally believe she is attempting to persuade women who may not understand that they are being oppressed by the lack of societal recognition for their greatness. She is trying to inform them that they were born great women and should fight to be recognized for that, even if that fight means going against the crowd that would rather the women would just shut up and deal with their place in life. I think the people who she wasn&amp;#039;t trying to persuade with this message would take it the same way that people in today&amp;#039;s society react when they&amp;#039;re reminded with the continued inequality of Women in places like the workforce; They&amp;#039;d either not care, not understand why anyone would bother to care, care a lot, or justify the reasoning for the inequalities on arbitrary facts (like women being capable of getting pregnant meaning that they will use that capability to miss out on working and lose the company money, which is why they aren&amp;#039;t paid as much). On the other side, people hearing this argument from the other side might find an invigoration for the cause so great that they dedicate their life to changing and fighting for the rights of women. Men might read this article and realize that they have no justification within society for the woman to still be dealing with the same fight she&amp;#039;d been dealing with throughout the entirety of the existence of the United States. That reaction, however, I feel is entirely unlikely and considering the lack of women&amp;#039;s equality still existing today to a great extent, it probably was unlikely. Carrie Chapman Catt, however, probably felt that she had to write this article because she had to express to her followers, potential followers and dissenters that she wasn&amp;#039;t done fighting just because women finally got the right to vote. To her, that was just the first step. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Carrie Chapman Catt gave this cautionary speech to women as a way to remind them that they should not forget what they fought so hard for. She wants women to use their heads and think for themselves. She doesn&amp;#039;t want them to vote how their husbands vote just because. She doesn&amp;#039;t want them to only discuss politics within their homes and only influence their husbands. She wants women to realize that just voting is not enough, but they have to step into the political arena and voice their opinions. I think this probably did not go over well with many people at the time, especially conservative men. Just like in the first western states that gave women suffrage, men were probably expecting women to just follow their lead in political opinion. I&amp;#039;m sure they were surprised and a bit distraught to learn that Carrie Chapman Catt was directing women to learn about politics themselves, formulate their own opinions, and then fight to get their ideas and views out there. --Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All speeches have a purpose. In her speech, Catt is trying to convince the women in the audience to position themselves on the inside of politics. In this case, the audience is the League of Women Voters, whose stated goal was to prove that women could be effective, involved voters. Therefore, this audience would likely to agree with Catt’s opinion that the fight for suffrage was hard, but the potential revolutionary impact of women having the right to vote hadn’t yet been realized. Had Catt given this same speech to a different audience I doubt she would have had the excited reaction and applause as she did when speaking to the League of Women Voters. Some women were happy merely having the right to vote, and probably would have seen Catt’s opinions about women being in the most public of positions wrong because they were against the perceived gender roles of the time. It is important to keep in mind that the majority of women who supported women’s suffrage did so in order to support issues that they found important, for most of these women, women’s rights was not at the forefront of their priorities. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment.  Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society.  To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men.  Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion.  Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true.  She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women.  She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE&amp;#039;RE EQUAL!! Others didn&amp;#039;t quite that stance. It&amp;#039;s important to remember that many women approved of women&amp;#039;s suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different.  She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified.  ---jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the two arguments that Alice Hamilton and Doris Stevens gave I found Steven’s debate to be more influential than Hamilton’s. Steven’s was very straight forward about what she wanted, especially in listing what the Equal Rights Amendment would achieve for women. The list itself is eye-catching because it isn’t part of a paragraph, a radical move by a radical woman I suppose. I think that Doris is the epitome of what younger women didn’t want to be like, as Bromley further suggestes in her article. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously the debate that appeared in The Forum in 1924 would have been written for people who were able to obtain copies-mostly white, middle class, men and some women. Both sides were defending their positions of whether to have an Equal Rights Amendment or not. Doris Stevens basically believed that suffrage alone did not give women full rights as humans and needed more protection of the law and equality. She clearly defined the rights she thought women were due including &amp;quot;Equal Citizenship rights&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Equal pay for equal rights&amp;quot; (125). Like Morgan, I don&amp;#039;t find Hamilton&amp;#039;s argument nearly as convincing. I may also be biased, however, because I still find it very unusual for women to not desire the same amount of rights that men had or think that having more rights might even be harmful for women or cause more problems. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The goals of both authors, Doris Stevens and Alice Hamilton, were to appeal to their affiliations and to persuade readers that their certain cause was more just than the others.  Whether this was accomplished is debatable however. I can see why some women, either part of the National Women’s Party or the League of Women’s Voters, may have read this debate and changed side based upon it. Not being part of either I can see both side’s points and the validity behind them. The circumstances under which the debate was written was at a time of the 1920’s when women had achieved suffrage and were looking for something else that they could fight for, as well as bond together over. Most women after being given the right to vote, as well as Congress, didn’t see anything else that women needed. There was so much that could be gained by an Equal Rights Amendment, but the younger generation seemed unwilling to fight for it. Even the white, middle class women who had always had issues with something political or male oriented. I think that the arguments presented between both women were viewed as a good show, but nothing of great importance. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz, &amp;quot;Sexual Geography &amp;amp; Gender Economy&amp;quot; in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This essay discusses the growing sexual and emotional freedom that women were obtaining in the eartly 20th century.  They were able to choose how they wanted to carry themselves sexually in society.  However, to me, this essay was also a great paradox.  Although these women expressed themselves more feely than in the past, they were also severley tied down to men still.  Even in these so-called &amp;quot;furnished-room&amp;quot; districts, there was still sexual oppression and these women were subject to rape, poor conditions and economic dependence.  Although they could conceibably choose their different sex partners, they were also very dependent on these men for their business.  They need to break away from these districts in order to be truly sexually liberated.  Many downplayed these factors, but in order for women to liberated, these constraints must be lifted.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, &amp;quot;opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion&amp;quot; (US, 335). This &amp;quot;freedom of urban life&amp;quot; gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today the women described in this article would be a combination of a prostitute and a “sugar-baby” to a “sugar-daddy”.  Like others I found “dating,” “pick-ups,” “occasional prostitution,” and “temporary alliances” (329) as odd names to give to these casual sexual encounters, as if they were nothing at all. I doubt that these women thought anything of it and let it become a way of life though. Instead of going out and finding better jobs or more work, they fell back onto the notion of being a woman could get them what they wanted without the work. “If I did not have a man, I could not get along on my wages.” (330) -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What&amp;#039;s behind the three different versions of the sexual revolution? Flappers vs independent new women vs working-class rowdy girls. Is there one single interpretation that can explain the revolution or do all three have some merit? Also interesting, it seems as though some people now see prostitution as a good thing, if not a means to get by economically. I recall that most people were shocked and upset when reading about the Chinese prostitutes during the late nineteenth century...so what changed that makes people more comfortable with this idea? The seeming lack of organization insofar as the kind of bookkeeping that we saw with the bills of sales of Chinese prostitutes? Does the lack of that kind of documentation naturally imply that women were no longer coerced into prostitution, even if it was to just get by once in a while? Or were there pimps, perhaps some of the men living with them in these furnished districts that acted in such a capacity but without drawing up bills or contracts since prostitution was illegal now? And if this wasn&amp;#039;t the case, which I suspect might have been in at least some shape or form, perhaps societal pressures from their peers coerced them into prostitution, since apparently if a good looking girl didn&amp;#039;t sell herself she was considered a fool. What&amp;#039;s worse? That kind of social coercion or the kind of legal coercion that we saw in California? -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schang makes a good point above, prostitutes had been around a long time before the sexual revolution. They main difference that happened in the sexual revolution was that women chose it as an option, compared to the 19th century Chinese prostitutes, who were forced into long term sexual servitude often drugged. This reading suggested prostitution was like a new fad for women, one many were doing, and seemed common enough that many were comfortable with it. My guess behind the lack of documentation is that these types of prostitution during their time were seen as causal part-time labor and were not necessarily important enough to keep records of. -David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feminism.. &amp;quot;For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman&amp;#039;s place in the world...&amp;quot; I enjoyed this line... that&amp;#039;s how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I found it interesting how &amp;quot;Feminist-New Style&amp;quot; felt superior to the older women who had enabled them to lead the comfortable, sociable lifestyles they pursued. They felt no gratitude towards these former suffragettes, only contempt. Is this because they felt stronger than them because of their youth, felt more independent because of their economic independence, or just simply thought they were entitled to all of the rights they had? The answer baffles me. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Anna&amp;#039;s question, I think it might have a been a combination of the three. Even today, it is obvious in some cases where youths are ungrateful for what they have been given or the privileges they have been born with. For instance, many Americans view the opportunity to vote as a right, not the privilege it is. The same can be said for the women of this particular era. Simultaneously,  the economic independence that these women were able to benefit from would give them almost a false sense of self. They would not appreciate the labors their mothers had to endure. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I absolutely loved this article because I think it actually represents alot of the ideals that modern women have today. I think it was really progressive for Bromley to talk about women being able to have both a career AND a family, giving equal attention to both. That is the sort of equality that women have been fighting for, the right to be happy. Bromley is saying that women the new woman, if she balances everything correctly, can be very happy. She has the ability to be a professional and still has the ability to be a mom. She doesn&amp;#039;t need to constantly argue that she is as good as a man because she can just simply prove it in her actions. I think its really cool how she sort of brings all the different opinions of what women should be doing together and forms a type of super woman. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My favorite part of this article, other than the ambition of younger women to have a family and a career (as Angie points out) was the reference to war materials. “With a battle-cry still on their lips…still throwing hand grenades,” (128).  This article was written in 1927 and “The Great War” had only ended ten years earlier. I believe that tensions in the Us may have still been raw and that may be the reason for such a reference. Bromley effectively suggests that the 1st and 2nd generation women as battle-hardened veterans. As veterans I would expect them to cold and judgmental toward those that they had fought against, men. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I thought some of the points made by the New Style Feminists were good, I can&amp;#039;t help but feel that their mothers and even grandmothers would be sad to see the flippant way they discussed their struggles and triumphs. They seem to have forgotten that these women fought hard so that they their daughters would not have to. While their argument about creating your own identity instead of fighting to keep your maiden name was valid these new style feminists seemed to have overlooked what was at the core of the feminist movement. It was interesting to see how this article shows the differences between generations. Although the New Style idea of the stereotype of feminism has a cause for angry and embittered women has definitely persevered.--Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The goal of Dorothy Bromley’s “Feminist-New Style” article, of 1927, was to differentiate between the three generations of women that were part of the 1920’s era and to emphasize the younger generation. Obviously Bromley was a strong supporter, defender, of the younger generation and was writing to enhance her reasons for disliking the older generations of women. The young women would have received this article whole heartily as a defense against the older generations, as a response to the criticism they had already received.  The older generations probably saw this article as an attack against them and what they had stood for. Possibly an attack on what they had already accomplished insofar as the younger generation not being appreciative of what they had done for them and the freedoms they had created for them.  Bromley’s article was written at the end of the 1920’s and the beginning of the sexual revolution of the 1930’s just around the corner, the young generation of women were already showing rebellion towards the traditional behavior of women that was expected. This article may have helped instill in the younger generation that what they were doing was ok and more “modern” women, such as Bromley, understood and accepted them, even if the older generations did not. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, I agree with Morgan that perhaps Dorothy Bromley was trying to encourage younger women. I also think that this was a sort of defensive piece as well, though. At the time, men probably were not 100% comfortable with women having their own professional lives and this can be seen as her letting everyone know that the new feminist can balance a family as well as a career. She says things like &amp;quot;she will not, however, live for her job alone&amp;quot; (p. 128) and &amp;quot;nor has she become hostile to the other sex&amp;quot; (p. 129). These statements are comforting to those people that have some crazy idea of a cold-hearted feminist. Perhaps there were a few of them during the suffrage days, but Bromley is trying to convince women AND men that that really is not the case. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anxious mothers were certainly anxious, but who could blame them with a high “maternal and infant” (130) mortality rate.  Like the others who have posted I was quite intrigued by both mother number 2 and number 3. The second mother had, what seemed to me, laughable concerns. I have to remember that women were generally clueless about prenatal care at this point, so I could understand that if you crave something so intensely denying yourself would seem detrimental to the baby, but I was unclear as to why touching your face had anything to do with this. The third mother expressed the most valid concerns of the three. The shear idea of justice in a medical malpractice suit must have seemed so far-fetched at the time, considering that medical malpractices suits are hard to prove today! As the third mother recounted, many of the doctors who claimed to be experts, did not provide adequate care to these mothers in both the pre and post natal area.  The third mothers call for government regulation of hospital practices must have been quite revolutionary at the time, given the fact that many professionals such as doctors were trusted almost blindly. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after.  I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one.  I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program.  It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was &amp;#039;marking&amp;#039; the baby by her cravings.  I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to.  In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article shocking, even mildly sad. The desperation of these women to obtain information about their bodies and pregnancy is a stark contrast to today, when all you have to do is log onto the internet to answer any and every question. What is even worse is that I&amp;#039;m sure the postal system did not operate very quickly back then, leaving the women waiting weeks for an answer from the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau. However, I liked that the government finally took an interest in women&amp;#039;s concerns and created this branch. It clearly was of service to many women of very diverse backgrounds.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this article was really interesting and it was nice to see that the government was giving attention to an area that was obviously in need of federal aid or even just attention. I think sometimes we take for granted how the improvements in modern medicine and healthcare overall have made childbirth significantly safer for women. I was sad to see that the program ended in 1929. Judging by these letters the Bureau was important and helpful to a lot of women. --Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters remind us both that women in the 1920s faced very real threats to their lives during pregnancy and childbirth and that the lives of many women throughout the country continued to revolve around their children and families and not political issues like the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment. The authors of the letters want to do everything they can to be good mothers and protect the health of their children and themselves. But it sounds as though discussion of the matters relating to childbearing, despite the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau publications, were largely absent from public discourse and women found themselves very isolated. Perhaps, like birth control, pregnancy and childbirth was seen as too crude to be discussed openly or even among friends, as the author of the second letter indicates no one in her immediate circle cares about her questions. And women&amp;#039;s issues remained low on the list of priorities of doctors, causing many women to suffer health consequences. One would think that in an age that valued motherhood, especially white middle class motherhood, so extensively, that women like those who wrote the letters would have had more options to keep themselves and their children healthy. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mary Ann is right on point.  Women during this time had little access to health care, especially poor and working class women.  I think it is good to keep in mind that it was usually only the mid to upper class who had access to health care and doctors because they could afford for it.  Also, since this was the period of Comstock Laws, women were unable to access information about birth control which made pregnancy a very real, yet fearful thing because of the risks that were involved.  I believe that these women were writing simply out of need for information they could not access elsewhere.  These women display just a snapshot of the reality of pregnancy during this period, while also echoing the concerns of women who were now expected to be completely responsible for both the home and the children.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann as well. We do have also remove ourselves from the modern notions of child birth and child rearing and remember that it was quite life threatening.  It was not uncommon for women to have one child after another as well because of the lack of birth control. It must have been very comforting to these women to have a Federal agency such as the Children’s Bureau   to guide them.  In the aftermath of the Great War, I gather that many women turned to Children’s Bureau for help. I looked up some more information on the Bureau on our favorite Wikipedia and found out that it was created by President Taft In 1912 and that Julia Lathrop was the first head of the Bureau. I wonder if Taft appointed her because he thought that as a woman she was more qualified to run the Bureau or if she was simply THE person for the job.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Excerpt from &amp;quot;Passing&amp;quot; by Nella Larsen ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember reading this scene from &amp;quot;Passing&amp;quot; back when my high school class covered the novel, and I was very intrigued by the notion of passing and the possible reasons for it. The story Clare gives for her own experience in passing in this section seems to be one of convenience and opportunity (raised by white aunts that did not advertise her background), deception (she manipulates her husband to run away with her before her aunts could reveal she was black), and a lot of yearning (she seems to resent her aunt&amp;#039;s treatment of her and other white people, which makes her passing as a white person ironic).     --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Sarah about how intriguing this passage was. After reading this excerpt, I think that Nella Larsen&amp;#039;s topic was something that had crossed the minds of many African Americans at the time. The idea of &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; into another life, just to experience the other side, was something that I&amp;#039;m sure, African American men and women all had imagined at some point.  It was sad though, how Clare had to hide her race, at the request of her aunts. It was interesting to me that although she lived with her aunts, she was still expected to &amp;quot;doing all the housework, and most of the washing.&amp;quot; (P. 140) In the story, Clare even says that she had &amp;quot;Negro blood&amp;quot; and apparently that is why she did all the housework, and it was almost expected of her because of her race. The Harlem Renaissance gave Nella Larsen a way to voice this imaginative idea, to maybe give the rest of the world the idea that African Americans merely wanted to be like everyone else, and she portrayed this by showing how important &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; was for Clare. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The negative stereotypes associated with African Americans really stands out in this passage and I think they are important to emphasizing why an African American would consider &amp;quot;passing.&amp;quot;  They include African Americans being poor, domestic servants, charity cases, promiscuous, and inferior to whites.  Even if they were hard-working or good people, African Americans had to overcome some rather harsh stereotypes.  I can definitely see trying to &amp;quot;pass&amp;quot; as a white and living with less trials as tempting.  On another note, Clare having to hide her race, and being able to, made me think of the light skinned black models on the magazine covers we looked at in class.  While they were clearly appealing to African American audiences, I feel like the magazines were putting out a message that said &amp;quot;being white is where it is at!&amp;quot;  So, perhaps light skinned black women did try &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; as whites by downplaying their color and race?  I am sure make-up made that feat much easier.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women of the Ku Klux Klan==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that these women necessarily hated the races that the KKK targeted or necessarily wished them harm, but they probably felt threatened by the large waves of immigrants coming in to America in the early twentieth century.  These immigrants were coming in to America in large numbers and practically taking over the job market.  And like we learned in class, these women were most likely afraid of both their shrinking family size and the white race.  Of course, the race was not dying out, but it certainly seemed like it with all of the other races that either continued to have many children and or just seemed to be everywhere.  In reality, I believe that the KKK offered white women a place to come together and feel like a unified race in an America that was suddenly becoming filled with so many different races.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women of the Ku Klux Klan article, containing the original “kreed” revised and the constitution and laws of the women of the Ku Klux Klan (incorporated) was written for a fairly targeted group of individuals. They sought to influence the opinion of persons of white, gentile (Protestants) and native (to the US) born heritage. The goal was to create a unified agenda, or at least a common set of goals and laws, that all members adhered to upon joining. Most likely the women who would read this pamphlet would be wives or sisters of members of the male branch of the Ku Klux Klan, mainly because they were already indoctrinated into that manner of thinking (that white native born individuals held a higher weight in society and had more of a right to be part of American society than others.) This came at a time when immigration was high, and many of the immigrants were second wave immigrants meaning that they consisted of eastern Europeans, (such as Italians and Jews) who would look differently than the previously white, Anglican looking influx of Irish, Germans and Scandinavian people. For people who harbor racist or nativist feelings, this was a time period that would cause a lot of resentment and frustration to occur making clubs like the WKKK more “popular” than it perhaps would have been at any other time in American History. --jmarshal&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-11T02:25:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  &amp;quot;You won&amp;#039;t be so welcome there, but that is the place to be,&amp;quot; (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE&amp;#039;RE EQUAL!! Others didn&amp;#039;t quite that stance. It&amp;#039;s important to remember that many women approved of women&amp;#039;s suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different.  She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified.  ---jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, &amp;quot;opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion&amp;quot; (US, 335). This &amp;quot;freedom of urban life&amp;quot; gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-11T02:24:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  &amp;quot;You won&amp;#039;t be so welcome there, but that is the place to be,&amp;quot; (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE&amp;#039;RE EQUAL!! Others didn&amp;#039;t quite that stance. It&amp;#039;s important to remember that many women approved of women&amp;#039;s suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, &amp;quot;opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion&amp;quot; (US, 335). This &amp;quot;freedom of urban life&amp;quot; gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-11T02:22:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  &amp;quot;You won&amp;#039;t be so welcome there, but that is the place to be,&amp;quot; (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, &amp;quot;opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion&amp;quot; (US, 335). This &amp;quot;freedom of urban life&amp;quot; gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-11T02:21:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  &amp;quot;You won&amp;#039;t be so welcome there, but that is the place to be,&amp;quot; (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, &amp;quot;opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion&amp;quot; (US, 335). This &amp;quot;freedom of urban life&amp;quot; gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-23T04:14:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn&amp;#039;t listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Working Women Write the Jewish Daily Forward==&lt;br /&gt;
While this essay was not too long in length I found interesting the early day versions of advice columns in newspapers. Women, specifically Jewish women were able to write about their struggles and stories in search of advice instead of just relying on a diary to record their thoughts. It reminded me of reading American Girl magazine when I was younger and learning about different girls stories and how they expressed any concern with their lives. I found it great that the advice given back to girls, much like today, was for the betterment of women. The advice encouraged women to step forward and have a voice in the workplace and home. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Megan, these also just struck as modern-day advice columns.  I found it amusing (for me not the girls writing) that the girl wrote so much and they were given very small snippets of a response.  Its good to see that there was an outlet/ a way for the girl to get advice without possibly embarrassing herself or worse. - Christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Jewish Daily Forward contained some interesting submissions. The first one written by the teenager who was being sexually harassed struck me because this is something that many women endured (and still endure) during the early part of the 20th century. The advice, though correct, causes me to wonder: would anyone do anything about the foreman? It seems like the circumstances surrounding women, especially immigrant women working in shops/factories at this time were pretty bleak. I wish it weren’t so, but I wonder if any action would have been taken against the foreman at all, she explains that this is a small town so maybe that would have any effect but so many of these cases, if they were even reported, went unresolved.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the essays about&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; the Jewish Daily forward and the Chicago Defender both newspapers seemed to be doing as much as they could for the immigrant and black communities. While in some situations they might not have had the power to do anything it seems like they were a comforting presence in both communities.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The arrival of the Chicago Defender especially seemed to be looked forward to by many families. However like Caryn I also wondered if it was likely that any action would be taken against the foreman who harassed the young worker. What were the chances that a young girl without any money would be able to make a successful case against a male employer? Also this is not really a post but the letter from the girl who had lost her fiance? husband? in the shirtwaist factory fire was really depressing. Especially her ending line of &amp;quot; I think everything can be all right for me only in the grave&amp;quot;.....I hope she listened to the editor and remarried!--Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters to the editor were interesting to read.  One of the letters, the shopgirl who writes to the editor saying, &amp;quot;He [the foreman] often allows himself to &amp;quot;have fun&amp;quot; with some of the working girls. It was my bad luck to be one of the girls that he tried to make advances to. And woe to any girl who doesn&amp;#039;t willingly accept them.&amp;quot; (P. 63 MAW) It was sad to read that these girls were put into these helpless positions and if they objected, they risked losing their jobs, which would have been even worse. They had to choose between the lesser of two evils, with neither one being desirable. -- Alex Mankarios&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Burden of Rural Women&amp;#039;s Lives, 1900-1901 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These women&amp;#039;s lives totally interest me.  As plainly as she tells her life story, as pertaining to work, you get a real sense of the pride that she felt in being so industrious and in being so good at what she did.  She even mentions the books she read while she used to churn butter.  She was constantly occupied and never (except when she taught before she was married, presumably) for a wage.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;But by most measures, she and her husband led very successful lives.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  They provided for their five kids and sent them to school, one even to Cornell.  And at 58, it sounds like she even gets to &amp;quot;retire&amp;quot;.  The values of rural living seem very different than those of urban living.  As more and more people moved into urban areas, i wonder how this affected the lifestyles of farm families.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing really stands out in this piece too much, except for how matter-of-factly she tells her story. She lists out her life, her work, everything she&amp;#039;s done. She doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be boasting or complaining; it&amp;#039;s just life to her. I do wonder if she is aware of life outside the farm, if she ever wondered about not being there. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The past couple of class periods we have discussed how women&amp;#039;s work on the farm went unaccounted for in census and other data. This really brings that point home. I never truly recognized or grasped the difficulty of women working on the farm. The last paragraph stresses that point: &amp;quot;My husband says, &amp;#039;You helped earn and save more than I did.&amp;#039; The boys many times say, &amp;#039;If it had not been for your pushing and helping us to school, we never could have done so well.&amp;quot; This encompasses the woman&amp;#039;s role on the farm. Not only did she work insanely hard as a farmhand, but a mother still managed to fulfill the role of moral and matriarchal support.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece fascinating and humbling. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Maybe it’s because I am the child of a New York City suburb, and yet only two generations back, this woman’s life was my grandmother’s life.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Not seeing the struggles of farmers anywhere close to me, I could not imagine how much work, strength and faith even it took and takes to lead such a life. Farmers, but especially farm women, are completely under appreciated. However, while I was taken aback by the never ending work load of a farm woman, it was pleasing to see her husband’s and sons’ acknowledgment and gratitude. &lt;br /&gt;
On another note, the line “work never kills” (p. 50) jumped out at me immediately and made me ponder the differences between factory workers and farmers at the turn of the century.  It is now a well known fact that factory workers toiled in horrendous conditions, like in the NYC Shirtwaist factory fire.  However, the introduction reminded me that the hours were longer for a farmer and the conditions more tumultuous. Our nation needed the industry factory workers provided, but even the factory workers needed the sustenance farmers provided. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article extremely interesting. I understood the fact that rural life was a different form of difficult for women, but I had never thought hard about what types of obstacles they faced and just how tough they had to be. Typical domestic work was not easy, there was a lot that needed to be done-especially if the mistress of the house did not have any domestic help, but rural women were without electricity which meant that everyday tasks that were hard in urban households were significantly more difficult in the country. I can not imagine having to haul water in order to perform everyday tasks-and sometimes that could total 200 gallons! (49) That is insane. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Buffalobird Woman&amp;#039;s Story ==&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this excerpt, I found myself extremely frustrated with the government. Why did the government feel the need to tell the Indians how to do things when the Indians had already succeeded before the government came along to tell them what to do? The Indian women of course were open to the new changes, but they still wondered why they could not cultivate as they had in the past. It was probably a lifestyle change for them, because now, they were to grow what they were told, and it was probably disconcerting to the Indian women and men because they had lost control of a part of their lives. -- Alex Mankarios&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is another example of how the U.S. government attempted to assimilate the Native Americans, and in the process took away their land and changed their lifestyles. Buffalobird is a strong personality, and remains that way throughout the excerpt. It is a refreshing piece to read because the spirit of so many Native Americans was crushed. Even though many Native American women lost their independence and sense of strength, she seems to have maintained it.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes.  They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women.  The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin on a lot of the points she made.  This piece captured my attention because of the harsh conditions that these women were forced to work in.  I found in particularly difficult to not feel bad for the girls because stress they had to endure by working in industrial places like a glove factory.  Nestor references how the girls tried to find ways to produce more gloves in an hour and would sometimes even work during their breaks just to get more done.  She also revealed how the women were afraid of the machine breaking because it meant they could not make more gloves, which meant they would not get their payment.  Nestor shows the effect of industry on the working woman and it&amp;#039;s effects. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I wonder how women at this time dealt with professions like this without getting extremely frustrated.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Williams&amp;#039; views on domestic service to be quite interesting.  For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job.  Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea.  However, for that time period, I don&amp;#039;t think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time.  Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn&amp;#039;t know anything else.  Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world.  Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;On page 264 it says that &amp;quot;the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity&amp;quot; and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn&amp;#039;t sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;decided to do a little research.  I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education.  I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant.  Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was.  Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn&amp;#039;t necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…&amp;quot; (p. 267). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us:  low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc…  But Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home.  Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home.  Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere.  And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home.  A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the &amp;#039;domestic sphere&amp;#039; when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women.  For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores.  It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere”  and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article really interesting because &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it exemplifies one of the main problems for women entering the work force in the early 20th century. This problem was that society, as well as individual families, was not ready to let go of common values for women. These values held that women should work inside the home, so when young girls went outside to work during the day, their family still expected them to perform womanly duties at home when they returned, like they had never been gone at all.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Even though these families needed their daughters to work, they still tried to hang on to the idea that women were meant to be inside the home. In the end, this value put even more pressure on women because they were then forced to work hard outside and then just as hard inside when they returned. I really liked the one example of a mother on page 267 that actually understood how important it was for her daughter to work and then rest when she got home so she could work again the next day. It seems like that mother placed more importance on her daughter&amp;#039;s well-being than on the societal pressures around her. --Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Apparently, there were a few causes. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Poor sanitary conditions in the working world&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;fast paced modern life&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; lead to eroticism, and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;poor pay&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Finally, I have to ask, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first part of this one was just hilarious. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that &amp;quot;highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?&amp;quot; (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I&amp;#039;ll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as &amp;quot;Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)&amp;quot;. SERIOUSLY??&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man&amp;#039;s wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices&amp;quot; (p. 54).  I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long.  These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them.  So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy?  Or to complain about stereotypes of the race?  I don&amp;#039;t blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended.  I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I am surprised at how much lower the black family&amp;#039;s income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn&amp;#039;t much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I&amp;#039;m not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would&amp;#039;ve been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn&amp;#039;t surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that &amp;quot;more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another...&amp;quot;(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the &amp;quot;service pan.&amp;quot; White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn&amp;#039;t even know what the word tough meant.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55).  I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was bewildered to read this.  The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being.  She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too.  As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time.  It took a strong woman to endure that.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this article, I can&amp;#039;t imagine the physical and mental exhaustion these African American woman faced in domestic service jobs. The woman whose story is told was a nurse, among many other things, yet she was still considered &amp;quot;servant class.&amp;quot; &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Were white women who worked in the same type of jobs as nurses or household servants considered to be in the &amp;quot;servant class?&amp;quot; She goes on to say, &amp;quot;I am allowed to go home to my own children, the oldest of whom is a girl of 18 years, only one in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon - even then I&amp;#039;m not permitted to stay all night.&amp;quot; (P. 54 MAW) Wasn&amp;#039;t there some type of law against keeping this lady at her job all the time?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; She was not a slave, so shouldn&amp;#039;t she have been allowed to go home after work? Or did the rules of her job make her stay there? In my opinion, this free African American woman&amp;#039;s job didn&amp;#039;t seem that much different from slavery. -- Alex Mankarios&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ellen Carol DuBois on &amp;quot;Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important questions I think women were most concerned with while trying to obtain suffrage is asked by DuBois on page. 276.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She claims that women were worried whether or not they could balance their work in the home with that of gaining suffrage.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  It seems many women were concerned that they could not acheive a balance between the two and that there work towards suffrage would take away their focus from the home front.  I beleive that this question was not incredibly worrisome and that a balance was possible.  Even if they were in the work force, responsibilities on the home front could still be upheld.  Even today, women work and I still beleive they are a central figure at home.  Granted it was more difficult back then because women were attempting to accomplish more, but a balance was still possible. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;So the fight for women&amp;#039;s rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society&amp;#039;s opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than &amp;quot;respectable.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting how, on page 273, DuBois talks about how wealthy women first entered the suffragist field in the 1890s because they wanted to make the wealthy class stronger. I previously was under the misconception that women entered into the movement solely on the value that women should have the right to vote, but this was obviously not the case. Wealthy women wanted the vote because they thought they would vote the same way as their wealthy husbands, therefore solidifying the political power of the wealthy. I think this is really important because it shows that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;many women associated themselves more with their class than with the fact that they were women.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading these letters to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chicago Defender&amp;#039;&amp;#039; makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Defender&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there.  Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South.  I&amp;#039;d sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading these letters to the Chicago Defender really emphasizes the deplorable living situations in the South. The letter from a woman who had previously worked in a rural school and was looking for a job in domestic service really stood out to me. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The idea that a housekeeping position in the North would pay better then a school teachers pay in the south really shows the desperate situation of black families in the south.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Some of the people who wrote in to the newspaper claimed to have good references its sad to think that whatever experience they had previously the only job they would most likely be able to find was one as a domestic servant. --Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters to the Chicago Defender are quite desperate as Mary Ann and Erin have both mentioned.  But I thought that I would approach this from two different directions: one the difference in the letters themselves. Two of the letters are written by teachers whose school is either closing or wages are too low.  These particular letters showcase the difference in education from the other letters. I also found it realistic that the teachers were looking for domestic work, though this work was quite hard, I am sure that the prospect of a room and further opportunities in a bustling city were the motivating factors among the poor wages and general conditions in the south. Second, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the letters seem to note a trust that these women had in the Chicago Defender, implying that these women believed that the Defender would help them find these jobs.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The reality of this was that thousands upon thousands of black men and women were migrating to Chicago leaving them, as Mary Ann said to compete for positions in domestic service.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Marie Jenny Howe and an &amp;quot;Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was almost impossible to keep a straight face while reading this particular article and I had to read a passage to my roomate and he was also laughing hysterically.  This is the first intense anti-suffrage argument that I have come accross with this much candor and I found it incredibly interesting.  Marie Jenny Howe essentially gives her gender no credit and claims they hardly posses any intellectual capacity and are even incapable of doing something as simple as placing a ballot in a box.  She wants to continue with the established order and keep women down in the domestic sphere because &amp;quot;some one must wash the dishes.&amp;quot;  She continues to take a very conservative approach to women&amp;#039;s roles and even mentions the Bible as reason to keep women suppressed.  Myself, and others I am sure do not agree with Howe&amp;#039;s view of women as an imcompetent gender and beleive women should have never been suppressed like they were. -afrisk &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, and it&amp;#039;s interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe&amp;#039;s time as well. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; When phrased this way,&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it&amp;#039;s hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women&amp;#039;s hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren&amp;#039;t exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104).  The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  – Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the &amp;quot;muck and mire of politics&amp;quot; (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this reading was very amusing.  “If you don’t like one you can take the other“,  for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote.  Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it.  - Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a &amp;quot;modern up-to-date woman&amp;quot; (106), this piece seems to come from a man&amp;#039;s point of view.  Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as &amp;#039;they&amp;#039; rather than &amp;#039;we&amp;#039;.  The fact that it seems like a man&amp;#039;s point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  &amp;quot;Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her.  Isn&amp;#039;t that just like a woman?&amp;quot; Hilarious.  I&amp;#039;m with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just like all the other posts stated, I found this article more comical than persuasive.  Howe tries to argue that women do not need the right to vote using by a lot of (in my opinion) ridiculous points.  I particularly liked how she stated &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t care about facts. I ask for proof.&amp;quot;  I think that suffragists at this time were trying hard to push for rights for women, and that should be Howe&amp;#039;s proof.  She seems to really embody the idea that women are passive creatures which is almost, in a sense, degrading to women, especially when she states &amp;quot;I am a creature of impulse, instinct and intuition- and I glory in it.&amp;quot;  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article extremely amusing. When Howe states that “men should remain men” and that “women should remain women” (102) she points out that if the roles were reversed, how would you explain that to the children? On a serious note, I would like to ponder how she would respond to same sex marriage and family life? Obviously that question cannot be answered but I think watching her pick apart that aspect of life would be very interesting and possibly ridiculous. Also her claim that the ballot is the only thing that makes a husband faithful (104); otherwise he becomes a drunk and a disgrace to society.  Apparently she had never met a guy who fit these characteristics if her only reason for explaining their existences is the ballot (which he was entitled t already and which women were not) was already in his domain of influence….--jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting.  While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time.  Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling.  What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them.  Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an &amp;#039;obsession&amp;#039; with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right of the bat this article caught my attention with the seeming contradiction of the “militant suffragists led by the charismatic Quaker leader Alice Paul” (111) and the harshness of the sentence Paul and her followers received. I cannot help but wonder if these women received such a severe sentence because of their radical behavior and how horribly inappropriate and alarming this behavior was on women. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic, Florence Luscomb==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one sentence that stood out to me in this essay, &amp;quot;We even reveled in dog-fights; for, as our chief remarked while we were enjoying one such experience, &amp;#039;After all, there is nothing to draw a crowd like a dog-fight,&amp;#039;...(100). My first thought was Michael Vick and how much the media paid attention to his role in dog-fights yet women suffragists were right at home among dogs and thought of them as admirers. How society has changed over the years...-Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;A few moments struck me in this passage. The opening “…an American woman can stand in a hall and address American men with dignity and earnestness on her part ….yet presto, remove the roof and the same women is a ranting fanatic” (98) It made me think about an ideal of keeping women inside even though speaking at an indoor engagement is not the domestic sphere, it is certainly less public than speaking in park, hence the male apprehension towards this.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Furthermore, it was a radical move that these women were traveling around the country holding these outdoor meetings.  It must have rocked the entire foundation of proprietary that had been established during this time.  -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though many men and bystanders would see these women as &amp;quot;ranting fanatic[s]&amp;quot; Florence Luscomb still describes as the crusade as a success. That in itself is something to be proud of. The momentum the women&amp;#039;s suffrage movement had picked up is reflected in this excerpt. Though they were met with much adversity, they were able to adapt and overcome. Even though men initially viewed their outdoor speeches as too assertive, they were still successful. I was also mildly amused that Luscomb took the time to calculate the averages of all the meetings. It was rather beneficial to her argument.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==4. The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;New York Times&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Reports on the Tragedy of the Triangle Factory Fire, 1911== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The death of these 141 women and few men could have been preventable had the owners taken into account that a building cannot be fully &amp;quot;fire-proof&amp;quot; with hundreds of cotton shirts lying around. One fire escape is clearly not enough for 600 employees especially when many were not familiar with the layout of the building. I found it heartbreaking that had it just been a matter of minutes these employees would not of burned nor lept to their death and even more appalling that for hours the bodies were ignored. I understand that firefighters need to do their job and stop the fire but could they not of split the work and tried to move bodies so they could aid workers instead of watching them jump 100 feet to their death? The workers were helpless victims and the fire showed the ignorance of employers to the safety needs of their workers. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Maud Wood Park, &amp;quot;Front Door Lobbying&amp;quot; for Suffrage, 1917==&lt;br /&gt;
I found this section to be extremely interesting because it illustrates how organized suffrage lobbyists were. Maud Wood Park&amp;#039;s directions for lobbyists were structured, extensive, and specific. Among the instructions for interviewing, Park states it is most important to &amp;quot;take every possible means to prevent a member from committing himself definitely against the federal Amendment&amp;quot; (MAW, 109). She also made a list of &amp;quot;don&amp;#039;ts&amp;quot; that included, &amp;quot;don&amp;#039;t threaten...don&amp;#039;t nag...[and] don&amp;#039;t do anything to close the door to the next advocate of suffrage&amp;quot; (MAW, 109). What I found most interesting in the article was the examples of actual reports taken by the lobbyists. In one report where a Texas man declared that men represent woman and there was no need for women to vote, the lobbyist wrote in her report &amp;quot;When I suggested my being a widow and not having representation, he gallantly offered to represent me&amp;quot; (MAW, 110). This report made me laugh because it seems like this man from Texas was pretty conceited. It also represented the viewpoint of a large majority of men who felt it was their responsibility to vote and not woman&amp;#039;s. - David Fitch&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-23T04:00:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn&amp;#039;t listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Working Women Write the Jewish Daily Forward==&lt;br /&gt;
While this essay was not too long in length I found interesting the early day versions of advice columns in newspapers. Women, specifically Jewish women were able to write about their struggles and stories in search of advice instead of just relying on a diary to record their thoughts. It reminded me of reading American Girl magazine when I was younger and learning about different girls stories and how they expressed any concern with their lives. I found it great that the advice given back to girls, much like today, was for the betterment of women. The advice encouraged women to step forward and have a voice in the workplace and home. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Megan, these also just struck as modern-day advice columns.  I found it amusing (for me not the girls writing) that the girl wrote so much and they were given very small snippets of a response.  Its good to see that there was an outlet/ a way for the girl to get advice without possibly embarrassing herself or worse. - Christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Jewish Daily Forward contained some interesting submissions. The first one written by the teenager who was being sexually harassed struck me because this is something that many women endured (and still endure) during the early part of the 20th century. The advice, though correct, causes me to wonder: would anyone do anything about the foreman? It seems like the circumstances surrounding women, especially immigrant women working in shops/factories at this time were pretty bleak. I wish it weren’t so, but I wonder if any action would have been taken against the foreman at all, she explains that this is a small town so maybe that would have any effect but so many of these cases, if they were even reported, went unresolved.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the essays about the Jewish Daily forward and the Chicago Defender both newspapers seemed to be doing as much as they could for the immigrant and black communities. While in some situations they might not have had the power to do anything it seems like they were a comforting presence in both communities. The arrival of the Chicago Defender especially seemed to be looked forward to by many families. However like Caryn I also wondered if it was likely that any action would be taken against the foreman who harassed the young worker. What were the chances that a young girl without any money would be able to make a successful case against a male employer? Also this is not really a post but the letter from the girl who had lost her fiance? husband? in the shirtwaist factory fire was really depressing. Especially her ending line of &amp;quot; I think everything can be all right for me only in the grave&amp;quot;.....I hope she listened to the editor and remarried!--Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters to the editor were interesting to read.  One of the letters, the shopgirl who writes to the editor saying, &amp;quot;He [the foreman] often allows himself to &amp;quot;have fun&amp;quot; with some of the working girls. It was my bad luck to be one of the girls that he tried to make advances to. And woe to any girl who doesn&amp;#039;t willingly accept them.&amp;quot; (P. 63 MAW) It was sad to read that these girls were put into these helpless positions and if they objected, they risked losing their jobs, which would have been even worse. They had to choose between the lesser of two evils, with neither one being desirable. -- Alex Mankarios&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Burden of Rural Women&amp;#039;s Lives, 1900-1901 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These women&amp;#039;s lives totally interest me.  As plainly as she tells her life story, as pertaining to work, you get a real sense of the pride that she felt in being so industrious and in being so good at what she did.  She even mentions the books she read while she used to churn butter.  She was constantly occupied and never (except when she taught before she was married, presumably) for a wage.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;But by most measures, she and her husband led very successful lives.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  They provided for their five kids and sent them to school, one even to Cornell.  And at 58, it sounds like she even gets to &amp;quot;retire&amp;quot;.  The values of rural living seem very different than those of urban living.  As more and more people moved into urban areas, i wonder how this affected the lifestyles of farm families.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing really stands out in this piece too much, except for how matter-of-factly she tells her story. She lists out her life, her work, everything she&amp;#039;s done. She doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be boasting or complaining; it&amp;#039;s just life to her. I do wonder if she is aware of life outside the farm, if she ever wondered about not being there. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The past couple of class periods we have discussed how women&amp;#039;s work on the farm went unaccounted for in census and other data. This really brings that point home. I never truly recognized or grasped the difficulty of women working on the farm. The last paragraph stresses that point: &amp;quot;My husband says, &amp;#039;You helped earn and save more than I did.&amp;#039; The boys many times say, &amp;#039;If it had not been for your pushing and helping us to school, we never could have done so well.&amp;quot; This encompasses the woman&amp;#039;s role on the farm. Not only did she work insanely hard as a farmhand, but a mother still managed to fulfill the role of moral and matriarchal support.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece fascinating and humbling. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Maybe it’s because I am the child of a New York City suburb, and yet only two generations back, this woman’s life was my grandmother’s life.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Not seeing the struggles of farmers anywhere close to me, I could not imagine how much work, strength and faith even it took and takes to lead such a life. Farmers, but especially farm women, are completely under appreciated. However, while I was taken aback by the never ending work load of a farm woman, it was pleasing to see her husband’s and sons’ acknowledgment and gratitude. &lt;br /&gt;
On another note, the line “work never kills” (p. 50) jumped out at me immediately and made me ponder the differences between factory workers and farmers at the turn of the century.  It is now a well known fact that factory workers toiled in horrendous conditions, like in the NYC Shirtwaist factory fire.  However, the introduction reminded me that the hours were longer for a farmer and the conditions more tumultuous. Our nation needed the industry factory workers provided, but even the factory workers needed the sustenance farmers provided. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article extremely interesting. I understood the fact that rural life was a different form of difficult for women, but I had never thought hard about what types of obstacles they faced and just how tough they had to be. Typical domestic work was not easy, there was a lot that needed to be done-especially if the mistress of the house did not have any domestic help, but rural women were without electricity which meant that everyday tasks that were hard in urban households were significantly more difficult in the country. I can not imagine having to haul water in order to perform everyday tasks-and sometimes that could total 200 gallons! (49) That is insane. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Buffalobird Woman&amp;#039;s Story ==&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this excerpt, I found myself extremely frustrated with the government. Why did the government feel the need to tell the Indians how to do things when the Indians had already succeeded before the government came along to tell them what to do? The Indian women of course were open to the new changes, but they still wondered why they could not cultivate as they had in the past. It was probably a lifestyle change for them, because now, they were to grow what they were told, and it was probably disconcerting to the Indian women and men because they had lost control of a part of their lives. -- Alex Mankarios&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is another example of how the U.S. government attempted to assimilate the Native Americans, and in the process took away their land and changed their lifestyles. Buffalobird is a strong personality, and remains that way throughout the excerpt. It is a refreshing piece to read because the spirit of so many Native Americans was crushed. Even though many Native American women lost their independence and sense of strength, she seems to have maintained it.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes.  They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women.  The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin on a lot of the points she made.  This piece captured my attention because of the harsh conditions that these women were forced to work in.  I found in particularly difficult to not feel bad for the girls because stress they had to endure by working in industrial places like a glove factory.  Nestor references how the girls tried to find ways to produce more gloves in an hour and would sometimes even work during their breaks just to get more done.  She also revealed how the women were afraid of the machine breaking because it meant they could not make more gloves, which meant they would not get their payment.  Nestor shows the effect of industry on the working woman and it&amp;#039;s effects. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I wonder how women at this time dealt with professions like this without getting extremely frustrated.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Williams&amp;#039; views on domestic service to be quite interesting.  For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job.  Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea.  However, for that time period, I don&amp;#039;t think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time.  Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn&amp;#039;t know anything else.  Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world.  Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 264 it says that &amp;quot;the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity&amp;quot; and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn&amp;#039;t sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and decided to do a little research.  I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education.  I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant.  Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was.  Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals? - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn&amp;#039;t necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…&amp;quot; (p. 267).  Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us:  low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc…  But Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families.  Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home.  Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home.  Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere.  And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home.  A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the &amp;#039;domestic sphere&amp;#039; when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women.  For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores.  It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere”  and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article really interesting because it exemplifies one of the main problems for women entering the work force in the early 20th century. This problem was that society, as well as individual families, was not ready to let go of common values for women. These values held that women should work inside the home, so when young girls went outside to work during the day, their family still expected them to perform womanly duties at home when they returned, like they had never been gone at all. Even though these families needed their daughters to work, they still tried to hang on to the idea that women were meant to be inside the home. In the end, this value put even more pressure on women because they were then forced to work hard outside and then just as hard inside when they returned. I really liked the one example of a mother on page 267 that actually understood how important it was for her daughter to work and then rest when she got home so she could work again the next day. It seems like that mother placed more importance on her daughter&amp;#039;s well-being than on the societal pressures around her. --Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Apparently, there were a few causes. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Poor sanitary conditions in the working world&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;fast paced modern life&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; lead to eroticism, and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;poor pay&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Finally, I have to ask, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first part of this one was just hilarious. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that &amp;quot;highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?&amp;quot; (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I&amp;#039;ll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as &amp;quot;Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)&amp;quot;. SERIOUSLY??&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man&amp;#039;s wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices&amp;quot; (p. 54).  I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long.  These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them.  So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy?  Or to complain about stereotypes of the race?  I don&amp;#039;t blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended.  I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I am surprised at how much lower the black family&amp;#039;s income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn&amp;#039;t much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I&amp;#039;m not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would&amp;#039;ve been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn&amp;#039;t surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that &amp;quot;more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another...&amp;quot;(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the &amp;quot;service pan.&amp;quot; White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn&amp;#039;t even know what the word tough meant.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55).  I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was bewildered to read this.  The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being.  She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too.  As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time.  It took a strong woman to endure that.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this article, I can&amp;#039;t imagine the physical and mental exhaustion these African American woman faced in domestic service jobs. The woman whose story is told was a nurse, among many other things, yet she was still considered &amp;quot;servant class.&amp;quot; &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Were white women who worked in the same type of jobs as nurses or household servants considered to be in the &amp;quot;servant class?&amp;quot; She goes on to say, &amp;quot;I am allowed to go home to my own children, the oldest of whom is a girl of 18 years, only one in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon - even then I&amp;#039;m not permitted to stay all night.&amp;quot; (P. 54 MAW) Wasn&amp;#039;t there some type of law against keeping this lady at her job all the time?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; She was not a slave, so shouldn&amp;#039;t she have been allowed to go home after work? Or did the rules of her job make her stay there? In my opinion, this free African American woman&amp;#039;s job didn&amp;#039;t seem that much different from slavery. -- Alex Mankarios&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ellen Carol DuBois on &amp;quot;Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important questions I think women were most concerned with while trying to obtain suffrage is asked by DuBois on page. 276.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She claims that women were worried whether or not they could balance their work in the home with that of gaining suffrage.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  It seems many women were concerned that they could not acheive a balance between the two and that there work towards suffrage would take away their focus from the home front.  I beleive that this question was not incredibly worrisome and that a balance was possible.  Even if they were in the work force, responsibilities on the home front could still be upheld.  Even today, women work and I still beleive they are a central figure at home.  Granted it was more difficult back then because women were attempting to accomplish more, but a balance was still possible. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;So the fight for women&amp;#039;s rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society&amp;#039;s opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than &amp;quot;respectable.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting how, on page 273, DuBois talks about how wealthy women first entered the suffragist field in the 1890s because they wanted to make the wealthy class stronger. I previously was under the misconception that women entered into the movement solely on the value that women should have the right to vote, but this was obviously not the case. Wealthy women wanted the vote because they thought they would vote the same way as their wealthy husbands, therefore solidifying the political power of the wealthy. I think this is really important because it shows that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;many women associated themselves more with their class than with the fact that they were women.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading these letters to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chicago Defender&amp;#039;&amp;#039; makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Defender&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there.  Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South.  I&amp;#039;d sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading these letters to the Chicago Defender really emphasizes the deplorable living situations in the South. The letter from a woman who had previously worked in a rural school and was looking for a job in domestic service really stood out to me. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The idea that a housekeeping position in the North would pay better then a school teachers pay in the south really shows the desperate situation of black families in the south.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Some of the people who wrote in to the newspaper claimed to have good references its sad to think that whatever experience they had previously the only job they would most likely be able to find was one as a domestic servant. --Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters to the Chicago Defender are quite desperate as Mary Ann and Erin have both mentioned.  But I thought that I would approach this from two different directions: one the difference in the letters themselves. Two of the letters are written by teachers whose school is either closing or wages are too low.  These particular letters showcase the difference in education from the other letters. I also found it realistic that the teachers were looking for domestic work, though this work was quite hard, I am sure that the prospect of a room and further opportunities in a bustling city were the motivating factors among the poor wages and general conditions in the south. Second, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the letters seem to note a trust that these women had in the Chicago Defender, implying that these women believed that the Defender would help them find these jobs.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The reality of this was that thousands upon thousands of black men and women were migrating to Chicago leaving them, as Mary Ann said to compete for positions in domestic service.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Marie Jenny Howe and an &amp;quot;Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was almost impossible to keep a straight face while reading this particular article and I had to read a passage to my roomate and he was also laughing hysterically.  This is the first intense anti-suffrage argument that I have come accross with this much candor and I found it incredibly interesting.  Marie Jenny Howe essentially gives her gender no credit and claims they hardly posses any intellectual capacity and are even incapable of doing something as simple as placing a ballot in a box.  She wants to continue with the established order and keep women down in the domestic sphere because &amp;quot;some one must wash the dishes.&amp;quot;  She continues to take a very conservative approach to women&amp;#039;s roles and even mentions the Bible as reason to keep women suppressed.  Myself, and others I am sure do not agree with Howe&amp;#039;s view of women as an imcompetent gender and beleive women should have never been suppressed like they were. -afrisk &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, and it&amp;#039;s interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe&amp;#039;s time as well. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; When phrased this way,&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it&amp;#039;s hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women&amp;#039;s hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren&amp;#039;t exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104).  The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  – Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the &amp;quot;muck and mire of politics&amp;quot; (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this reading was very amusing.  “If you don’t like one you can take the other“,  for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote.  Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it.  - Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a &amp;quot;modern up-to-date woman&amp;quot; (106), this piece seems to come from a man&amp;#039;s point of view.  Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as &amp;#039;they&amp;#039; rather than &amp;#039;we&amp;#039;.  The fact that it seems like a man&amp;#039;s point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  &amp;quot;Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her.  Isn&amp;#039;t that just like a woman?&amp;quot; Hilarious.  I&amp;#039;m with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just like all the other posts stated, I found this article more comical than persuasive.  Howe tries to argue that women do not need the right to vote using by a lot of (in my opinion) ridiculous points.  I particularly liked how she stated &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t care about facts. I ask for proof.&amp;quot;  I think that suffragists at this time were trying hard to push for rights for women, and that should be Howe&amp;#039;s proof.  She seems to really embody the idea that women are passive creatures which is almost, in a sense, degrading to women, especially when she states &amp;quot;I am a creature of impulse, instinct and intuition- and I glory in it.&amp;quot;  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting.  While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time.  Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling.  What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them.  Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an &amp;#039;obsession&amp;#039; with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic, Florence Luscomb==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one sentence that stood out to me in this essay, &amp;quot;We even reveled in dog-fights; for, as our chief remarked while we were enjoying one such experience, &amp;#039;After all, there is nothing to draw a crowd like a dog-fight,&amp;#039;...(100). My first thought was Michael Vick and how much the media paid attention to his role in dog-fights yet women suffragists were right at home among dogs and thought of them as admirers. How society has changed over the years...-Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;A few moments struck me in this passage. The opening “…an American woman can stand in a hall and address American men with dignity and earnestness on her part ….yet presto, remove the roof and the same women is a ranting fanatic” (98) It made me think about an ideal of keeping women inside even though speaking at an indoor engagement is not the domestic sphere, it is certainly less public than speaking in park, hence the male apprehension towards this.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Furthermore, it was a radical move that these women were traveling around the country holding these outdoor meetings.  It must have rocked the entire foundation of proprietary that had been established during this time.  -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though many men and bystanders would see these women as &amp;quot;ranting fanatic[s]&amp;quot; Florence Luscomb still describes as the crusade as a success. That in itself is something to be proud of. The momentum the women&amp;#039;s suffrage movement had picked up is reflected in this excerpt. Though they were met with much adversity, they were able to adapt and overcome. Even though men initially viewed their outdoor speeches as too assertive, they were still successful. I was also mildly amused that Luscomb took the time to calculate the averages of all the meetings. It was rather beneficial to her argument.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==4. The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;New York Times&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Reports on the Tragedy of the Triangle Factory Fire, 1911== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The death of these 141 women and few men could have been preventable had the owners taken into account that a building cannot be fully &amp;quot;fire-proof&amp;quot; with hundreds of cotton shirts lying around. One fire escape is clearly not enough for 600 employees especially when many were not familiar with the layout of the building. I found it heartbreaking that had it just been a matter of minutes these employees would not of burned nor lept to their death and even more appalling that for hours the bodies were ignored. I understand that firefighters need to do their job and stop the fire but could they not of split the work and tried to move bodies so they could aid workers instead of watching them jump 100 feet to their death? The workers were helpless victims and the fire showed the ignorance of employers to the safety needs of their workers. -Megan W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-04T04:53:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that &amp;quot;Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible&amp;quot; and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word &amp;quot;girls&amp;quot; which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers?   -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The welfare activism article notes that a fair amount of the black women involved in welfare were married, and it was more generally acceptable for black women to be involved in public life than white women, which I suppose is partly due to their positions as heads of families during slavery’s heyday and the fact that many black women had to work outside the home due to economic necessity (except these reform women who were pretty well off). However, Anna J. Cooper seemed to believe that black men were not supportive of women outside the home and didn’t recognize their value in politics and reform. What accounts for this disparity? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was cool how even though black women may not have had the advantages that white women had in the reform movement, they made the best out of it. White women raised money but they also were able to gain support or recognition from people in congress. Black women were not so fortunate but they did not let that stop them; they had bake sales, church dinners, and other such functions to raise money and awareness. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Amy, I noticed the differences between how black and white women raised money for their causes. It seems like white women relied far more on their status and privilege to gain access to (mostly white men) policy makers and other influential leaders who could help them. Black women, for the most part, did not have this option. So they turned to their communities for support, in much the same way as they had turned voting and politics into community activities. Black women already had a solid tradition of getting the community to rally around them for a cause, so when the need arose for schools and public health measures and other programs, women again banded to together for the good of the group as a whole. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann&amp;#039;s observations on how the different races raised money, awareness, and support. It should be expected that white women primarily relied upon their race and social status because those are integral parts of their society. Black women, however, were all looked down upon, and seen as having the same roots. They were all seen as inferior, and many seen as ex-slaves or children of slaves, solely because of their race. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the most intriguing part, and yet a short piece, of Linda Gordon’s article to be on the Lesbianism and homosexual escapades. Different from black women’s dependence on their community and occasionally their husbands, white women greatly relied on one-another rather than their husbands or families. “The great majority of white women were single-34 percent had ever been married, and only 18 percent remained married during their peak political activity,” (pg. 229). To this effect women Gordon gives the fact that “28 percent were in relationships with other women…called Boston marriages,” (pg. 229). I think that we as a generation think that Lesbianism is a new trend/ideal, and yet these women were practicing it in the 18th-19th century. This was probably not seen as a controversial idea to these women, so why is it such a big issue today when is a part of history? ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t believe that rape was ever &amp;quot;justified&amp;quot; by anyone, and it has always been seen as a barbarism, even when it was performed ritualistically by warring states. Just because a society&amp;#039;s dialogue doesn&amp;#039;t include rape doesn&amp;#039;t mean that it was accepted, by any means. Also, to encapsulate human nature as such is not a dismissal, as is evident even in our so-enlightened society when we &amp;quot;dismiss&amp;quot; the actions of men that is at times chauvinistic or derogatory as &amp;quot;boys will be boys&amp;quot;--does that mean that such behavior, speaking in broad terms, justified? I would think no. Also, while it seems as though black women did not have the kind of access to politicized power as white women did, Gordon points out, perhaps in contradiction to some of her conclusions, that half of the African American women who were married (85%) had influential husbands. I don&amp;#039;t really see much difference between what the African American women did in comparison to WASP women, despite Gordon&amp;#039;s attempts to highlight them. To me, it seems as though the only thing that really differed, notwithstanding the race issue (which I&amp;#039;m not dismissing), was the time that had elapsed between emancipation and what was then contemporary times. Like WASP women&amp;#039;s groups, black women&amp;#039;s societies were exclusionary, and it seems that if a few more generations had elapsed then the black women would be just as focused on maintaining social hierarchies as white women were. Perhaps they&amp;#039;re concentration in the rural South maintained this as immigrants seldom ventured South and therefore black women would not have a class of &amp;quot;others&amp;quot; to perform activism on. But then again the entire African American community was persecuted against so I&amp;#039;m sure it&amp;#039;s not as simplistic as that. I found the &amp;quot;white view&amp;quot; as a class issue, which I agree with and that the WASP women who were single and had a great deal of autonomy assumed that this was a class privilege and something that would not be desirable for poorer women.       -schang &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I agree with the comments above noticing the differences between black and white women&amp;#039;s approaches to fundraising I found interesting how they worked together as well. According to the article women seemed to be the ringleaders not only for rights for themselves but for equality by working together against race riots, ie. Chicago 1919 p. 224. Even more interesting were women in the South working together, where they suffered racial violence constantly. It was not common to see women of both races working together for a cause but both races had common interests, each was under the domestic sphere and both had to fight for not only themselves but generations to come. I did think the way black women worked together was more effective, even without government support they were able to come together without the support of men and build a bond through sisterhood and charity. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the information presented in this article regarding the priorities of black women and their focus on education was revealing.  On page 225, Gordon points out that “education was the single most important area of activism for black women”.  It makes sense that this would be the case, but I would have guessed that issues of equality would have outranked education as the primary concern. –E Fritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems almost like black and white women were working towards two entirely different goals.  White women were working towards recognition and forming different groups such as the YWCA.  But they were either excluding these black women, or they were being excluded by society.  It is hard to beleive that blacks were even being lynched in the 20th century.  The push for women&amp;#039;s rights for whites seems to be taking much greater strides than for blacks because of the intense segregation.  I feel for the black women more so than white women because they were forced to go through many more difficult hardships for not only civil, but also women&amp;#039;s rights.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting that while all three groups (white women, black women, and Chinese women) influenced the development of both American society as a whole and their own closer knit community, there are not many documents supporting the influences of the minority groups which can be primarily attributed to how these women felt about their roles and what they wanted out of reform more than solely based on educational attainment. The white women were still invested in how middle class women were supposed to act (writing detailed letters or diaries, basically leaving behind traces of their existence and how they lived their lives) and therefore many more documents are available for study. The black women were concerned with getting improved reform for working conditions because their new lives involved becoming economically stable, and they had learned from their mothers and relatives that women were capable and expected to contribute to the household (during slavery they worked just as hard as the men and many times worked alongside them). The Chinese women came to America in the hopes of a new start, unfortunately most of the jobs and lifestyles they found themselves in were in brothels and other forms of prostitution (these are not exactly professions that one writes about to remember fondly and therefore many records are not well kept). –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judy Yung, &amp;quot;The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chung Sai Yat Po&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1900-1911&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s ironic that in the early 20th century China was trying to emulate the Western world, including increasing women’s rights, to get out from under the hand of the West, and Chinese Americans emulated those reforms going on in China and not in their own country because they were so excluded from American life that they felt a closer kinship to China. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was interesting how the reasons why people decided it was a good idea for women to have an education in America paralleled the decision for Chinese women to become educated. On page 263 Yung writes, &amp;quot;Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China.&amp;quot; Even though I don&amp;#039;t think this should be a number one reason for a woman to be given an education, at the time I would have been happy that women&amp;#039;s education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chinese Americans were witnessing freedoms in America that were not offered to them as Chinese Americans in America or China.  Binding the feet was an example of their oppression to that of their husband.  It’s interesting that binding of the feet was compared to binding of an American woman corset.  They felt education was the key to stop the oppression.  Chinese American lineage was to their home where their families were so they naturally felt the need to change things back at home.  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CSYP was a very effective source to bringing light to the atrocities that Chinese American faced and the changes that needed to take place.  Chinese American women could speak out through these journals in order to reach out to others and make changes.  As Judy Yung noted though a lot did not read these articles, the news spread.  Women talk and share their thoughts with other woman evoking their spirit and that brings change for them. --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting reading, yes--new information, not really, at least to me. Why is it ironic that China saw the way out of Western domination as its emulation? That mentality has been repeated throughout history, from the Egyptians adopting chariots to overthrow the Hyksos to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents being found with US manuals on unconventional warfare. Also, it would seem only natural that the suppression of entry into the political sphere of an immigrant population would foster the desire to interact with the mother country. An aside--my own use of that term, &amp;quot;mother country&amp;quot; fascinates me in that nations have almost always been characterized as feminine and wonder what that kind of gendered language indicates about the pervasiveness of such gendered dichotomies in everyday life. Other things I found &amp;quot;interesting&amp;quot;--the actions of politicians and probably most likely liberal-minded reformers from the Progressive Era directly contributed to the high rate of prostitution among Chinese women as they barred further immigration in California and other western states. Also found significant the direction that these women&amp;#039;s reform actions were aimed at--the revitalization of China as a nation, rather than the individualistic aims of many female reformers in America--kind of reminiscent of the African American women from the previous reading and their focus on universal rights etc. than their white female counterparts. -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The comparison between bound feet and corsets was very important.  Westerners are quick to judge bound feet for the horrible physical impact they had on women, but really, corsets were not any better.  They bent ribcages, moved organs around, etc.  My great grandmother still had to wear a corset long after they were out of fashion because her body was incapable of supporting itself anymore.  And in both the case of foot binding and corsets, while it&amp;#039;s true that men perpetuated the situation because of their ideas of what a beautiful woman should look like, women themselves were the ones to support the practices and get their daughters to do so as a sign of their femininity.   I think the author took too much of a black-and-white stance on the subject of foot binding, which as painful as it was, it was not simply a sign of the oppression of Chinese women by Chinese men.  That being said, it was important for Chinese women, both in China and America, to reject that tradition in order to begin to step out of their traditional roles.  - Alice W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That&amp;#039;s not masculine, it&amp;#039;s disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least.                 -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first reading this article I initially thought, “How did Nellie think that she could actually do this in 1890? Was it even possible then?” Thinking more into it I can see why. She wanted to do something ambitious, that would make for a great story, but also make for a great experience, so why shouldn’t she as a woman be able to travel the world? Like Sarah, I feel bad that Nellie had to travel in one outfit for three months, but as she describes she is able to fit a good amount of clothing into her one hand-satchel, “two traveling caps…a pair of slippers, a dressing gown, tennis blazer…several changes of underwear,” (pg. 7). I would hope that priority number one would be the underwear. At the end of the article, I found that Nellie seems to indicate that she may have some sort of “baggage” in her life and I may be reading too much into it, but the way she speaks of the “the responsibilities and worries I escaped by not having a lot of trunks and boxes to look after,(pg. 7), seems to be a hidden meaning to her own emotional baggage.---Morgan M. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is a woman ready to trek around the world, alone, with only the contents of a little bag. She has the gumption to convince her boss that she can make the trip, yet she still falls back on the idea that if she conducts herself &amp;#039;properly&amp;#039; she will &amp;quot;always find men ready to protect&amp;quot; (pg. 7) her. I don&amp;#039;t fault her for wanting this protection, travel always entails a certain degree of danger, but I do wonder at her assumptions as to what constitutes proper behavior. In making the trip, hasn&amp;#039;t she already broken several social norms concerning appropriate womanly conduct? And did she believe that men the world over would hold the same ideas about women and their behavior? What of her safety if her conduct was deemed improper? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article really interesting because Nellie seems like a very independent and confident woman. That is why it was such a surprise to me that she quit journalism to marry a 72 year old man!! Perhaps she loved him, or maybe she thought that her job couldn&amp;#039;t last forever and she needed someone to support her? It did also say that she shed a few years off her age to make herself seem more youthful. Maybe there was a common thought in society that once a woman got too old, she wasn&amp;#039;t useful anymore. If that is true, then it must have been quite a strong societal expectation in order to get Nellie to stop what she loved doing. I think its also important to notice that Nellie had to stop her job when she got married. She obviously loved doing because she wanted to go back to it when her husband died, so there must have been some pressure on her to quit and spend her time being a wife. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also shocked at ther marriage to the rather old man, thats old today, so I&amp;#039;m sure back then that had to be quite an old guy.  I feel that Nellie is a perfect example of this New Woman, out embracing the world without a care or fear in the world, ready to tackle any man&amp;#039;s job. Good for her. - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here are the things that I found interesting in this primary document--for such a daring New Woman she seems awfully dependent on the chivalry of men. Example, &amp;quot;I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me.&amp;quot; (7) So whether she had the outward trappings of the New Woman, she still thought in the same old traditional way that men are meant to protect women. Geez, we don&amp;#039;t see that today at all...outward trappings of independence and the concurrent maintenance of a traditional outlook on the behavior of men...double standard much? -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was actually surprised that Bertha Palmer used her speech at the World Fair to both honor women and criticise men&amp;#039;s attitudes towards women.  Women had been allowed a space at the Fair to display their own creativity, but it was within a well defined and controlled &amp;quot;sphere&amp;quot; designated by men.  With Palmer&amp;#039;s speech, we are getting to see a woman recognize the inequality of the separate spheres doctrine and publicly push for the inclusion of women in more than restrictive &amp;quot;spheres&amp;quot; constructed by men.  After all, how can a woman truly be free when she is being oppressed by men in all that she does? -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reasoning behind the creation of the women&amp;#039;s pavilion seem more in line with what I imagine to be the goals of feminists (8). Then again, the &amp;quot;acknowledgement&amp;quot; that the women credit men in the passage, that heretofore, men have been the sole contributors to humanity, etc etc seemed to dismiss or perhaps demonstrate ignorance of what women had accomplished throughout history. -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found that Cooper&amp;#039;s statement concerning what constituted equality--&amp;quot;without violence and without suing or special patronage then and there the whole Negro race enters with me,&amp;quot; and whether or not the Civil Rights movement and aftermath, accompanied with violence, court action and affirmative action corresponds with her vision of equality. On that note, what did she mean particularly by the exaggerated &amp;quot;importance of mere political advantage&amp;quot; (12)?&lt;br /&gt;
-schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ida B. Wells&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Virtue knows no colorline, and the CHIVALRY which depends upon the complexion of skin and texture of hair can command no honest respect.&amp;quot; (17)--what did Wells mean by chivalry? -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think by using the word CHIVALRY Wells is just stressing the basic respect that should be shown between two humans, rather than just relationships between men and women.-MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Frances Willard&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;–&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The irony of a woman/feminist naming her bicycle, a possession, a thing, Gladys should mean something, unless I&amp;#039;m reading too much into her words. But then again, her description of how Gladys was a &amp;quot;mystery&amp;quot; and that she had &amp;quot;mastered&amp;quot; all her kinks and that she put a bridle in her mouth and whipped her in victory...all very masculine language directed towards a female object. Even if that object is an inanimate bicycle, Willard&amp;#039;s use of such blatantly gendered language merits some sort of analysis. -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Anzia Yezierska&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immigrant women like Anzia and her fictional heroine Sara faced unique challenges at the turn of the century. They were caught between the growing American emphasis on education and more independence for women and their tradition bound fathers and husbands. Men like Sara&amp;#039;s father in the reading probably saw their daughters&amp;#039; rebellious streaks as not only a threat to their patriarchal authority but also to the culture and customs they brought from their countries of origin. When immigrant daughters went to school or moved out on their own they joined an &amp;#039;American&amp;#039; movement that their parents may not have understood or feared for its ability to remove their daughters from an acceptably ethnic upbringing. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I strongly agree with Mary Ann, I think fathers especially immigrant fathers wanted the &amp;quot;American Dream&amp;quot; and felt that when they arrived it was hard to achieve so held onto the one stable condition they always knew as being heads of the household. Men, like Sara&amp;#039;s father used a different tactic to establish authority through the use of religion,&amp;quot;It says in the Torah, only through a man has a woman an existence.&amp;quot; (22) contradicting the idea in America where women were normally seen as morally superior.   This made me wonder if the influence of new religions and cultures in America helped bring about the women&amp;#039;s movement? Did statements such as the one Sara&amp;#039;s father made cause women to rebel more and prove they did not need a man nor his religion to survive. -Megan W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The story of the Bread Givers by Anzia Yezierska is an example of traditional values and norms crashing headfirst into a changing society.  As a man of God in their old country, Sara’s father would have been required to provide spiritual leadership to his community in exchange for food and shelter; but in America that is not the case.  Instead, he forces his family to sacrifice so that he can continue to focus completely on his religion.  Sara’s ability to break away from her father’s overbearing dominance also forces her to turn her back on her sisters and mother.  This conflict between generations was a prominent narrative at the turn of the century. – E Fritz  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sara&amp;#039;s assertion that America is nothing like the old country, and that in America she can do whatever she wants is a very interesting concept, coming from a woman. This was the assumption many immigrants coming to America although the reality of the situation oftentimes clashed violently with the ideal. That an immigrant female author would write in such glowing terms about the possibilities of being a woman in America should mean something, although I don&amp;#039;t know how the story ends and it is fiction. -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Edith Eudora Ammons&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – A Woman Homesteader&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I have pictured manifest destiny, I have hardly pictured Edith Ammons and her sister, two women, moving in to the West alone to build up new lives together.  Of course, I would never think of the West in the 19th century as a place of freedom and new beginnings because I know how rough it was from studying history.  Ammons herself admits, &amp;quot;This was not the West as I had dreamed it... It was a desolate, forgotten land, without vegetation save for the dry, crackling grass, without visible tokens of fertility&amp;quot; (p. 26).  Yet, the sisters toughed it out, taking on hardship after hardship in exchange for their freedom to live where they wanted and do what they wanted.  I think that with our comforts of today, it is often hard to imagine women putting themselves through such trials to achieve the freedom they desired. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I really liked about this story was how Molly talked about  how she struggled with her studies. I thought this was important because it shows that girls weren&amp;#039;t just sent away to learn how to become good wives, but they were actually taught things. They actually had to learn science and practice experiments. Molly seems like a completely modern college girl in the way she complains about her classes! She also talks about her social life quite openly. Girls were willing to dress up like boys in order to go out and have fun. Its nice to see that all girls of that period weren&amp;#039;t prim and proper like we are sometimes led to believe. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the first thing that struck me when reading this was the idea of &amp;quot;smashing&amp;quot;.  Did the intro to the letter say that it was acceptable for young women to fall in love with one another in college during that time period.  I find that hard to believe considering the fear of parents that their daughters would not be fit for marriage.  I also suppose that there might be some things missing from these letters, I mean I know I don&amp;#039;t tell my mom everything that I do at college. - John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also thrown off by the mention of &amp;quot;smashing&amp;quot; was there also a period of time before the turn of the century where there was some sort of sexual liberation? Or was the idea of &amp;quot;smashing&amp;quot; something that was allowed in college as long as these affairs did not last after graduation. I was also impressed with the frank openness of Molly&amp;#039;s letters to her parents, especially when she talked about dressing up as a boy. Was this standard behavior for college girls? -Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we spoke some of this issue that the “New Woman” faced about what to do after leaving college. Here I found what Jane Addams and Ellen Starr do very admirable, such as creating the famous Hall House. In today’s world you don’t see many women, especially white, moving into “bad” parts of cities to truly help the people there. But these women I found fearless of being in Chicago such as the incident with them leaving the side door left open and “were much pleased in the morning to find that we possessed a fine illustration of the honesty and kindliness of our new neighbors,” (pg. 36). I would have been so upset that I had risked my home and self, just being in a new place for the first night is nerve-racking, but leaving a door open would make me even more paranoid. These women were actually asked to “wash the newborn babies, and to prepare the dead for burial, to nurse the sick, and to ‘mind the children’,” (pg. 36). Where there no others to do these tasks, such as a mortician, hospital, or baby-sitters? I know to remember that these people were of the poorest of the city, but these women were asked to prepare the dead, really? Ew.---Morgan M.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like the concept of “after college, what?” (Jane Addams, MAW p. 34) is a universal question. Albeit when Addams was speaking, there were not many other higher position opportunities available for women after college, but in today’s society most students face the same dilemma regardless of gender, race and sex. It is difficult to find professional work after graduating college and sometimes it can take years to finally find your own place in the world. From then until now not much has changed in that department. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first piece of this article I saw was that it parallels to the Jane Addams Article in that Alice Hamilton spent time at the Hull House. In her writing Alice actually mentions the Hull House, other than her biography at the beginning stating that she had spent time there and that she truly learned something from her time at the Hull House gives more evidence to the fact of Jane creating something great. “Life at Hull-House had accustomed me to going straight to the homes of people whom I wished to learn something and talking to them in their own surroundings, where they have courage to speak out what is in their minds,” (pg. 39). The Hull House taught Alice how to relate to people and I can see this consideration being very important, essential, to her profession of being a physician. In addition to her being a physician I think that a certain level of arrogance blossomed as well. Alice tends to look down on people at times, but at the same time being understanding; an example being her take on the reason for immigrants to take jobs to support their families after coming to American; “of course they took the first job they could find and if it proved to be one that weakened and crippled them---well, that was their bad luck!” (pg. 39). I found this a bit uncharacteristic of the women who spent time in the Hull House, but that is entirely my take. I’m sure being a women physician is something to be quite proud of, but to look down on immigrants who you are caring for because they are trying to make the best of the life they have been dealt, seems a bit harsh. ---Morgan M.    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was so surprised with the statistic in the beginning of this article that said &amp;quot;around 1900 as many as one in five doctors were women, although that percentage would not be reached again until the 1970&amp;#039;s.&amp;quot; When did the switch happen? It seems that during the turn of the century, the opportunities for women experienced a brief moment of expansion before the doors were closed upon them again. I was impressed with the work that Alice Hamilton was able to accomplish, and was also horrified by her accounts of the devastating effects of poisonous materials in the workplace. I understand Morgans point about Hamilton coming off as very arrogant, however I think this type of attitude towards the poor was probably a characteristic of her upbringing most likely as a member of the middle or upper class. Even though Alice Hamilton did work towards finding a cure for diseases that afflicted the poor she may not necessarily feel that much warmth and compassion towards them. --Emma &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed reading Mother Jones. Her writing is very strong and passionate, and its hard not to have emotions dredged up while reading about this strike. I found it interesting that she went and stayed with the families working in the mine to witness first-hand the hardships they endure. The conditions seemed to be not too far off of what miners dealt with in more recent times which is saddening. - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did they call her Mother Jones? What did this say about the continued assumptions concerning the proper role of women in society, albeit a radicalized one? Love her take on women&amp;#039;s suffrage as a hobby of aristocratic women. A comment on her most enduring words--to not be ladylike...that implies that there was and will continue to be behavior that is classified as ladylike and unladylike...what does that mean about her own assumptions of where feminism would lead to? Concerning the actual text, I&amp;#039;m concerned about her attitude towards the constitutionality of laws. Her advocacy of violence as a means to correct what she sees as wrong is disconcerting. If more people with different opinions felt and acted the way she wanted, then we would end up without a government fairly soon. Aren&amp;#039;t there people who take her words to heart about using violence, but in a manner opposite what she would have wanted? For example, the bombing of abortion clinics? -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Culinary misadventures aside, I&amp;#039;m curious about what people thought about &amp;quot;Motherhood is not a remote contingency, but the common duty and common glory of womanhood. If women did choose professions unsuitable to maternity, nature would quietly extinguish them by her unvarying process.&amp;quot; (80) Ignoring my penchant for finding gendered language and Gilman&amp;#039;s reference to nature as a woman (why, because nature provides and women produce children?) but her assertion that motherhood is the duty and glory of womanhood and that there are certain professions inherently not suitable for women, but if women want to do these things, then she can do so, it&amp;#039;s just that nature will off her in a hurry. So...in her mind there really is such a thing as jobs that women shouldn&amp;#039;t do, but should be able to try anyways? -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman&amp;#039;s husband&amp;#039;s boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?&lt;br /&gt;
-Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article the most interesting out of all of them.  Josephine Conger-Koneko takes a very hard line on the position that women should be paid for their housework.  I also found it interesting how she equivocated a woman&amp;#039;s life in the home doing housework for her husband as the life of a slave.  She seems to be a bit radical in her discussion of women being paid for household duties.  I also found it striking that Koneko argues that a husband should go to his employer and ask for wages for his wife at home doing the housework and how men getting married is actually benefical more for the employer because then he will have a continuing work force. Did women during this time believe they should be paid for work, and if after reading this, did woman&amp;#039;s groups advocate paid labor for women working in the home?  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn&amp;#039;t just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the Sanger article was very interesting.  I like how Sanger is able to use the story of Mrs. Sachs to show the rising need and importance for birth control.  I think it presents birth control as more of a social issue, rather than just an issue of liberating woman&amp;#039;s sexuality.  She demonstrates that birth control is a necessity because of all the hurt, poverty and death that is occurring due to a lack  of birth control.  At this time, one had to have enough money for doctors who they could pay to tell them about birth control options/abortion due to the Comstock Laws, and I think this is important for why Sanger decides to advocate birth control, especially to the poorer classes.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the novelty of birth control and it&amp;#039;s practices were particularly interesting during this time period.  It was a process which was becoming more widely popularized because it was directly connected to women&amp;#039;s growing independence from men.  I agree with the fact that birth control began to empower women because it allowed them to choose weather or not they wanted to get pregnant, whereas previously they were almost forced into sex.  I think Sanger was wise in attempting to make birth control a more medical issue , but I also think it has feminist elements because it was able to empower women to make more significant sexual decisions.-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sanger was an insanely intelligent woman for using the Sachs family as a part of her argument. Rather than allowing for men (and women too) to scrutinize women for their decision to use birth control. She leaves some of the responsibility up to the men, by showing how it is relevant to their lives too.--MDvora&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked this article because it reflects upon the push made by female activists towards the real freedoms they desired. Emma Goldman criticizes the &amp;quot;superficial goals of the modern woman&amp;#039;s movement,&amp;quot; and expresses that &amp;quot;True emancipation begins neither at the polls nor in the courts...it begins in woman&amp;#039;s soul&amp;quot; (MAW 89). She also expresses that women do have the ability to shape or direct their own destiny. After reading a quote from page 90 where she said, &amp;quot;how much independence is gained if the narrowness and lack of freedom of the home is exchanged for the narrowness and lack of freedom of the factory, sweat-shop, department store, or office?&amp;quot; it reminded me of when slaves first got their freedom. They were free but not at all equal in social or economic status. With women gaining suffrage they gained the opportunities men held but they were still limited by sexual discrimination.   -David Fitch&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-28T05:25:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;One of the things that stood out to me in this article was the paradoxes.  This was full of them regarding cherokee values as well as teachings.  There seems to be great confusion between  the pure bloods and mixed-bloods.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  For example, there were many mixed-blood instructors, but no traditional cherokee teachers, yet the school was based on cherokee values.  Also, many of the teachers repressed Cherokee values, which seems to defeat the purpose of a cherokee boarding school.  Also, a girl named Na-Li defended her honor in claiming that both of her parents were full cherokee, but many of the teachers did not teach traditional values so it seems like a frivolous concern.  It appears to obtain a traditional cherokee eduaction when there were so many paradoxes between the people.-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans.  In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones.  Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.”  Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included.  I think that perhaps it has something to do with&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; our romantic view of Native Americans&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the &amp;quot;mixed-blood&amp;quot; families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.”&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It&amp;#039;s just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it&amp;#039;s just that, as the article states, &amp;quot;there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more &amp;quot;white&amp;quot;,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; as Morgan points out.  I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on.  As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly &amp;quot;expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as &amp;quot;whiter&amp;quot; and therefore &amp;quot;more intellectual&amp;quot;.  I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society.  Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them.  The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary.  Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division.  I don’t think the teachers helped with that either.  These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society.  These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in.  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked reading the essay &amp;quot;Too Dark to Be Angels.&amp;quot; I thought there were multiple interesting points in the article. In particular I thought how the full-blood Cherokee girls were treated resembled what can be found at high schools even today. Some students today are still picked on because of their race or because they are of lower class. The reading talked about how the girls were sometimes left out because they were falling behind academically and were not able to go on outings with the older high school girls and also were unable to afford party clothes and/or after-dinner snacks. These types of things made the full-blood Cherokee girls feel inferior and they can also make girls in schools today feel left out or inferior to the upper class or other white females. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked Amy&amp;#039;s point above. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Even back in 19th century Cherokee seminaries, there were still mean girl cliques.  A tale as old as time...&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Also, I have the same questions as Taylor. Why did the girls consider themselves Cherokee still if they resembled and lived like the white southerners and felt inferior to them for being Cherokees.. I was astounded as to how European the girls in the photos looked, and then I read the captions where one stated the girls pictured were 1/32 Cherokee. I was quite shocked to learn how even those very distantly-related Cherokee girls considered themselves Cherokee even when they had never even  heard the language or witnessed any tribal functions/ceremonies. - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting that both the mixed-blood and full-blood Cherokee girls in seminary identified with their Cherokee origins, and that each felt that they were the more “in touch” with their lineage than the other group. It seems that one’s perception of their identity had more of an impact on who they became than solely genetic factors. Those who had lighter skin knew that they had more options socially than those who were darker, because they fit in better with the notion that the white society was the more desirable. Yet at the same time, they did not identify completely with the white culture they sought to mix into, instead they wanted to be identified as Cherokee.  I find it interesting as well that the society that had previously held the “one drop” policy that restricted African Americans did not seem to have the same effect on schooling for Native Americans (perhaps I missed that section in the readings but that struck me as slightly different)--jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine L. the cliques inside the seminary were similar to the cliques we see today in movies such as Mean Girls, it shows that we have not changed much throughout history and that the class system exists with the influence of monetary status. The girls who were full-blood were not open to the full possibilites education had to offer because they were not able to attend primary school, but I found it interesting that they were still able to maintain good grades. While, some of the girls could not stay long in the seminary due to family or financial reasons they still maintained grades close to the mixed girls. I wondered how many students the seminary accepted? If there was a limit and even with the comments from the superintendent why were so many full-blooded girls accepted when they faced criticism for being themselves? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Some of the passages I found most striking in this article involved the feelings of inferiority that were internalized by the students, particularly those who had more Cherokee blood.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Na-li expresses happily that &amp;quot;My complexion does not prevent me from acquiring knowledge and being useful hereafter.&amp;quot; [p. 182]  That they were so able to associate their own heritage and skin color with their inferior social standing demonstrates the ways that the seminary failed them culturally.  On page 185, a male Cherokee seminary graduate celebrates his &amp;quot;whiteness&amp;quot; and says &amp;quot;it is the white blood that made us what we are.&amp;quot;  It just seems like a pretty high price to pay to find success outside of the Cherokee community.  - Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like the the primary attitude and atmosphere of the female seminary was racial ignorance, as seen on Page 181 which says, &amp;quot;The teachers also relentlessly reinforced the importance of learning and retaining the values of white society.&amp;quot; It seemed as though the school&amp;#039;s main goal was to force any &amp;quot;full-blood&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;half-blood&amp;quot; students to assimilate into the white society, disregarding any traditions or remnants of their previous Cherokee lives. While the seminary prided itself on creating upstanding young women, it also made them very rude, with the attitude of &amp;quot;i&amp;#039;m better than you.&amp;quot; There is a prime example on P. 182, which says, &amp;quot;In comparing her tribe and theirs, she pointed out that the Osages listened attentively to the seminarians sing &amp;#039;Over There,&amp;#039; because, she figured, at least the &amp;#039;wild and untutored Savage has an ear for music as well as the cultivated and refined.&amp;#039;&amp;quot; The girls may have left seminary &amp;quot;more refined&amp;quot; but in reality, they were just Cherokee girls who threw away their old values and family traditions to transform into a woman more acceptable by white society. --- Alex Mankarios&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could &amp;quot;endure childbirth painlessly&amp;quot; (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199).  I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries.  The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203).  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through which women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the &amp;#039;savages&amp;#039; to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered &amp;quot;traditional&amp;quot; activities, so wouldn&amp;#039;t that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in &amp;quot;traditional culture&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;modern labor?&amp;quot;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men&amp;#039;s dissolution&amp;quot; (p. 199).  These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere.  When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men&amp;#039;s laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families.  They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as &amp;quot;tourist attractions&amp;quot; (p. 201).  However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork.  I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time.  I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples.  They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as &amp;quot;field hands,&amp;quot;vanishing Indians&amp;quot; (p.201), tourist attractions, &amp;quot;subjects&amp;quot; for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was really struck by the way the author said that indigenous women at this time were “dehumanized.” I had never really thought about it in that context, but it is true with the way white women thought about Indians. Because they were closely affiliated with nature and because of the belief that they didn’t feel pain during childbirth, they were no longer women or even really human. This is why it was so easy for white women to treat them as a sort of spectacle as opposed to real people. They acted the complete opposite from how women were supposed to act. -  Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really couldn&amp;#039;t believe the way the indigenous people, women in particular were viewed and treated by the white people. I can&amp;#039;t believe that groups of people actually went to where the laborers were working to watch and see a &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; &amp;quot;tradtional&amp;quot; Native American. So these white families or individuals went to look at them for fun and then scrutinized those same workers for what they bought with their money, what clothes they wore, and how they tried to act more &amp;quot;white?&amp;quot; I thought that was crazy. I think the white Americans should really have thought of something better to do with their time. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading &amp;quot;The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe,&amp;quot; I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States.  He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it.  Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States.  The most interesting fact was that &amp;quot;women were expected to defer to men but did not.&amp;quot; This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict.  It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound.  I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met.  I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, &amp;quot;They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community&amp;#039;s values and habits through a single activity,  After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall...&amp;quot;(257)  Although, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart.  She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles.  I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some  women did of what was expected of them.  Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;If she had been a man we would have never heard about her.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;   --MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn&amp;#039;t just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 &amp;quot;To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise&amp;quot; because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the &amp;quot;(White) Protestants&amp;quot; can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I&amp;#039;d be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists&amp;#039; animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;her money &amp;quot;eventually helped elevate her moral character&amp;quot; (253).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article incredibly fascinating. I thought it was interesting how the perception of Barceló as an &amp;quot;immoral woman&amp;quot; who &amp;quot;dressed outrageously&amp;quot; was then generalized to include all of the women in Santa Fe. A factor that contributed to Barceló&amp;#039;s notoriety was suspicions of her running a brothel. Surely there were also a smattering of white women engaged in the same act of &amp;quot;moral laxity&amp;quot;, although perhaps not of the same caliber as Barceló. However, the overall perception of white women still remained pure and chaste while the women of Santa Fe were perceived in a whole new manner because of just one woman. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erin--thanks for the link! It seems to me that Barceló was an amazing woman, one of those larger-than-life characters that make such excellent stories. I found it interesting how Gonzalez tried to separate the facts of Barceló&amp;#039;s life from the fictions created and written about her. Her true life and nature are very much a mystery, cross-referenced from accounts of the period.  --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this reading to be the most interesting. Gertrudis Barceló was able to change the behavior of western women through a saloon, and not only that..she was a woman, making big bucks. Dancing, smoking, gambling makes it sound like her saloon was the modern-day club of the time. Because their was a &amp;quot;disjunction between the idealized married life and the conditions that stood in the way of its realization...such as taking in boarders or having children out of wedlock&amp;quot;(255), she was able to pull off this &amp;quot;step outside the boundaries of her society&amp;quot;. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this passage because it shed light on an area that women are not typically portrayed as being a part of. Gambling, dancing and the general atmosphere and persona attributed to running a saloon are typically male dominated spheres (even today most women who work there or are seen doing these types of things are looked at as &amp;quot;loose&amp;quot; or simply atypical. It was interesting to read about a woman who broke the mold back then and who probably would have the same effect in certain areas of the US today. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Susan Shelby seems to find the positive in living in and travelling through New Mexico and the West, unlike Mrs. A. M. Green.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  This is probably due to the fact that she keeps herself busy with housework, improving her Spanish, and getting to know the locals.  I enjoyed reading the prejudices Shelby believes of the Mexicans.  She is surprised to find that her Mexican servant, who she was quick to call &amp;quot;one of the numbskulls&amp;quot; (p. 234), is actually quite smart and picks up on things very quickly.  She also realizes the Mexicans&amp;#039; intelligence when they offer her useful help and advice with things that Shelby believes may be &amp;quot;the first of the kind they have ever seen&amp;quot; (p. 235).  Shelby also seems to imply that the Mexicans are gaudy and extravagant with their parties when she is describing the managerie.  It is important to note that she is surprised to discover that when rich Mexicans &amp;quot;attend a place of the kind to take a servant along and while sitting to use them as an article of furniture&amp;quot; (p. 236).  To me, this appears to be the point where Shelby is realizing that even the Mexicans have a hierarchal system; they are not all stupid servants.  Another highlight of Shelby&amp;#039;s diary is where she points out her place in society - well, more like her place in the home, really.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;On Friday the 4th, she writes about putting all of her energy, and her servant&amp;#039;s energy in to cleaning the house.  She is determined to do her &amp;quot;duty so well so as to gain one bright smile and sweet kiss from [her] good, kind husband&amp;quot; (p. 234).  I think this is a great example of the separate spheres and the idea that these women had of making the homes perfect, romanticized places for their husbands to return.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Apparently it is so serious, she may not receive her husband&amp;#039;s acceptance and affection when he returns home!  Although, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it seems like that would be due to her punishing herself rather than a punishment from her husband.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anonymous account of the Rape of Indian women was interesting and upsetting. The writer is obviously outraged by the egregious acts of the “supposed” United States Officers and their utter lack of respect for the Native Americans. In my opinion there were two messages posted in this letter. The obvious issue with the rape of course, but the writer also makes a point to note “Whether he found a fit subject to practice his virtuous and civilizing purposes, the writer in not informed.” (p 237)  This seems like an intentional dig at the “civilizing” practices of the Americans in regards to the natives. The writer illustrates the irony in these practices through his letter; rape is an uncivilized and immoral act, in this case perpetrated by the very people who are attempting to “civilize” the native people of the land.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I was surprised to see that this was published in a newspaper. While it is upsetting, disgusting, immoral, etc. I wouldn&amp;#039;t think that newspapers of the time would have had the courage to publish such a piece against the stationed soldiers.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  It does go to show that people were taking note of the uncivilized nature of the Americans (as Caryn said) and the irony of the whole situation. Would something like this be followed up on by law enforcement, or simply shrugged off?  - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren&amp;#039;t giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn&amp;#039;t get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading &amp;quot;Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes&amp;quot; is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan&amp;#039;s question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that in 1875-1876 $630 a lot of money. I googled the historical value of money and $1 was worth about $14.85 meaning that $630 was equivalent to over $9300. It is unfortunate that these women had to sell themselves but that may have been the only option that they could see for themselves at the time.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t speak to Chinese attitudes towards prostitution in the second half of the nineteenth century, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;we talked about prostitution and courtesans in my Gender in Chinese History class during the eighteenth century, and they had a different view of it than we do&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Certainly, they felt that it was best to be a respectable wife and mother, but courtesans and prostitutes weren&amp;#039;t merely sex objects, most were educated and trained in the fine arts.  Sometimes they didn&amp;#039;t even sleep with their clients, but would just sit down and write poetry or play music with them.  Many of these women were famous for their beauty and learning, even their morality.  Of course, I&amp;#039;m not by any means trying to glorify prostitution, but still, these immigrant Chinese women may have come to the United States with a different idea of what being a prostitute meant, and that&amp;#039;s why they agreed to it, combined with the practical concern of getting themselves to America. - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with many of the comments above regarding money and how at the time it was quite a large amount to spend but I found interesting how the numbers were so precise, ie. with Loi Yau her amount was $503 for four and half years(p. 238). How did the mistresses come up with the numbers, was $503 the exact amount for travel, lodging, etc.? I also question if the women really understood everything they were in for, like kokeefe mentioned America was the land for opportunity-it may have been a better life here than in China. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The women were able to live in America without debt and be free to do as they pleased once their servitude was complete.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I do not think prostitution is the way to go or an ideal life choice, but for the women maybe it was a means of escape. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Super-disturbing.  Particularly in the first contract where, on page 238, it lists all of the ailments that would justify a return of the product.  First of all, pregnancy is mentioned as one of these &amp;quot;great sicknesses&amp;quot; and also the really hilarious, &amp;quot;&amp;#039;stone-woman,&amp;#039; i.e, inability to have carnal intercourse with men.&amp;quot;  What sort of inability would this be?  If women were willing to do this in order to leave China, even if prostitution played a different social role there, then they must have been escaping some bad situations.  Or else, they had been persuaded that much better conditions waited for them in America than actually did.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Super-disturbing&amp;quot; hits the mark. A few things I think are important to keep in mind:  inflation (that was a lot more money back then), the probability that these women did not know their options and what they were getting into, the character of the mistresses (I think it&amp;#039;s safe to say that they lied through their teeth), and the differences between prostitution in the US and the prostitution in China (these women, not intending to get into this line of work, were therefore probably not trained as cultured courtesans, and I doubt American prostitution looked at all the same as in China). I also think that the editors gave us some important context in their short description of the document on page 232:  &amp;quot;...several &amp;quot;bills of sale&amp;quot; of Chinese women who &amp;quot;consented&amp;quot; to become prostitutes..&amp;quot; The editors, in their phrasing and use of quotation marks hint that these documents were  not fully presented to or understood by the women; in all probability, they were either forged or signed under very false pretenses.  --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It was interesting to read this account after reading &amp;quot;Too Dark to be Angels.&amp;quot;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It&amp;#039;s telling that the little girl compares herself to the &amp;quot;young of a wild creature&amp;quot; (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be &amp;quot;fewer real Dakotas&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;more palefaces&amp;quot; (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this story to be rather sad because I couldn&amp;#039;t help but think that she would be miserable once she got to school. Most of the other accounts that I have read did not paint the schools set up for the Native American children to be happy places. However I thought the mothers take on the situation to show an incredible amount of foresight and wisdom in regards to her peoples situation and the growing need to assimilate. It did seem though that these missionaries were very misleading in their attempt to get children to attend.--Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of frontier life is really touching because it is probably an example of what so many other women were going through. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Although some probably had the sense of adventure to want to go exploring out west, I’m sure many were perfectly fine staying in the east with their families.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Green’s sadness but resolve to put on a happy face for her husband is an example of how women were the rock of their families and despite severe emotional turmoil, they were forced to overcome it and remain the strong person that would hold the family together. - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree Angie, it is hard to imagine the shock that Mrs. Green felt moving to such an unfamiliar territory with her husband and two young children. This account did portray her as a brave woman persevering in a rather bleak situation. She could have accepted her husband’s offer to return home but her loyalty was stronger than her desire for comfort. I also appreciate &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the candid nature of this entry&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because she does express vulnerability and tenderness. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse.  It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly.  It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;In her appeal for a pension I didn&amp;#039;t quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she&amp;#039;s also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-28T01:42:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things that stood out to me in this article was the paradoxes.  This was full of them regarding cherokee values as well as teachings.  There seems to be great confusion between  the pure bloods and mixed-bloods.  For example, there were many mixed-blood instructors, but no traditional cherokee teachers, yet the school was based on cherokee values.  Also, many of the teachers repressed Cherokee values, which seems to defeat the purpose of a cherokee boarding school.  Also, a girl named Na-Li defended her honor in claiming that both of her parents were full cherokee, but many of the teachers did not teach traditional values so it seems like a frivolous concern.  It appears to obtain a traditional cherokee eduaction when there were so many paradoxes between the people.-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans.  In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones.  Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.”  Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain.  I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included.  I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the &amp;quot;mixed-blood&amp;quot; families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It&amp;#039;s just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it&amp;#039;s just that, as the article states, &amp;quot;there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself.  Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more &amp;quot;white&amp;quot;, as Morgan points out.  I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on.  As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly &amp;quot;expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as &amp;quot;whiter&amp;quot; and therefore &amp;quot;more intellectual&amp;quot;.  I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society.  Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them.  The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary.  Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division.  I don’t think the teachers helped with that either.  These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society.  These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in.  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked reading the essay &amp;quot;Too Dark to Be Angels.&amp;quot; I thought there were multiple interesting points in the article. In particular I thought how the full-blood Cherokee girls were treated resembled what can be found at high schools even today. Some students today are still picked on because of their race or because they are of lower class. The reading talked about how the girls were sometimes left out because they were falling behind academically and were not able to go on outings with the older high school girls and also were unable to afford party clothes and/or after-dinner snacks. These types of things made the full-blood Cherokee girls feel inferior and they can also make girls in schools today feel left out or inferior to the upper class or other white females. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked Amy&amp;#039;s point above. Even back in 19th century Cherokee seminaries, there were still mean girl cliques.  A tale as old as time... Also, I have the same questions as Taylor. Why did the girls consider themselves Cherokee still if they resembled and lived like the white southerners and felt inferior to them for being Cherokees.. I was astounded as to how European the girls in the photos looked, and then I read the captions where one stated the girls pictured were 1/32 Cherokee. I was quite shocked to learn how even those very distantly-related Cherokee girls considered themselves Cherokee even when they had never even  heard the language or witnessed any tribal functions/ceremonies. - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting that both the mixed-blood and full-blood Cherokee girls in seminary identified with their Cherokee origins, and that each felt that they were the more “in touch” with their lineage than the other group. It seems that one’s perception of their identity had more of an impact on who they became than solely genetic factors. Those who had lighter skin knew that they had more options socially than those who were darker, because they fit in better with the notion that the white society was the more desirable. Yet at the same time, they did not identify completely with the white culture they sought to mix into, instead they wanted to be identified as Cherokee.  I find it interesting as well that the society that had previously held the “one drop” policy that restricted African Americans did not seem to have the same effect on schooling for Native Americans (perhaps I missed that section in the readings but that struck me as slightly different)--jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could &amp;quot;endure childbirth painlessly&amp;quot; (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199).  I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries.  The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203).  These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the &amp;#039;savages&amp;#039; to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered &amp;quot;traditional&amp;quot; activities, so wouldn&amp;#039;t that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in &amp;quot;traditional culture&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;modern labor?&amp;quot;  -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men&amp;#039;s dissolution&amp;quot; (p. 199).  These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere.  When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men&amp;#039;s laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families.  They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as &amp;quot;tourist attractions&amp;quot; (p. 201).  However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork.  I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality.  Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time.  I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples.  They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as &amp;quot;field hands,&amp;quot;vanishing Indians&amp;quot; (p.201), tourist attractions, &amp;quot;subjects&amp;quot; for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was really struck by the way the author said that indigenous women at this time were “dehumanized.” I had never really thought about it in that context, but it is true with the way white women thought about Indians. Because they were closely affiliated with nature and because of the belief that they didn’t feel pain during childbirth, they were no longer women or even really human. This is why it was so easy for white women to treat them as a sort of spectacle as opposed to real people. They acted the complete opposite from how women were supposed to act. -  Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really couldn&amp;#039;t believe the way the indigenous people, women in particular were viewed and treated by the white people. I can&amp;#039;t believe that groups of people actually went to where the laborers were working to watch and see a &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; &amp;quot;tradtional&amp;quot; Native American. So these white families or individuals went to look at them for fun and then scrutinized those same workers for what they bought with their money, what clothes they wore, and how they tried to act more &amp;quot;white?&amp;quot; I thought that was crazy. I think the white Americans should really have thought of something better to do with their time. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading &amp;quot;The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe,&amp;quot; I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States.  He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it.  Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States.  The most interesting fact was that &amp;quot;women were expected to defer to men but did not.&amp;quot; This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict.  It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound.  I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met.  I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, &amp;quot;They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community&amp;#039;s values and habits through a single activity,  After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall...&amp;quot;(257)  Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman.  I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart.  She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles.  I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some  women did of what was expected of them.  Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money.  If she had been a man we would have never heard about her.   --MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn&amp;#039;t just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 &amp;quot;To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise&amp;quot; because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the &amp;quot;(White) Protestants&amp;quot; can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I&amp;#039;d be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists&amp;#039; animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money &amp;quot;eventually helped elevate her moral character&amp;quot; (253). -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Susan Shelby seems to find the positive in living in and travelling through New Mexico and the West, unlike Mrs. A. M. Green.  This is probably due to the fact that she keeps herself busy with housework, improving her Spanish, and getting to know the locals.  I enjoyed reading the prejudices Shelby believes of the Mexicans.  She is surprised to find that her Mexican servant, who she was quick to call &amp;quot;one of the numbskulls&amp;quot; (p. 234), is actually quite smart and picks up on things very quickly.  She also realizes the Mexicans&amp;#039; intelligence when they offer her useful help and advice with things that Shelby believes may be &amp;quot;the first of the kind they have ever seen&amp;quot; (p. 235).  Shelby also seems to imply that the Mexicans are gaudy and extravagant with their parties when she is describing the managerie.  It is important to note that she is surprised to discover that when rich Mexicans &amp;quot;attend a place of the kind to take a servant along and while sitting to use them as an article of furniture&amp;quot; (p. 236).  To me, this appears to be the point where Shelby is realizing that even the Mexicans have a hierarchal system; they are not all stupid servants.  Another highlight of Shelby&amp;#039;s diary is where she points out her place in society - well, more like her place in the home, really.  On Friday the 4th, she writes about putting all of her energy, and her servant&amp;#039;s energy in to cleaning the house.  She is determined to do her &amp;quot;duty so well so as to gain one bright smile and sweet kiss from [her] good, kind husband&amp;quot; (p. 234).  I think this is a great example of the separate spheres and the idea that these women had of making the homes perfect, romanticized places for their husbands to return.  Apparently it is so serious, she may not receive her husband&amp;#039;s acceptance and affection when he returns home!  Although, it seems like that would be due to her punishing herself rather than a punishment from her husband. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anonymous account of the Rape of Indian women was interesting and upsetting. The writer is obviously outraged by the egregious acts of the “supposed” United States Officers and their utter lack of respect for the Native Americans. In my opinion there were two messages posted in this letter. The obvious issue with the rape of course, but the writer also makes a point to note “Whether he found a fit subject to practice his virtuous and civilizing purposes, the writer in not informed.” (p 237)  This seems like an intentional dig at the “civilizing” practices of the Americans in regards to the natives. The writer illustrates the irony in these practices through his letter; rape is an uncivilized and immoral act, in this case perpetrated by the very people who are attempting to “civilize” the native people of the land.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to see that this was published in a newspaper. While it is upsetting, disgusting, immoral, etc. I wouldn&amp;#039;t think that newspapers of the time would have had the courage to publish such a piece against the stationed soldiers.  It does go to show that people were taking note of the uncivilized nature of the Americans (as Caryn said) and the irony of the whole situation. Would something like this be followed up on by law enforcement, or simply shrugged off?  - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence.  And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren&amp;#039;t giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn&amp;#039;t get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading &amp;quot;Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes&amp;quot; is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan&amp;#039;s question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that in 1875-1876 $630 a lot of money. I googled the historical value of money and $1 was worth about $14.85 meaning that $630 was equivalent to over $9300. It is unfortunate that these women had to sell themselves but that may have been the only option that they could see for themselves at the time.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t speak to Chinese attitudes towards prostitution in the second half of the nineteenth century, but we talked about prostitution and courtesans in my Gender in Chinese History class during the eighteenth century, and they had a different view of it than we do.  Certainly, they felt that it was best to be a respectable wife and mother, but courtesans and prostitutes weren&amp;#039;t merely sex objects, most were educated and trained in the fine arts.  Sometimes they didn&amp;#039;t even sleep with their clients, but would just sit down and write poetry or play music with them.  Many of these women were famous for their beauty and learning, even their morality.  Of course, I&amp;#039;m not by any means trying to glorify prostitution, but still, these immigrant Chinese women may have come to the United States with a different idea of what being a prostitute meant, and that&amp;#039;s why they agreed to it, combined with the practical concern of getting themselves to America. - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to read this account after reading &amp;quot;Too Dark to be Angels.&amp;quot; To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It&amp;#039;s telling that the little girl compares herself to the &amp;quot;young of a wild creature&amp;quot; (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be &amp;quot;fewer real Dakotas&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;more palefaces&amp;quot; (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of frontier life is really touching because it is probably an example of what so many other women were going through. Although some probably had the sense of adventure to want to go exploring out west, I’m sure many were perfectly fine staying in the east with their families. Green’s sadness but resolve to put on a happy face for her husband is an example of how women were the rock of their families and despite severe emotional turmoil, they were forced to overcome it and remain the strong person that would hold the family together. - Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree Angie, it is hard to imagine the shock that Mrs. Green felt moving to such an unfamiliar territory with her husband and two young children. This account did portray her as a brave woman persevering in a rather bleak situation. She could have accepted her husband’s offer to return home but her loyalty was stronger than her desire for comfort. I also appreciate the candid nature of this entry because she does express vulnerability and tenderness. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse.  It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly.  It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn&amp;#039;t quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she&amp;#039;s also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-21T03:16:38Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Comments/questions comparing the articles ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on a paper I wrote on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, this was a very interesting essay to read.  Fahs mentions that the war still follows the &amp;quot;masculanized culture&amp;quot; that was in place at the time and through my research I discovered the same things.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Much of the standard literature was centered around the fighting and the man&amp;#039;s roles on the battlefield, yet women&amp;#039;s roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten.  It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as &amp;quot;feminist&amp;quot; literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. -- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it very interesting how she discusses the different type of surrering that women endured.  Men endured the horrors of war and their suffering was very physical and visual.  Women, however, also suffered but they experienced strictly emotional suffering.  They were cut deeply by these emotional wounds of not knowing weather their loved-ones were safe on the battlefield and some argued that these wounds cut deeper than those of men.  Where men simply died on the battlefield, women had to endure the death of a loved one, while still remaining strong, and now being forced to provide for themselves. -- Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how Civil War literature shifted from a focus on the tribulations of northern women to those of southern women.  And &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;despite a strong emphasis on realistic literature, southern women and antebellum plantation life was highly romanticized.  This probably came in part from a desire to both remember a time when the nation was united (which can also be seen in the popularity of stories centered around the Revolution)and to try to create a new identity centered around northern and southern reconciliation and &amp;quot;white&amp;quot; ideals.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I can&amp;#039;t help but think about &amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; whenever they mentioned southern woman&amp;#039;s literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman&amp;#039;s role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today&amp;#039;s non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think it is important to keep in mind that literature is largely written for an audience, and yet, this literature is what shapes the public memory of an event&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. The dominant forms of fiction at the outset of the war were women’s domestic novels. This impacts what type of literature was written during the war. It should come as no surprise that during the war, “the literary marketplace supported an outpouring of popular literature portraying women’s domestic participation in the war.” This domestic participation includes working, sacrifice, and loss, some even argue that the women sacrificed more than the men who were fighting. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;However, there was a shift in literature with the rise of Civil War veterans organizations. This led to a shift in who were the bearers of the war’s memory from women to veterans.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It is amazing how the Civil War has become, “a white male conflict, rather than a cataclysmic event that rent and remade the fabric of life for all Americans.” – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the reading on the Feminized Civil War, I kept asking myself where the women had gone; it was as if their memory of the Civil War had disappeared entirely. I was pleased when I came across Mary Livermore who, in 1887, spoke out against where the literature about the civil war was going. She argued that the story of Northern women was missing.  Then, in 1889 Edward Bellamy, stated that, “many pictures of battles have been painted, but no true one yet, for the pictures contain only men. The women are unaccountably left out.” Finally, there was Elizabeth Stuart Phelps who actually “undermined stereotypes of veterans” and “challenged the veteran dominated culture of remembrance itself.” I was just happy to see that women were not entirely forgotten in the decades following the Civil War. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I am curious as to how the majority of women felt when their impacts on the war became largely overlooked, especially after all of the pain and loss that they had experienced.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It seems as time moved on after the Civil War it increasingly became to be defined as a &amp;quot;Man&amp;#039;s War&amp;quot;, specifically a &amp;quot;White Man&amp;#039;s War&amp;quot;.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; All of the domestic issues women faced, such as caring for children, the home, and earning a living, faded with the passage of time. It appears that a romanticized portrait of the war was painted in which much of the heart-ache and problems women faced on an everyday basis were pushed to the wayside in favor of remembering the great battles and generals of the day. This is yet another example of how women were forgotten in the shadow of their men. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna Holman&amp;#039;s approach that the Civil War had largely (and unfortunately) came to be defined as a &amp;quot;Man&amp;#039;s War.&amp;quot; I also found it interesting that they begin to recognize the importance of the woman in everyday life, thought the focus was only on the mother initially. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;On page 133, Fahs points out that, &amp;quot;women especially mothers, personalized the nation, that they link the private and public realms.&amp;quot;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Not only does Fahs point out that women were in a sense the backbone of the nation, but they were also able to tie together the separate spheres. --MDvorak &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with both Anna and MDvorak here.  I found it interesting how the reading referred to the war as a &amp;quot;Man&amp;#039;s War&amp;quot;.  Fahs focused a lot of attention on the emotional side of women during the war, but the connection of their emotions to the men in their lives and the country, I think, is most important.  I believe it showed that the suffering aspect a of war produced a personal connection to the war for women, especially when they were not directly involved (on the battlefield, for instance). Also, I found the shift away from women after the war in publications was extremely important in understanding how people at this time, particularly men, viewed the war.     -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with the above three statements. I find it interesting that women were seen as the emotional backbone of the nation which would seem to imply that they were seen as an important aspect of the war-if the sons were not properly &amp;quot;sent off&amp;quot; or supported by the mother who they looked to for emotional strength then it would be hard to determine how they would have been able to survive the horrors of war even remotely emotionally intact. However, it seems as if this important contribution was greatly overshadowed by the carnage of war. It makes everyday strength and courage appear as a lesser virtue than uncommon courage in the face of sudden and inescapable danger. WHere did these men learn that strength? From the readings it would be the mother who taught this trait and yet the mother gets virtually no credit. -jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
I also completely agree with Erin Sanderson&amp;#039;s statement in which she discusses how after men returned from the war, the literature market increasingly became dominated by men&amp;#039;s war stories. The interests of women were again pushed away for those of men. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to find out that the Civil War was so feminized during the war and directly following it. The war has definitely become masculine in the public memory, and it makes me want to take a look at how the public images of other wars have changed. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Why was there a focus on the Northern women’s war in Civil War literature in the first place? Was it because they were the only ones around that had the opportunity to read it? Many Northern men would have been fighting, and in the South, both men and women would have had larger concerns than publishing and reading literature. How come when the war once again entered popular memory in the 1880s, it became focused on the masculine aspects of the war? The article mentions a shift away from Victorian feminine literature towards realist literature. Was there some sort of demographic change in readership?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as though the media played a larger role during and after the civil war.  From the material read, it seemed to have expressed sadness, pride, and Patriotism of people’s experiences of the War.  Women&amp;#039;s writing was more prominent because the men were away in war.  But when the men came home their stories needed to be told.  I think this symbolizes men returning to the public sphere.  I think the type of stories told says something about men and women&amp;#039;s roles.  In these stories about women you see the emotional side and in men&amp;#039;s stories they were more about glory and valor. The change from fiction to more non-fiction stories is interesting.  Could this have been because people had just dealt with real emotions, those including pain and sorrow, were ready for something real?  Was it something they could better relate to?  --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was initially a little surprised to find that stories about women dominated much of the media at the time, but it really makes sense considering women were the ones remaining home and actually buying and reading the publications of the day. These women understandably wanted stories that they could relate to and that emphasized the importance of their own contributions to the war effort. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It also may have been a not so subtle nudge on behalf of the powers-that-be to encourage women, for purely practical reasons, to continue to support the men at war. After all, soldiers who had the support of their families, even if the women believed in the war effort for romanticized reasons, were less likely to desert or to not enlist at all. After the war was over, the pressing need to maintain that support base fell off, and so did the feminized literature.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Mary Ann makes a great point here.  I think the emphasis on women&amp;#039;s literature during the war was in part because men at the time were involved directly in the war.  I think that in order to retain a captive audience, publications had to market to their demographic, primarily women with men away in war.  I think the romanticized stories gave women something to relate on, especially those with husbands or sons away in war.  I believe it would have instilled a sense of comforting, almost, to know that I was not the only woman at the time facing the same emotions. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I really liked the Tony Horwitz quote that Fahs included (and not just because he might be one of my favorite authors). She said that in the late nineteenth century Americans &amp;quot;reclaimed a past of their own creation.&amp;quot; It&amp;#039;s so important for us to remember that collective memory is constantly changing.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Perceptions of the Civil War changed with the changing attitudes about war and women of the time. It makes some sense that, postwar, women&amp;#039;s stories might be pushed to the side in favor of more masculine stories about the front. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Returning veterans were a very visible part of post-war life; women&amp;#039;s suffering, while obviously still with them, was no longer front and center.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; So, perceptions shifted, and they continued to change with the country, eventually colliding with the force-to-be-reckoned-with that was Gone with the Wind. I think it&amp;#039;s safe to say that many Americans hold certain ideas about the Civil War based on that novel alone, as well as ideas from all of the other Civil War books and movies produced over the past few decades. Not all of these memories are accurate, maybe most are not, but they represent something very real to the society that holds them as well as an interesting challenge to historians fighting to keep a semblance of reality, as experienced by women and men, both Northern and Southern, in the conversation. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed finally reading something about how women&amp;#039;s work and contributions were acknowledged and became part of a major event in US history. The essay said frequently that women&amp;#039;s role in the war effort was vital and influential. The literature at the time included feminized literature that &amp;quot;involved a distinctive, sentimentalized patriotism.&amp;quot; A good bit of the literature also centered on the woman&amp;#039;s responsibility to &amp;quot;sacrifice their men for their country.&amp;quot; The stories and articles seemed to focus on either persuading women to act patriotic to support their country or describe the emotions, struggles, and experiences of women or the &amp;quot;woman&amp;#039;s war.&amp;quot; It was sad to see that once the men came back from war the focus shifted more towards the masculinized war. Maybe it was to showcase the men for their bravery and patriotism for their country.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Before reading this, I had never thought about how much late 19th century Civil War literature focuses on Southern women, and not Northern women.  Of course, this is probably mainly due to the fact that I had no idea just how important of a role Northern Women had played during the War.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  I can understand why their role was overshadowed after the war.  After all, the war came to be redefined by the war stories of men and honoring great officers and soldiers.  As for literature on Southern Women, I think it was appealing because it was greatly idealized, versus the more realistic literature from the North.  However, I think that it is amazing that Historians have also been fooled in to this misconception in their analysis of the both the Civil War and the literature of the time. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; We are not living in the 19th century, so we should have an objective point of view, right?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with CBrau I myself was very suprised at the lack of literature we typically see for Northern women throughout the Civil War. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I have only paid attention to literature from Southern women, due to the amount of fighting in the South and how their lives were completely destroyed, but women&amp;#039;s lives in the North were strongly affected as well. The literature and quotes from Northern mothers hit home to me as I have watched my mom proudly tell family members and friends that her son will serve the United States.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; As stated by New York Times, a mother after shopping with her son for his military equipment said, &amp;quot; This, my son, is all that I can do. I have given you up to serve your country, and may God go with you! It is all a mother can do.&amp;quot; I know this was stated by a Northern woman but I wondered if mothers felt this way all over the country and this unified them in their efforts to support not only the &amp;quot;woman&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; war but the Civil War as well? ie. through sending supplies, flying flags in faces of opposing generals, etc. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it super interesting how quickly the important contributions of women were forgotten. During the actual war it was fine for the media to have such a high percentage of feminized literature because the contributions that women were making were right there in front of them and not easily ignored. This might have also been because women probably dominated the audience, since they were the ones at home and able to get a magazine or paper. It seems that as the years passed after the end of the war, the emotions of the war were forgotten and men wanted to read about their battles and their leaders as opposed to the private and emotional battles that women fought, even if they were just as difficult and important. Fahs talks about how idealized southern white women&amp;#039;s literature was more popular, and this was probably because people did not want to face the reality of what really happened in the war. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article very interesting, seeing as how I wasn&amp;#039;t aware of how literature about the Civil War evolved.  As someone else mentioned, it does make sense that during the war much of the literature produced was on and aimed at women, a main reason probably due to the fact that men were just not a viable market - they were off fighting.  After the war, women, as often happens, are pushed to the back burner to focus on the &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; wartime victims - those in battle. This essay reemphasizes the idea that wartime memories change with the time period. Each study into a past war is dictated by what that generation is going through. - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changing narratives following the war was not something that I was aware of.  The literature during and just following the war focused a great deal on women&amp;#039;s issues, yet changed in the 1880&amp;#039;s and 1890&amp;#039;s to a more masculinized story.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I wonder why the Southern women&amp;#039;s narrative has remained as the most compelling story of the Civil War to this day&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.-efritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The author posits that women&amp;#039;s suffering was equal to or greater than that of men fighting in the war.  Although women suffered great emotional trauma with the loss of their spouses or children, I don&amp;#039;t think that you can compare this emotional suffering to what the men were exposed to in battle.  They all suffered in their individual way, but the emotional and physical toll the men faced daily cannot be compared to that of women&amp;#039;s suffering back home.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-efritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I beleive this is the most important question asked in this essay:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; After the war, should the enfranchisement of black women, or of all women take place?  This question is central to many of the political struggles in the late 19th century.  Black women almost seperated themselves into a community to bond, which made overall suffrage more difficult.&lt;br /&gt;
-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going with the question of the enfranchisement of women... I really was encouraged by the fact that although the book explicitly states that Black men also felt that women were inferior to men in their social positions it was later stated that &amp;quot;serious discussion&amp;quot; regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman&amp;#039;s suffrage movement. -SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I thought chapter 10 brought up a good question, which was how the transition from slavery to freedom was expected to function&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. If I remember correctly the majority of white Americans still viewed African Americans as inferior and it was mainly a small percentage of Northern Radicals that were trying to achieve equality for them in their meaning of freedom. As history shows it would still take a long time for freedom to mean anything for freed slaves. So my question is after the Civil War ended what kind of life could African Americans find without having any rights? ---David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like David Fitch&amp;#039;s point, but also think that it was because African Americans had no real rights that the battle for suffrage was so important.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;African American women saw the vote as a collective possession between men and women based on the belief within the African American community of collective responsibility&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Republican black males supported this belief. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but the impression I got was that it wasn’t necessarily because they believed in any kind of “autonomy as one” thing but because the women could help keep black men from voting as Democrats, which helped keep the Republicans in power. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Taylor, would the men have voted Democratic if their wives hadn&amp;#039;t insisted on Republican? I&amp;#039;m not sure, but I feel like many would have continued to vote Republican because of the party&amp;#039;s strong ties to Lincoln. Perhaps the issue would have been whether they voted at all if their wives had not forced them to get to the polls. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of collective responsibility is very interesting.  That it takes a whole family sometimes including fictive kin to survive.  The idea that when one makes a decision it effects the whole family especially including political decisions.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did the importance of community and family stem from the fact that they had been divided in slavery?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;   --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it really striking that African American women worked so hard to ensure that the men in their lives voted, and voted Republican. And that it was a family vote, not a man&amp;#039;s vote on behalf of his family says a lot about the system of community many seemed to operate under. In answer to Mhimes, I would say that yes, a lot of the importance of family probably stemmed from generations of families being torn apart. Now that these individuals could house their families under one roof a strong desire to do everything they could to protect that family meant weighing every decision, including of course the political ones, carefully. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;And slaves, out of necessity,  had long built families out of unrelated community members so I imagine that the same sense of self-preservation felt for blood relatives carried over for the community as a whole.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The women did not want to see hard won freedom taken away by a lack of awareness and participation. And, as the author points out, some of the women&amp;#039;s involvement was even to ensure the physical safety of the voting men. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I thought it was interesting when the essay talked about how even though black men had finally gained rights to vote they still were not completely supportive of women having the right to vote. Maybe it is a stupid assumption but I would think that since they knew how it felt to have less rights than others they would show more sympathy towards women.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; They didn&amp;#039;t think it was as absurd as white men did but why wouldn&amp;#039;t they fight for them harder, especially if that meant all African American people would finally have their rights and freedoms?  Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think, perhaps, one reason that black men did not totally support a woman&amp;#039;s right to vote is that they were as submerged in the time period as their white contemporaries. They saw how the white men saw &amp;quot;masculinity&amp;quot; and the gender roles that men and women had in the white society. Black men were most importantl men and they were recognized (finally and rightfully so) as men and not property which gave them the rights of men (obviously some white areas objected more to this in action and in law than others) and with that came the dominance and head of household ideaology that white men held onto. Also since this freedom was new, and the black men had been given the right to vote, it is possible that they feared that if they took to protesting for the right for women to vote all the progress they had just experienced may be taken away more than what it was in some places. -jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to see African American women&amp;#039;s roles in voting before women&amp;#039;s suffrage. Before college, we are taught that women were not able to vote, therefore they did not. However, Brown clearly contradicts this in her article. African American women in Richmond were publicly participating in politics, even voting at the community/local level, while others took it upon themselves to view their husband&amp;#039;s right to vote as a collective, rather than individual, vote. These women were going to vote, whether or not they were legally able to do so. And yet, historians tend to look at this part of history as black and white; African American women were either able to physically vote in the polling booths, or they were not. Clearly, we need to look at the entire issue differently to understand the importance of African American women in 19th century politics. -- CBrau &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to CBrau, not only were Black women voting before they were allowed to, white women were also doing that as well. In some nothern cities, women went to the polls and were allowed to vote (while others ended up getting arrested), all before the strict enforcement of not allowing females to vote. - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I strongly agree with Amy&amp;#039;s point, black men had suffered right alongside women the harsh reality of being a lower citizen in society and yet once they were allowed to vote they did not think it was the right place for a woman. Only men could be responsible for serious and political matters. Is this a reason why black women formed such close knit bonds with others? Were women more capable of supporting one another even if it only involved giving someone a roof over their head? I would have thought black men would of understood women&amp;#039;s struggles but that appeared to be a difficult concept once men were able to make a mark. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Megan W.&amp;#039;s point, but also find it interesting that some black women thought that their husband&amp;#039;s vote was their vote as well. This puts an interesting spin on a typically male dominated issue. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also think its really interesting that black women worked hard for their right to vote right after the war ended and also worked behind the scenes. Brown talks about how black women created their own organized groups such as the Rising Daughters of Liberty that played important roles in the political campaigns at the time. They also sent women from their communities to speak on their behalf at political meetings. These women were also willing to literally fight for their rights. Brown says that they took up weapons during political meetings so that their preferred delegates would not be intimidated. I think all of this shows that black women were among the first suffragettes and should be recognized as such. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the idea of collective responsibility interesting, also.  I agree with the point raised by Amy about black men and their role in supporting or not supporting black women&amp;#039;s rights to vote.  I found it interesting how the article tied in black women&amp;#039;s impact on their husbands, especially in regards to voting Republican or Democrat.  Would this had been the case if men had originally fully supported black women&amp;#039;s right to vote, or was it because of their resistance that women tried to establish a sense of control over their husbands voting decisions?  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how such emphasis was placed on the community of newly freed slaves. They were all in the same boat together and recognized this fact. They banded together to achieve their common goals and knew that they would not be able to make it into mainstream American culture if they only functioned in respect to themselves. The community was such an important supporting factor for the freedmen that it should not be ignored by the history texts.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many comments reflect the surprise that some black men were opposed to their female counterparts; however, i do not find it all that shocking. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;After the whole race spending their entire lives (and all the generations before) being so enslaved and emasculated, I can see some wanting to have some sort of dominance in their lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. - christine l&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328</id>
		<title>328</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328"/>
				<updated>2010-01-14T01:58:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Jmarshal: New page: I find it interesting that when discussing women in history, they are catagorized more often than men. The types of work that women historically preform are labeled as &amp;quot;feminine&amp;quot; and are s...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I find it interesting that when discussing women in history, they are catagorized more often than men. The types of work that women historically preform are labeled as &amp;quot;feminine&amp;quot; and are sometimes seen as unequal to that of the more accepted and &amp;quot;respected&amp;quot; work that men have historically done (p11). The jobs themselves are given gender specific terms, personifying the jobs gives them their own entitiy (&amp;quot;feminine&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;masuline&amp;quot; which are terms generally reserved for people and behaviors). On top of this separation women are recorded based on whether they were &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot;. (p 17) The idea of really discerning whether or not a man was &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; had more to do with how he preformed his job or how he contributed to society, whereas a woman was labeled based on their personal morals and virtues (this is not to say that men are not judged based morals, but it is more common for someone to mention a woman&amp;#039;s morals as more important to protect than a man&amp;#039;s). I wonder if there will be a time that &amp;quot;women&amp;#039;s history&amp;quot; is more in line with how men&amp;#039;s history is recorded? Will personal virtues (such as virginity, femininity, or feminist feelings) ever be separated from how women are recored in history books? --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When writing women&amp;#039;s history, how important is it to separate social gender and biological sex? And how should historians approach the concept of hoosexuality in modern writing? Should it be mentioned or should it not? Is it important? -- jmarshal&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Jmarshal</name></author>	</entry>

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