Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=KaylePMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:31:08ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-08T02:35:05Z<p>KayleP: /* Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners ==<br />
<br />
While reading the passages about women doing clerical work, I wondered whether men preferred to have women in their office in order to extend patriarchy into the work place. Did employers like having women employees because they had more authority as a boss over women than men? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In Shop Girls and Piece Workers by Helen Campbell, she describes both the lives shop girls and women workers in trades. She describes the Shop Girls as viewing stores as "the high road to fortune." Furthermore, they have "no thought of permanence" for themselves and, rather, expect to marry. These women also try to imitate their rich customers. On the other hand, women in trades work because "there is no one to earn for them," as they are widows, have drunken husbands who demand support themselves, or have children they must take care of. These two sets of women would have wildly different points of view on what is important to them. This idea is important because the document is from 1893, a time of women's rights movements. These groups of women's would likely not have the same ideals concerning women's rights, based on why they earn livings. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Campbell's acknowledgement of horrible conditions in these factories seems to not deter women from continuing to line up for these jobs and jump on any opportunity to acquire the position. It is obvious that poverty can drive people to do things out of desperation and a need to survive. However, there is still a deep-rooted desire in these poor women to join the ranks of wealthy women. Campbell writes: "From her post behind the counter the shop-girl examines every detail of costume, every air and grace of the women she so often despises, even when longing most to be one of them" (294). Marriage for these poor women was viewed as an escape from the harsh reality of poverty they were trapped in. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
Campbell's description of the shop girls imitating their rich customers is significant to the culture of a shop girl aspiring for a better social class and life. The job of "sales lady" is coveted among working women because the occupation is dreamed as a position to elevate themselves socially. Their jobs as shop girls, allow them to see the upper middle class elite lifestyles. While imitating their customers, the shop girls hope that their facade will allow them to become part of the upper middle class. Campbell writes that these imitations, such as, "gilt rings, bracelets and bangles, frizzes,"allow the shop girls to "stimulate the life daily paraded before her and most passionately desired" (415).-- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
Lucy Maynard Salmon's study of domestic service demonstrates the reasons why few women choose to work as house servants. The chart lists employees' answers to "What reasons can you give why more women do not choose housework as a regular employment?" (419-420). The most prominent answer from domestics is "Pride, social condition, and unwillingness to be called servants." Looking at this answer makes me think that women of this time have more opportunities outside of domestic servitude that are less demeaning. For example, in class we discussed the emergence of other occupations, such as, teaching, nursing, and secretarial work. These jobs grant women with more freedom than domestic servitude through promotions, more free time, or stable working hours. In addition, the quote from a young factory operative points out reasons that I did not think about or necessarily agree with, but her answer is still interesting. She states that, "Then I think shop or factory girls make the best wive... The domestic after she gets married gets careless. She don't take the pride in her home that the shop girl does. She has lived in such fine houses that her small tenement has no beauty for her after the first glow of married life is over" (423). First, this quote resembles Helen Campbell's piece on shop girls who imitate their upper class clients. Since these women work close to the upper class they see and try to imitate that lifestyle. Second, its shows a divide among women workers. There are distinct groups of female workers, and these women judge each other for their occupations. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
The research done by Isabel Eaton brings into the mix the experiences of black women--an overlooked subset. Eaton points out that black women are "ambitious" and desire for upward social mobility (299). Even these women who were trained in specific skills (like teaching) still had to revert to domestic roles because of prejudices. The experience of a black woman in the late 19th century is quite different than that of white women. This makes me wish that the main historical narrative included not only more about the women in America, but also the lives and experiences of the African-American women. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
In Eaton's study, she looks at the impact of race in domestic servitude. She notices that black servants had different struggles than white servants. One of the most prominent struggles, was that black servants are black, and employees did not hire them. In one quote a black domestic said, "If the mistresses has bad luck with one colored girl they won't never have another. They think all colored is a like" (426). Unlike the white women in Salmon's study who did want to work as domestics because of long hours, lack of dignity, and hard work, the black domestics had no other opportunities for employment. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Many of the points made in Eaton's study were pretty familiar, but I had not really thought about the idea that many black women would avoid domestic work because it "savors of slavery". This makes perfect sense, that women would not want to end up doing voluntarily what women of their race had been forced to do for so long. It would seem particularly degrading, in a different way than it would to white girls, to be working as a servant and basically just going back to what their employers might think of as their natural place and all they were capable of. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
In the Office Clerk by Clara Lanza, she describes women as going out into the business place to work as clerks. This led the women to see themselves as "pioneers in the business world," because they were moving out of the domestic sphere and having an active role outside of the home. It is interesting because towards the end of the document, it is stated that "the girls make good wives," something associated with the domestic sphere. She asserts that it is because men now admire independence, but it is difficult to determine whether that is true. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening. The woman writing was clearly a woman who was educated and who had ambition which is so interesting to read about in her own words. Even though the amount of money she makes is only double what she pays in rent each month (which she shares an apartment in order to afford it)she still manages to save up money. I also thought it was interesting to see the line "But tho I belong to the Union I am not a Socialist or Anarchist" (page 311) because it means that the ideology and fear of being associated with these two groups existed before the red scares that happened later. She talks so supportively of the Union yet is afraid to be associated with the good of the Union for being socialist or anarchist. The not-wanting-to-get-married aspect at the end of the document was pretty interesting as well. I wish she would have explained more about this desire and why. I can't help but wonder if she did ever marry Henry and what became of the money which she had managed to save. --Sara S<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sadie Frome's "Story of a Sweatshop girl" was her independence. From this account, one can assume she got some form of education (did she write this piece or did someone transcribe this for her?), and was conscious enough of her situation to save money. What I especially loved about this piece was her relationship with Henry. Even though he kept insisting that he wanted to get married, she still felt it was necessary to wait awhile, just for the sake of being more mature when they married. By her account, their relationship was well advanced that they could have gotten married and it would have been appropriate, but she still decided to hold off, but continue dating. The relationship Sadie and Henry had just seemed so modern to me! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting. She was very intelligent and independent and wanted to take advantage to everything that the New World had to offer. She did not want to settle by getting married, but rather continue to earn her own way. She bettered herself by going to night classes and she still went out at night after work to “get air” This piece was very different than most material you read from this era because you saw a positive outcome rather than the “I came to America and I work in a sweat shop for the rest of my life”. I loved this piece. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in History of Woman Suffrage ==<br />
<br />
I believe this article offers insight into the tension between those who fought for black male suffrage and those who fought for female suffrage. Obviously these women feel betrayed by the men who supposedly were interested in helping gain equality for all. "But with arms folded, Greeley, Curtis, Tilton, Beecher, Higginson, Phillips, Garrison, Frederick Douglass, all calmly watched the struggle from afar, and when defeat came to both propositions, no consoling words were offered for woman's loss, but the women who spoke in the campaign were reproached for having 'killed negro suffrage.'" (page 360-361). It was really bold of these women to directly call out the men they believed were acting against them, even unlady like, but I think it reflects the hurt that these women felt. It's easy to reflect upon society and think that women who chose to fight for woman's rights over black rights were racist, but it's also important to see that these women were wounded and hurt by people who pledged allegiance to acquiring woman's rights before abolition and broke that promise as soon as their original goal was reached and women were no longer needed. This article reads almost like a sibling rivalry and it would be interesting to see the response of the men whose names are listed above. It's easy to write off an act as racist, sexist or bigoted, but no act, value or speak has intrinsic value without the context of it's situation. I also would like to point out that even though Anthony and Stanton urge women to no longer depend on men both of these women were married and Stanton left the activist lifestyle to play the mother/wife role before returning to her work. These actions do not reflect women who reject interaction and dependence upon men. It is important to understand context of expressions before interpreting them. Otherwise these women would be portrayed as man-hating misers by their rejection of male help when they simply wished to state that a woman should not rely on a man to fight her battles for her. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
<br />
What a moving speech! I was struck by the phrase at the beginning, where she says that, as a black woman, she couldn't feel like she was missing the rights white women talked about, because she had so much else to deal with because of her race. It wasn't until gender became an important issue in her life with her husband's death that she thought about gender inequality in the law. The argument about whether racism or sexism is a more pressing concern still goes on in contemporary feminism, and lots of people don't like to talk about it; I can't imagine this speech was received very well! Since she worked against racism first, I wonder how she became so prominent as to be invited to speak alongside Anthony and Stanton before this, and if she was as popular after. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree, this speech was amazing. In class, I found myself agreeing more with the side of Stanton and Anthony. I believed that by women getting a vote, things could be solved. However, after reading this speech, I have found that Harper convinced me to believe the side of the AWSA. Some things that I found particularly striking in this speech was:<br />
"the nation shall be so color blind, as to know no man by the color of his skin or the curl of his hair. It will then have no privileged class, trampling upon and outraging the unprivileged class, but will be then one great privileged nation, whose privilege will be to produce the loftiest manhood and womanhood that humanity can attain."<br />
The only problem with this is that there were unprivileged white classes who felt limited. <br />
One other thing I found interesting was her comment, "the indifferent will vote on the strongest side of the question, with the winning party." I found this especially convincing, and to be a very good point. I think that she was right about that. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
When I was reading this speech, I was trying to understand her perspective more. When we were discussing this in class, I agree with Mary Beth, I was agreeing with Stanton and Anthony more and I am not saying that after reading this speech that I suddenly agree with her but I am able to understand her more. I think she is right that giving women the right to vote would not fix the problems right away but I don’t think that her approach would fix the problem either. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
What I found to be interesting about this piece was the earnest belief Barr has that women are not competent enough to be politicians. She claims women are flip-floppers and would need to learn to be men to be successful. She also believed that women could have political control through the husband and influence political decisions that way. Since she wrote this in 1896, closer to the point of suffrage for women, I wonder how much of the female populace held an opinion like Barr. Was suffrage still unpopular this late in the ninteenth century? Or were more women open to this idea? -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I read this piece wondering what kind of woman Amelia Barr thought she was. Did she think that she was irrational and incapable? Does she genuinely believe that she, herself, is a "tool"? I imagine that the answer might have been yes, but this strikes me as particularly sad, that she would have been taught to feel this way about herself and other women. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
Gilman's argument - that women should be able to work outside the home so they can do more specialized labor and further progress - was surprising, and honestly had me disagreeing with her. I get what she's saying that women need not be in the home for the family to survive and be loved and cared for, but I actually felt she didn't give housewives near enough credit for both the value of the actual labor they do and the emotional labor of raising their children. She's right that they can do that while still working outside the home, but I think the dismissive way she goes about suggesting women leave the home for the good of society would have been very off-putting to women of the time who valued and enjoyed the work they did in the home, even if that wasn't all they wanted to do. --Katie C.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-08T02:06:03Z<p>KayleP: /* Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners ==<br />
<br />
While reading the passages about women doing clerical work, I wondered whether men preferred to have women in their office in order to extend patriarchy into the work place. Did employers like having women employees because they had more authority as a boss over women than men? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In Shop Girls and Piece Workers by Helen Campbell, she describes both the lives shop girls and women workers in trades. She describes the Shop Girls as viewing stores as "the high road to fortune." Furthermore, they have "no thought of permanence" for themselves and, rather, expect to marry. These women also try to imitate their rich customers. On the other hand, women in trades work because "there is no one to earn for them," as they are widows, have drunken husbands who demand support themselves, or have children they must take care of. These two sets of women would have wildly different points of view on what is important to them. This idea is important because the document is from 1893, a time of women's rights movements. These groups of women's would likely not have the same ideals concerning women's rights, based on why they earn livings. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Campbell's acknowledgement of horrible conditions in these factories seems to not deter women from continuing to line up for these jobs and jump on any opportunity to acquire the position. It is obvious that poverty can drive people to do things out of desperation and a need to survive. However, there is still a deep-rooted desire in these poor women to join the ranks of wealthy women. Campbell writes: "From her post behind the counter the shop-girl examines every detail of costume, every air and grace of the women she so often despises, even when longing most to be one of them" (294). Marriage for these poor women was viewed as an escape from the harsh reality of poverty they were trapped in. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
Campbell's description of the shop girls imitating their rich customers is significant to the culture of a shop girl aspiring for a better social class and life. The job of "sales lady" is coveted among working women because the occupation is dreamed as a position to elevate themselves socially. Their jobs as shop girls, allow them to see the upper middle class elite lifestyles. While imitating their customers, the shop girls hope that their facade will allow them to become part of the upper middle class. Campbell writes that these imitations, such as, "gilt rings, bracelets and bangles, frizzes,"allow the shop girls to "stimulate the life daily paraded before her and most passionately desired" (415).-- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
Lucy Maynard Salmon's study of domestic service demonstrates the reasons why few women choose to work as house servants. The chart lists employees' answers to "What reasons can you give why more women do not choose housework as a regular employment?" (419-420). The most prominent answer from domestics is "Pride, social condition, and unwillingness to be called servants." Looking at this answer makes me think that women of this time have more opportunities outside of domestic servitude that are less demeaning. For example, in class we discussed the emergence of other occupations, such as, teaching, nursing, and secretarial work. These jobs grant women with more freedom than domestic servitude through promotions, more free time, or stable working hours. In addition, the quote from a young factory operative points out reasons that I did not think about or necessarily agree with, but her answer is still interesting. She states that, "Then I think shop or factory girls make the best wive... The domestic after she gets married gets careless. She don't take the pride in her home that the shop girl does. She has lived in such fine houses that her small tenement has no beauty for her after the first glow of married life is over" (423). First, this quote resembles Helen Campbell's piece on shop girls who imitate their upper class clients. Since these women work close to the upper class they see and try to imitate that lifestyle. Second, its shows a divide among women workers. There are distinct groups of female workers, and these women judge each other for their occupations. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
The research done by Isabel Eaton brings into the mix the experiences of black women--an overlooked subset. Eaton points out that black women are "ambitious" and desire for upward social mobility (299). Even these women who were trained in specific skills (like teaching) still had to revert to domestic roles because of prejudices. The experience of a black woman in the late 19th century is quite different than that of white women. This makes me wish that the main historical narrative included not only more about the women in America, but also the lives and experiences of the African-American women. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
In Eaton's study, she looks at the impact of race in domestic servitude. She notices that black servants had different struggles than white servants. One of the most prominent struggles, was that black servants are black, and employees did not hire them. In one quote a black domestic said, "If the mistresses has bad luck with one colored girl they won't never have another. They think all colored is a like" (426). Unlike the white women in Salmon's study who did want to work as domestics because of long hours, lack of dignity, and hard work, the black domestics had no other opportunities for employment. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Many of the points made in Eaton's study were pretty familiar, but I had not really thought about the idea that many black women would avoid domestic work because it "savors of slavery". This makes perfect sense, that women would not want to end up doing voluntarily what women of their race had been forced to do for so long. It would seem particularly degrading, in a different way than it would to white girls, to be working as a servant and basically just going back to what their employers might think of as their natural place and all they were capable of. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
In the Office Clerk by Clara Lanza, she describes women as going out into the business place to work as clerks. This led the women to see themselves as "pioneers in the business world," because they were moving out of the domestic sphere and having an active role outside of the home. It is interesting because towards the end of the document, it is stated that "the girls make good wives," something associated with the domestic sphere. She asserts that it is because men now admire independence, but it is difficult to determine whether that is true. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening. The woman writing was clearly a woman who was educated and who had ambition which is so interesting to read about in her own words. Even though the amount of money she makes is only double what she pays in rent each month (which she shares an apartment in order to afford it)she still manages to save up money. I also thought it was interesting to see the line "But tho I belong to the Union I am not a Socialist or Anarchist" (page 311) because it means that the ideology and fear of being associated with these two groups existed before the red scares that happened later. She talks so supportively of the Union yet is afraid to be associated with the good of the Union for being socialist or anarchist. The not-wanting-to-get-married aspect at the end of the document was pretty interesting as well. I wish she would have explained more about this desire and why. I can't help but wonder if she did ever marry Henry and what became of the money which she had managed to save. --Sara S<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sadie Frome's "Story of a Sweatshop girl" was her independence. From this account, one can assume she got some form of education (did she write this piece or did someone transcribe this for her?), and was conscious enough of her situation to save money. What I especially loved about this piece was her relationship with Henry. Even though he kept insisting that he wanted to get married, she still felt it was necessary to wait awhile, just for the sake of being more mature when they married. By her account, their relationship was well advanced that they could have gotten married and it would have been appropriate, but she still decided to hold off, but continue dating. The relationship Sadie and Henry had just seemed so modern to me! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting. She was very intelligent and independent and wanted to take advantage to everything that the New World had to offer. She did not want to settle by getting married, but rather continue to earn her own way. She bettered herself by going to night classes and she still went out at night after work to “get air” This piece was very different than most material you read from this era because you saw a positive outcome rather than the “I came to America and I work in a sweat shop for the rest of my life”. I loved this piece. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in History of Woman Suffrage ==<br />
<br />
I believe this article offers insight into the tension between those who fought for black male suffrage and those who fought for female suffrage. Obviously these women feel betrayed by the men who supposedly were interested in helping gain equality for all. "But with arms folded, Greeley, Curtis, Tilton, Beecher, Higginson, Phillips, Garrison, Frederick Douglass, all calmly watched the struggle from afar, and when defeat came to both propositions, no consoling words were offered for woman's loss, but the women who spoke in the campaign were reproached for having 'killed negro suffrage.'" (page 360-361). It was really bold of these women to directly call out the men they believed were acting against them, even unlady like, but I think it reflects the hurt that these women felt. It's easy to reflect upon society and think that women who chose to fight for woman's rights over black rights were racist, but it's also important to see that these women were wounded and hurt by people who pledged allegiance to acquiring woman's rights before abolition and broke that promise as soon as their original goal was reached and women were no longer needed. This article reads almost like a sibling rivalry and it would be interesting to see the response of the men whose names are listed above. It's easy to write off an act as racist, sexist or bigoted, but no act, value or speak has intrinsic value without the context of it's situation. I also would like to point out that even though Anthony and Stanton urge women to no longer depend on men both of these women were married and Stanton left the activist lifestyle to play the mother/wife role before returning to her work. These actions do not reflect women who reject interaction and dependence upon men. It is important to understand context of expressions before interpreting them. Otherwise these women would be portrayed as man-hating misers by their rejection of male help when they simply wished to state that a woman should not rely on a man to fight her battles for her. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
<br />
What a moving speech! I was struck by the phrase at the beginning, where she says that, as a black woman, she couldn't feel like she was missing the rights white women talked about, because she had so much else to deal with because of her race. It wasn't until gender became an important issue in her life with her husband's death that she thought about gender inequality in the law. The argument about whether racism or sexism is a more pressing concern still goes on in contemporary feminism, and lots of people don't like to talk about it; I can't imagine this speech was received very well! Since she worked against racism first, I wonder how she became so prominent as to be invited to speak alongside Anthony and Stanton before this, and if she was as popular after. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree, this speech was amazing. In class, I found myself agreeing more with the side of Stanton and Anthony. I believed that by women getting a vote, things could be solved. However, after reading this speech, I have found that Harper convinced me to believe the side of the AWSA. Some things that I found particularly striking in this speech was:<br />
"the nation shall be so color blind, as to know no man by the color of his skin or the curl of his hair. It will then have no privileged class, trampling upon and outraging the unprivileged class, but will be then one great privileged nation, whose privilege will be to produce the loftiest manhood and womanhood that humanity can attain."<br />
The only problem with this is that there were unprivileged white classes who felt limited. <br />
One other thing I found interesting was her comment, "the indifferent will vote on the strongest side of the question, with the winning party." I found this especially convincing, and to be a very good point. I think that she was right about that. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
What I found to be interesting about this piece was the earnest belief Barr has that women are not competent enough to be politicians. She claims women are flip-floppers and would need to learn to be men to be successful. She also believed that women could have political control through the husband and influence political decisions that way. Since she wrote this in 1896, closer to the point of suffrage for women, I wonder how much of the female populace held an opinion like Barr. Was suffrage still unpopular this late in the ninteenth century? Or were more women open to this idea? -Heather T.<br />
<br />
I read this piece wondering what kind of woman Amelia Barr thought she was. Did she think that she was irrational and incapable? Does she genuinely believe that she, herself, is a "tool"? I imagine that the answer might have been yes, but this strikes me as particularly sad, that she would have been taught to feel this way about herself and other women. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
Gilman's argument - that women should be able to work outside the home so they can do more specialized labor and further progress - was surprising, and honestly had me disagreeing with her. I get what she's saying that women need not be in the home for the family to survive and be loved and cared for, but I actually felt she didn't give housewives near enough credit for both the value of the actual labor they do and the emotional labor of raising their children. She's right that they can do that while still working outside the home, but I think the dismissive way she goes about suggesting women leave the home for the good of society would have been very off-putting to women of the time who valued and enjoyed the work they did in the home, even if that wasn't all they wanted to do. --Katie C.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-01T01:35:59Z<p>KayleP: /* Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching or comparative questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's account, I found it interesting to see the change in gender norms for women. While women were now allowed to work outside the house and in Alcott's case even encouraged, "Shall I stay, Mother?...No, go! and the Lord be with you!" (258). Her mother encouraged her to go and participate, eventhough she would have been hundreds of miles away, but at the same time, her duties while being a nurse, were still part of the expectation for women. She cooked, and cared for the wounded and sick in a "motherly" manner, she wrote letters for them rather than actually do any medical treatment. Even though women had similar tasks while being away from the house, they slightly improved the norms for women by getting society to see them as not just an asset to the household. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
What makes Louisa May Alcott's ''Hospital Sketches'' so valuable to historians today is both the personal and detailed account she provides. Nursing during the Civil War is almost completely different from the modern conception of nursing and was more about bringing emotional comfort to the patients versus physical comfort. What is amazing about Alcott's job is the emotional strength she needed to complete her job effectively. Not many people, men or women, could handle a job which confronts death of a daily basis and the fact that she knew the risks she was putting herself in to do this job shows not only what a great person Alcott was, but how strong all nurses were at this time. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
<br />
I rather enjoyed this reading. Mary describes her initial reaction of women in the fields "At first, it displeased me, and I turned away in aversion" (262) yet her curiosity got the best of her. When her carriage had to stop she approached these women and asked them about their work. Instead of completely ignoring and dismissing the women she instead questions them, getting first hand insight to why they would be involved in work for men. This made me think that even though she may not have approved at first, she probably understood and accepted the practice more. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louticia Jackson's letter to her son, she mentions how she took care of one of her slaves, Willes. Eventhough we've learned that slaves are seen as property and therefore any punishment can't be too harsh because it would then effect the work of the investment. I found it really surprising the way she took care of Willes when he was sick "...he took the fever immediately after wchich lasted some 5 or 6 weeks in which time i attended him closely day and night, bathed and rubbed him with my own hands fearing it would not be faithfully done [otherwise]" (265). Instead of having another female slave take care of Willes, she took it upon herself to take care of him and bath him each night, with her hands. This is probably a rare case, but it was one that surprised me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
This was so horrible! I know that not all slave owners were like this, that this was an extreme, but still this was an extreme and horrible. I think that it takes a lot of courage to run away after that treatment and a great deal of courage to go the camp and ask for help. The Union Camp did not have to help her, or even listen to her so to even go and tell her story is incredible. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
I think that this woman had to be strong throughout her life. She knew she was free but continued to stay for the children, her bond with them must have been great. The part of her story I found intriguing was that she used the power to "walk away" in stopping the children from being mistreated from their stepmother. The former master even knew that the children visited their old nanny after she left and gave her food, clothes and money, he must have known how important she was to his children. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy that this Tennessee nanny was a very strong figure and it comes through in the text. When looking back on emancipation the common perception is of slaves getting out as quickly as possible from the horrors of living under their masters. This article defies all of that and shows a slave who not only had a strong connection with the family that owned her (minus the stepmom) but was willing to sacrifice her freedom for a time just to be with them. Through this a unique relationship is defined and is apparent when she talks back to her master and openly acknowledges she knows she is free without fear of repercussions. This is a unique point of view and insightful into the experience of newly found freedom. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed these articles because these women existed as outliers in a nation where race is a decisive issue. I especially liked the end of the last letter by Sarah Chase to Mr. May "No matter how strict the rules, and wise and kind the teachers plans, for the comfort, and rights of the black scholar; the ''feeling'' of the whites expressd or not -- ''will'' keep the sensitive African away; though he would willingly bear cold, hunger, and whippings if need be--to 'get a little larning.' (280)" This expression of doubt by Sarah Chase bears a reflection of the tension of race relations in the south and other integrated areas. If I had to choose between feeding and clothing myself or attending college it really would not be a choice. One can talk about the importance of education until they're blue in the face, but basic necessities, including safety for these blacks, are ultimately more important. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Ada Bacot demonstrates the conflict of ideologies within war. It is not black and white for Bacot. She, a Confederate nurse, helps Yankees because she "cant help feeling pity for them, they are human beings." As she is supporting the Confederate forces, she is forced to take care of the "enemy." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I found this piece to be extremely interesting. Reading her diary entries, you can almost feel the discomfort from having these Union soldiers. But then she writes, “It will be hard to treat them as I do other men but I know that it is my duty.” (pg 202) Her sense of duty won in the end and that seems very remarkable to me. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
Maria Daly seems to write about the war in a positive, patriotic light. In that sense, she is very much against the South. She describes, "Southern ladies and gentlemen...are very agreeable people with very finished and courtly manners, but they are a class utterly unsuited and antagonistic to the principles of out government." She sees the South as a tyranny. She also states how the women nurses and volunteers are a comfort to the men. However, I am confused by the last paragraph... - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
<br />
Morgan's entry demonstrates the support some women gave to the war. She is very excited for the war and wants to join somehow. She thinks of all the ways she can support the Rebel cause with sewing and knitting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==<br />
<br />
Ella Thomas's writing on life as a Southern woman in 1865 brings to life how devastating and traumatic the war really was in the south. Her fury stems from the unjust insanity at the hands of the Union army that is ruining her life as she knows it. She appears to be at the end of her rope with war and death stating," I lose faith in humanity when I see such efforts to sink the nobler better part of man's nature in an effort to exterminate the white race at the South in order to elevate the Negro race to a position which I doubt their ability to fill - The time will come when Southern women will be avenged." This is a deep quote and I believe it sets the tone for how most Southern women felt during and long after the war. In the first place most Southerners honestly did not see their actions towards slavery as being wrong and then then they are punished for it by having everything taken from them and destroyed. This undoubtedly would be a confusing and infuriating time for anyone in the South who had their lives completely destroyed. Thomas's writing reveals an intimate example of the tole that the war took on the South and helps to remind that Southerners were more than just wicked slave holders. --Rachel T.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-01T01:21:33Z<p>KayleP: /* Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching or comparative questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's account, I found it interesting to see the change in gender norms for women. While women were now allowed to work outside the house and in Alcott's case even encouraged, "Shall I stay, Mother?...No, go! and the Lord be with you!" (258). Her mother encouraged her to go and participate, eventhough she would have been hundreds of miles away, but at the same time, her duties while being a nurse, were still part of the expectation for women. She cooked, and cared for the wounded and sick in a "motherly" manner, she wrote letters for them rather than actually do any medical treatment. Even though women had similar tasks while being away from the house, they slightly improved the norms for women by getting society to see them as not just an asset to the household. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
What makes Louisa May Alcott's ''Hospital Sketches'' so valuable to historians today is both the personal and detailed account she provides. Nursing during the Civil War is almost completely different from the modern conception of nursing and was more about bringing emotional comfort to the patients versus physical comfort. What is amazing about Alcott's job is the emotional strength she needed to complete her job effectively. Not many people, men or women, could handle a job which confronts death of a daily basis and the fact that she knew the risks she was putting herself in to do this job shows not only what a great person Alcott was, but how strong all nurses were at this time. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
<br />
I rather enjoyed this reading. Mary describes her initial reaction of women in the fields "At first, it displeased me, and I turned away in aversion" (262) yet her curiosity got the best of her. When her carriage had to stop she approached these women and asked them about their work. Instead of completely ignoring and dismissing the women she instead questions them, getting first hand insight to why they would be involved in work for men. This made me think that even though she may not have approved at first, she probably understood and accepted the practice more. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louticia Jackson's letter to her son, she mentions how she took care of one of her slaves, Willes. Eventhough we've learned that slaves are seen as property and therefore any punishment can't be too harsh because it would then effect the work of the investment. I found it really surprising the way she took care of Willes when he was sick "...he took the fever immediately after wchich lasted some 5 or 6 weeks in which time i attended him closely day and night, bathed and rubbed him with my own hands fearing it would not be faithfully done [otherwise]" (265). Instead of having another female slave take care of Willes, she took it upon herself to take care of him and bath him each night, with her hands. This is probably a rare case, but it was one that surprised me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
I think that this woman had to be strong throughout her life. She knew she was free but continued to stay for the children, her bond with them must have been great. The part of her story I found intriguing was that she used the power to "walk away" in stopping the children from being mistreated from their stepmother. The former master even knew that the children visited their old nanny after she left and gave her food, clothes and money, he must have known how important she was to his children. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy that this Tennessee nanny was a very strong figure and it comes through in the text. When looking back on emancipation the common perception is of slaves getting out as quickly as possible from the horrors of living under their masters. This article defies all of that and shows a slave who not only had a strong connection with the family that owned her (minus the stepmom) but was willing to sacrifice her freedom for a time just to be with them. Through this a unique relationship is defined and is apparent when she talks back to her master and openly acknowledges she knows she is free without fear of repercussions. This is a unique point of view and insightful into the experience of newly found freedom. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed these articles because these women existed as outliers in a nation where race is a decisive issue. I especially liked the end of the last letter by Sarah Chase to Mr. May "No matter how strict the rules, and wise and kind the teachers plans, for the comfort, and rights of the black scholar; the ''feeling'' of the whites expressd or not -- ''will'' keep the sensitive African away; though he would willingly bear cold, hunger, and whippings if need be--to 'get a little larning.' (280)" This expression of doubt by Sarah Chase bears a reflection of the tension of race relations in the south and other integrated areas. If I had to choose between feeding and clothing myself or attending college it really would not be a choice. One can talk about the importance of education until they're blue in the face, but basic necessities, including safety for these blacks, are ultimately more important. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Ada Bacot demonstrates the conflict of ideologies within war. It is not black and white for Bacot. She, a Confederate nurse, helps Yankees because she "cant help feeling pity for them, they are human beings." As she is supporting the Confederate forces, she is forced to take care of the "enemy." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I found this piece to be extremely interesting. Reading her diary entries, you can almost feel the discomfort from having these Union soldiers. But then she writes, “It will be hard to treat them as I do other men but I know that it is my duty.” (pg 202) Her sense of duty won in the end and that seems very remarkable to me. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
Maria Daly seems to write about the war in a positive, patriotic light. In that sense, she is very much against the South. She describes, "Southern ladies and gentlemen...are very agreeable people with very finished and courtly manners, but they are a class utterly unsuited and antagonistic to the principles of out government." She sees the South as a tyranny. She also states how the women nurses and volunteers are a comfort to the men. However, I am confused by the last paragraph... - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
<br />
Morgan's entry demonstrates the support some women gave to the war. She is very excited for the war and wants to join somehow. She thinks of all the ways she can support the Rebel cause with sewing and knitting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==<br />
<br />
Ella Thomas's writing on life as a Southern woman in 1865 brings to life how devastating and traumatic the war really was in the south. Her fury stems from the unjust insanity at the hands of the Union army that is ruining her life as she knows it. She appears to be at the end of her rope with war and death stating," I lose faith in humanity when I see such efforts to sink the nobler better part of man's nature in an effort to exterminate the white race at the South in order to elevate the Negro race to a position which I doubt their ability to fill - The time will come when Southern women will be avenged." This is a deep quote and I believe it sets the tone for how most Southern women felt during and long after the war. In the first place most Southerners honestly did not see their actions towards slavery as being wrong and then then they are punished for it by having everything taken from them and destroyed. This undoubtedly would be a confusing and infuriating time for anyone in the South who had their lives completely destroyed. Thomas's writing reveals an intimate example of the tole that the war took on the South and helps to remind that Southerners were more than just wicked slave holders. --Rachel T.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-17T01:33:05Z<p>KayleP: /* Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
Most (all) of these women are Christian and from the North. They condemn the South for having slavery, but I wonder if they see unfair employment, negative stereotypes, and racism in the North as a problem. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
<br />
"It is the blood of our fathers, and the tears of our brethren that have enriched your soils. AND WE CLAIM OUR RIGHTS." (237) These last few lines stuck out to me. It is one of the strongest arguements I think blacks could have made when it came to being members and citizens of this country. Stewart also mentions how African daughters are being cheated when they do not have the means to be educated and are never given the opportunity. This was a very strong piece, and having been written by a woman, makes it more significant.<br />
---Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The second to last paragraph on pg. 238 reminds me of how the slave owners/masters used Christianity to reiterate that slavery was in fact encouraged by God. Mary P. Abbott does an amazing job defending her view that slavery is condemned by God and Christianity. She goes onto say how slavery goes against everything God says when it comes to marriages, family, equality. This piece was very empowering and had every argument it needed for women, blacks, and slaves in general. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
It mentions that of the 300 participants over the two day meeting, that 40 of them were wen. Being that the convention was to discuss the social, civil and religious rights of women, how common/uncommon is it to have that many men in attendance? - Matt<br />
<br />
What I love about this document is the fact that Stanton took inspiration for this document from the Declaration of Independence. When they held this convention in Seneca Falls NY, these women really were declaring independence for women from society and the subservience they were put under. Although it would take over fifty years for women to obtain the vote, this document still acted as an outline for what women wanted to accomplish with liberation. These women were truly exceptional and forward-thinking for the time they lived in! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sara that it was really suprising that women did not take their husbands names during this time period. I wonder why it was common for women not to do so? You would think in a patriarchal society that men would demand that their wives take their name, so that they could reaffirm their manhood or hold power over their wives in this way.--Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I was really surprised when I read this document. I agree that it was nice to see the woman "protest" taking her husband's name but that was the very minimum that she was protesting. The document also goes on to state that she had a problem with her husband having “custody of the wife’s person.” and the control of the children. So while the main thing that is taken away from this her not wanting to take the name, I think that it was much bigger. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
I found this very inspiring. She was not trying to be eloquent or fancy. She was simply speaking about her experiences and how they had changed her life. I think that it made the speech more power telling the audience what she had accomplished being a slave rather than trying to convince them why women should be given the right to vote. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
The convention is very religious. There is always scripture and prayer. Also, most of the arguments focus around religious reasons to end slavery. This religious factor probably came to the abolitionist movement because it was dominated by women. In class we discussed women as more moral than men and more involved in the Church. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I wonder if men felt women had this much power over their vote? I doubt it because women were not given the vote because men thought women could not think for themselves. This document shows that some women, actually, think men cannot think for themselves when voting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement, 1998. ==<br />
<br />
Jeffrey's essay really brings to light an overlooked side effect of the abolitionist movement, the movement towards more self empowered women. When thinking about the anti-slavery, the focus is always on white people who saw the injustices in slavery and spoke out against it but Jeffrey's goes beyond that to illuminate the complexities of the movement. As the anti-slavery movement was unpopular in comparison to other social movements of the time woman faced a fair amount of adversity that only helped to build their abilities to control the public sphere. The women who participated in this movement were forced to gain the ability to forcefully argue their opinion in order to gain respect that then translated into how they viewed their own lives and the gendered roles they served. Is it fair to assume that the social implications for women during the anti-slavery movement were just as great as the cause they supported? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860, (1992). ==</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-17T01:25:08Z<p>KayleP: /* Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
<br />
"It is the blood of our fathers, and the tears of our brethren that have enriched your soils. AND WE CLAIM OUR RIGHTS." (237) These last few lines stuck out to me. It is one of the strongest arguements I think blacks could have made when it came to being members and citizens of this country. Stewart also mentions how African daughters are being cheated when they do not have the means to be educated and are never given the opportunity. This was a very strong piece, and having been written by a woman, makes it more significant.<br />
---Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The second to last paragraph on pg. 238 reminds me of how the slave owners/masters used Christianity to reiterate that slavery was in fact encouraged by God. Mary P. Abbott does an amazing job defending her view that slavery is condemned by God and Christianity. She goes onto say how slavery goes against everything God says when it comes to marriages, family, equality. This piece was very empowering and had every argument it needed for women, blacks, and slaves in general. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
It mentions that of the 300 participants over the two day meeting, that 40 of them were wen. Being that the convention was to discuss the social, civil and religious rights of women, how common/uncommon is it to have that many men in attendance? - Matt<br />
<br />
What I love about this document is the fact that Stanton took inspiration for this document from the Declaration of Independence. When they held this convention in Seneca Falls NY, these women really were declaring independence for women from society and the subservience they were put under. Although it would take over fifty years for women to obtain the vote, this document still acted as an outline for what women wanted to accomplish with liberation. These women were truly exceptional and forward-thinking for the time they lived in! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sara that it was really suprising that women did not take their husbands names during this time period. I wonder why it was common for women not to do so? You would think in a patriarchal society that men would demand that their wives take their name, so that they could reaffirm their manhood or hold power over their wives in this way.--Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I was really surprised when I read this document. I agree that it was nice to see the woman "protest" taking her husband's name but that was the very minimum that she was protesting. The document also goes on to state that she had a problem with her husband having “custody of the wife’s person.” and the control of the children. So while the main thing that is taken away from this her not wanting to take the name, I think that it was much bigger. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
The convention is very religious. There is always scripture and prayer. Also, most of the arguments focus around religious reasons to end slavery. This religious factor probably came to the abolitionist movement because it was dominated by women. In class we discussed women as more moral than men and more involved in the Church. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I wonder if men felt women had this much power over their vote? I doubt it because women were not given the vote because men thought women could not think for themselves. This document shows that some women, actually, think men cannot think for themselves when voting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement, 1998. ==<br />
<br />
Jeffrey's essay really brings to light an overlooked side effect of the abolitionist movement, the movement towards more self empowered women. When thinking about the anti-slavery, the focus is always on white people who saw the injustices in slavery and spoke out against it but Jeffrey's goes beyond that to illuminate the complexities of the movement. As the anti-slavery movement was unpopular in comparison to other social movements of the time woman faced a fair amount of adversity that only helped to build their abilities to control the public sphere. The women who participated in this movement were forced to gain the ability to forcefully argue their opinion in order to gain respect that then translated into how they viewed their own lives and the gendered roles they served. Is it fair to assume that the social implications for women during the anti-slavery movement were just as great as the cause they supported? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860, (1992). ==</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T00:40:59Z<p>KayleP: /* Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
For Irish families, such as the Conway's, having a family member make the voyage to America was incredibly difficult. The likelihood of that family member returning to Ireland was very low. Mary Ann Sadlier describes this sentiment vividly by saying her family "felt at the moment as if they had left Bessy in the churchyard clay," likening Bessy's voyage to America to being like her death. This separation was not easy for Bessy or other Irish women for that matter. Perhaps this is why when Bessy arrived in New York, her "comrade-girls" assured her they were happy to see her and kind to her. These women want to try and form bonds with each other since they are all in similar situations. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Sadlier wrote out Irish accents was really interesting. At first I thought maybe she was caricaturing the immigrants by exaggerating their accents, but then I found out that she was Irish herself. I also thought the interactions she wrote between the Irish men discussing whether or not selling alcohol was okay seemed really honest. I would have assumed initially that this was written by a white woman trying to scold Irish girls on the dangers of alcohol and men and probably not holding a very high opinion of her readers; After realizing the author had gone through experiences like this herself, I trusted the story she was telling a bit more. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
<br />
I think one of the remarkable things about Saehle's letter to her brother is that she has a strong faith. She even remarks that she wasn't even scared on her journey to America and slept peacefully. Her high spirit and faith are really what keeps her going. I wonder how many other women had as positive experience as her in their travels to America? Was she an exception? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
What I found interesting about these bills of sale is how they reflect the situations these women were going through when they had to to be sold. While today a sum of $470, like in Mee Yung's case (page 237) is laughable for four years of service today, we cannot know why or what the money paid for. Most likely this money went to paying for her passage over or to her destitute parents who desperately needed the money or thought her too much the burden to raise. I do wonder where this money went and whether these women survived and moved beyond prostitution. -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
What I found interesting about this primary document is how the notion of men being in constant search of sex is evolving. Instead of marking the Lieutenants acts of rape as manly and normal, citizens are instead standing up for these "squaws" and are arguing that he should be punished. Although this document still evidences to the prejudice against natives, there is a change in ideals of how men should treat all women and it makes me wonder if this change was drawn out or abrupt and what sparked the need for men's ideals to change.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I wonder what this says about the status of Native Americans in California at this time. Where did Native American women fit on the spectrum of "white women are pure and asexual, black women want sex all the time?" I guess they must have been closer to white women, in that it wasn't considered okay for the Lieutenant to rape her. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
This was so sad. They were talking about what their family was going through and the hardships they had to face like moving west away from everything that they had known into a land that they were not familiar with. While they choose to go through all of this, I still think that it was so sad! –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
This was so complicated to get a pension. She had to know all of the information down to dates, people, time, places. I don’t think that I would have been able to keep all of that information straight and all she was trying to do was get money that she was mostly likely entitled to. It is sad that she had to put that much effort into getting something that she deserves. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, San Francisco, 1886==<br />
<br />
When reading the Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, I was surprised by how standard they are. All work for about four years, are paid no wages, and there is no interest on the money. Furthermore, extended periods of sickness add a month to the service. What I thought was most surprising was that the Chinese prostitutes all are contracted with other Chinese people. I had assumed they would be contracted to American people. I wonder why some Chinese did well enough to contract prostitutes while others did poor enough to have to work as prostitutes. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
I actually had a problem with the introduction to this article. It talks about women existing as prostitutes but does not acknowledge why these women were there as prostitutes. This was NOT like the prostitution of white society. First, there were laws prohibiting all asians, but particularly women (who to the whites were of NO use but sexuality). Secondly, It was forbidden for these asian men to fraternize with women who were not asian. Their numbers were not as high as that of blacks in the south so disobeying this law was not common and was severely punishable. The existence of prostitution had nothing to do with one being well-off enough to contract a woman to be a prositute, but had more do to with the fact that these women had to be brought in illegally due to American immigration laws and cost a lot of time and money to do so. It is not mentioned in the introduction to this paragraph and is put immediately after a document about white prostitutes and i feel this is in bad taste. The hardships of Asians in America even until the end of the 1900's are not that easily comparable to the hardships of those who could "pass" as english. --Sara S<br />
<br />
In reading the XIn Jin article what stood out is the fact that 28% of Chinese women were involved in prostitution during this period. Even though this is a significant number it goes against the stereotype of early Chinese immigrants where its assumed that the minimal number of women who did live in the US where all there as prostitutes. It is my guess that the lives these woman were forced to live is what stands out when viewing chinese females in this region. However, I found the experience to Xin Jin to be very similar to the women described in the New York Prostitutes reading where once again men are controlling the sexual lives of these women. Forced into a life where sexual favors are their only means of survival helps to solidify to men and non immigrant women that these immigrant females were inferior in every way. Is that negative stereotype still carried on to todays view of early Chinese immigration, where admittedly I even viewed the majority of these women, to be just prostitutes? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Did these women choose to come to America, or were they forced? Was life in China really that bad? I don't understand why they would put themselves through this when they don't get any benefits from it. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== New York Prositutes by William Sanger, 1858==<br />
"'When a woman drinks she is lost.' It will be conceded that the habit of intoxication in woman, if not an indication of actual depravity or vice, is a sure precursor of it, for drunkenness and debauchery are inspearable companions, one almost invariably following the other." page 290. I choose this quote to exemplify this document for a couple of reasons. 1. it is actually funny to think about how alcohol was viewed as this causer of evil, not as though the person was evil and alcohol just allowed them to be evil. 2. Because it does not mention the debauchery of men while they drink and is only concerned with women's behavior when the entire prohbition and temperance movement sprung out of woman's desire for men to stop drinking away all of the family's money, sleeping with prostitutes and beating there wives when drunk. 3. I think the sympathy which the doctor had to these prostitutes is remarkable for the time period in which it existed. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This reading exemplifies the other side of the budding female independence that was taking shape during the rise of factories and cities. With previous readings it appeared that by young women stepping outside of the home to work in factories was a viable way for them to financially support themselves until marriage. Here the opposite of that is examined where women attempt to go out in the world but then struggle to survive and thus have to degrade themselves in order to live. With almost every case the reasoning concludes with mans shortcomings as a provider and caretaker for the woman, demonstrating that this view of the independent factory girl was far from being economically stable. Like Sara I found it unique that the doctor showed sympathy towards these girls, yet even with prostitution being a massive issue was there no one else in a position of authority who cared enough to try and help out? Or was the stigma that existed in regards to immigrants standing in the way of "Christianly" behavior to save them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
"Ever sympathetic, Dr. Sanger saw his subjects as victims of the harsh urban environment: of family disorganization or disintegration, and especially of low wages, underemployment, and poverty," (page 288). Dr. Sanger obviously felt bad for these women, 88% of which were of the ages 15-30. I actually began to have sympathy for some of them as well. I hope those women didn't want to be prostitutes, but it was so common that they felt as if it were their only option. Men in their lives died or abandoned them and they had nothing and needed to provide for their children; this was a quick way to make money (not saying I agree with it). I kept having to second guess my feelings of sympathy because I'm sure some of the ladies made their story seem worse than it really was so that she would receive sympathy rather than looks of disgust. So many questions ran through my mind as I read. Did the friends and family they did have know what they were doing? Why didn't anyone try to stop them? What other options were there? --Ashley V.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T00:36:52Z<p>KayleP: /* Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
For Irish families, such as the Conway's, having a family member make the voyage to America was incredibly difficult. The likelihood of that family member returning to Ireland was very low. Mary Ann Sadlier describes this sentiment vividly by saying her family "felt at the moment as if they had left Bessy in the churchyard clay," likening Bessy's voyage to America to being like her death. This separation was not easy for Bessy or other Irish women for that matter. Perhaps this is why when Bessy arrived in New York, her "comrade-girls" assured her they were happy to see her and kind to her. These women want to try and form bonds with each other since they are all in similar situations. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Sadlier wrote out Irish accents was really interesting. At first I thought maybe she was caricaturing the immigrants by exaggerating their accents, but then I found out that she was Irish herself. I also thought the interactions she wrote between the Irish men discussing whether or not selling alcohol was okay seemed really honest. I would have assumed initially that this was written by a white woman trying to scold Irish girls on the dangers of alcohol and men and probably not holding a very high opinion of her readers; After realizing the author had gone through experiences like this herself, I trusted the story she was telling a bit more. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
<br />
I think one of the remarkable things about Saehle's letter to her brother is that she has a strong faith. She even remarks that she wasn't even scared on her journey to America and slept peacefully. Her high spirit and faith are really what keeps her going. I wonder how many other women had as positive experience as her in their travels to America? Was she an exception? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
What I found interesting about these bills of sale is how they reflect the situations these women were going through when they had to to be sold. While today a sum of $470, like in Mee Yung's case (page 237) is laughable for four years of service today, we cannot know why or what the money paid for. Most likely this money went to paying for her passage over or to her destitute parents who desperately needed the money or thought her too much the burden to raise. I do wonder where this money went and whether these women survived and moved beyond prostitution. -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
What I found interesting about this primary document is how the notion of men being in constant search of sex is evolving. Instead of marking the Lieutenants acts of rape as manly and normal, citizens are instead standing up for these "squaws" and are arguing that he should be punished. Although this document still evidences to the prejudice against natives, there is a change in ideals of how men should treat all women and it makes me wonder if this change was drawn out or abrupt and what sparked the need for men's ideals to change.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I wonder what this says about the status of Native Americans in California at this time. Where did Native American women fit on the spectrum of "white women are pure and asexual, black women want sex all the time?" I guess they must have been closer to white women, in that it wasn't considered okay for the Lieutenant to rape her. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
This was so sad. They were talking about what their family was going through and the hardships they had to face like moving west away from everything that they had known into a land that they were not familiar with. While they choose to go through all of this, I still think that it was so sad! –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, San Francisco, 1886==<br />
<br />
When reading the Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, I was surprised by how standard they are. All work for about four years, are paid no wages, and there is no interest on the money. Furthermore, extended periods of sickness add a month to the service. What I thought was most surprising was that the Chinese prostitutes all are contracted with other Chinese people. I had assumed they would be contracted to American people. I wonder why some Chinese did well enough to contract prostitutes while others did poor enough to have to work as prostitutes. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
I actually had a problem with the introduction to this article. It talks about women existing as prostitutes but does not acknowledge why these women were there as prostitutes. This was NOT like the prostitution of white society. First, there were laws prohibiting all asians, but particularly women (who to the whites were of NO use but sexuality). Secondly, It was forbidden for these asian men to fraternize with women who were not asian. Their numbers were not as high as that of blacks in the south so disobeying this law was not common and was severely punishable. The existence of prostitution had nothing to do with one being well-off enough to contract a woman to be a prositute, but had more do to with the fact that these women had to be brought in illegally due to American immigration laws and cost a lot of time and money to do so. It is not mentioned in the introduction to this paragraph and is put immediately after a document about white prostitutes and i feel this is in bad taste. The hardships of Asians in America even until the end of the 1900's are not that easily comparable to the hardships of those who could "pass" as english. --Sara S<br />
<br />
In reading the XIn Jin article what stood out is the fact that 28% of Chinese women were involved in prostitution during this period. Even though this is a significant number it goes against the stereotype of early Chinese immigrants where its assumed that the minimal number of women who did live in the US where all there as prostitutes. It is my guess that the lives these woman were forced to live is what stands out when viewing chinese females in this region. However, I found the experience to Xin Jin to be very similar to the women described in the New York Prostitutes reading where once again men are controlling the sexual lives of these women. Forced into a life where sexual favors are their only means of survival helps to solidify to men and non immigrant women that these immigrant females were inferior in every way. Is that negative stereotype still carried on to todays view of early Chinese immigration, where admittedly I even viewed the majority of these women, to be just prostitutes? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Did these women choose to come to America, or were they forced? Was life in China really that bad? I don't understand why they would put themselves through this when they don't get any benefits from it. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== New York Prositutes by William Sanger, 1858==<br />
"'When a woman drinks she is lost.' It will be conceded that the habit of intoxication in woman, if not an indication of actual depravity or vice, is a sure precursor of it, for drunkenness and debauchery are inspearable companions, one almost invariably following the other." page 290. I choose this quote to exemplify this document for a couple of reasons. 1. it is actually funny to think about how alcohol was viewed as this causer of evil, not as though the person was evil and alcohol just allowed them to be evil. 2. Because it does not mention the debauchery of men while they drink and is only concerned with women's behavior when the entire prohbition and temperance movement sprung out of woman's desire for men to stop drinking away all of the family's money, sleeping with prostitutes and beating there wives when drunk. 3. I think the sympathy which the doctor had to these prostitutes is remarkable for the time period in which it existed. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This reading exemplifies the other side of the budding female independence that was taking shape during the rise of factories and cities. With previous readings it appeared that by young women stepping outside of the home to work in factories was a viable way for them to financially support themselves until marriage. Here the opposite of that is examined where women attempt to go out in the world but then struggle to survive and thus have to degrade themselves in order to live. With almost every case the reasoning concludes with mans shortcomings as a provider and caretaker for the woman, demonstrating that this view of the independent factory girl was far from being economically stable. Like Sara I found it unique that the doctor showed sympathy towards these girls, yet even with prostitution being a massive issue was there no one else in a position of authority who cared enough to try and help out? Or was the stigma that existed in regards to immigrants standing in the way of "Christianly" behavior to save them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
"Ever sympathetic, Dr. Sanger saw his subjects as victims of the harsh urban environment: of family disorganization or disintegration, and especially of low wages, underemployment, and poverty," (page 288). Dr. Sanger obviously felt bad for these women, 88% of which were of the ages 15-30. I actually began to have sympathy for some of them as well. I hope those women didn't want to be prostitutes, but it was so common that they felt as if it were their only option. Men in their lives died or abandoned them and they had nothing and needed to provide for their children; this was a quick way to make money (not saying I agree with it). I kept having to second guess my feelings of sympathy because I'm sure some of the ladies made their story seem worse than it really was so that she would receive sympathy rather than looks of disgust. So many questions ran through my mind as I read. Did the friends and family they did have know what they were doing? Why didn't anyone try to stop them? What other options were there? --Ashley V.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T00:20:14Z<p>KayleP: /* Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
We talk about how a lot of women's history comes from sources written by men. Therefore, it makes sense for African American sources to come form white owners or other white people. Gayle's diary is a perfect example. Even though she is mostly writing about her experiences, she does describe events and relationships with her slaves. Also, this source provides information not on only about African Americans but on the relationships with mistresses, who they most likely interacted the most. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
While we have talked many times in class about the acceptance of separation between men and women who are no longer happily married, it never seemed real. I was quite intrigued then when I saw in Sarah Haynesworth Gayle diary entry for "Monday 6th July 1835" that "Mr. and Mrs. Matheson have parted." It really brought out the fact that this did actually happen. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
What this text really drove home for me was how commonplace slavery was in the lives of Southerners by the 1820s and '30s. While she makes little quips about her relations with her slaves, these comments are thrown in with her everyday happenings. It also reaffirms that slave resistance was also another common aspect of the relationship between slaves and their owners as evidenced by Sarah's last entry where she comments on how difficult it is for her to control them. -- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I found the back and forth of Gayle's diary to be very telling of the environment in which slave owners were raised in a way that seems to oppose human relationships. It is clear that Gayle views her slaves as property but also provides comments that appear that she has a deeper emotional connection with them than southern society would allow for. However it appears that she doesn't recognize this connection she has with them as she also comments on how she wants to live up to the standards of slave ownership set by her parents. Could it be possible that the world in which people in the south lived totally removed their human compassion? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
While I agree with you, Rachel, that her diary shows how owner's viewed their slaves as property, I don't think it's a matter of how compassionate a white owner is. I honestly believe that many whites did not see the problem with having slaves, and thought all slaves were property. I think it is more about a question of power. Whites are expected to hold all power, so they must dominate and rule over their slaves. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
This is an important source because it shows a woman who is part of a large slave-holding family realizing the atrocity of the slave system. One particularly important realization is that "Men and women are punished when their masters and mistresses are brutes and not when they do wrong..." This notion is related to that of "The Cruel Mistress," in which the mistress would punish at her own whim regardless of whether the slaves had erred. Regardless of this insight, Chesnut still closes with "my countrywomen are as pure as angels - tho surrounded by another race who are -- the social evil!" It seems that Chesnut believes the institution of slavery is wrong but not the idea of racism. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
What is Mary Chesnut referring to when she mentions a car? Is it a carriage? Or a train car? Also, who is she referring to when she says "tho surrounded by another race who are--the social evil!" Is it the slaves? Or the men? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare, it is important (and quite refreshing) to take note that some whites in the south did think slavery was morally wrong. I think this is one of my favorite sources because not only does she discuss the wrong in the men, but also of the women. She mentions how the men and women do wrong, but go unpunished. She says, "...every lady tells you who is the father of all the Mulatto children in every body's house hold, but those in her own, she seems to think drop from the clouds or pretends so to think..." (222). She acknowledges the faults of both men and women in her society but concludes with her claiming her gratefulness for her country women. But I am a bit confused of who those country women are if they are not the ones she complains about earlier? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
<br />
Of all our readings this week, I think this is the one I'm going to be thinking about the longest. The contents were no shock to me; I've taken African American history classes and the substance of Rose Williams' life is a pretty familiar story. It felt different, though, to hear it from the source. The part which really got under my skin was at the end, when she talks about deciding never to marry because "once was enough". Being forced into something her master wanted to call a relationship, but which was only a well-organized rape, would be enough to put anybody off of the idea of marriage, but it still seems particularly sad to me because of how many ways her life might have been different if this had not happened. She also never says whether she had children, as her master wanted, and I wonder how that affected her life, as well. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
This story really captivated me. I was surprised that Rufus stayed away at night when Rose would tell him she didn't want to have relations with him. I know there is still some modesty and respect between the slaves no matter how much of a "bully" rufus was, but that really struck out to me. It was heartbreaking to know she never got married or ever wanted any other relation with a man because like Rebecca said, one time was enough. It was also surprising that from what we know from this account, Master Hawkins never had relations with Rose either to have more slave children, but instead put two slaves together and gave them a "home". Obviously, it is not the best situation, but out of the cases of master-slave rape that we have studied, this sadly seems to be of somewhat better treatment than those. -- Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really liked this excerpt because of the dialect and how it doesn't really seem like the editors took much out of her story. Through Rose's story, it showed me what life was like for slave women on a daily basis. This article also opening my eyes to how many times slaves were threatedened by their masters. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
<br />
How sad was this document???!!! A woman receiving her freedom and because she wanted to remain with her husband she asked to be reenslaved with her husband's master! It really makes you think of how detached these slave owners were to the human emotions of their slaves. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
This just shows the bonds that some slave families had. He or she had been sold away from each other and even though she could have made a life for herself in the North she wanted to be with her husband. I think that while this document is sad because it shows how slave families were broken up over plantations it also shows how much love these lave families were able to develop. –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Still, black abolitionist, along with other Philadelphia free women, forms “Female Publication Society” to promote the moral uplift of free and slave African Americans, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that Still follows the narrative of slaves being wicked and ignorant - isn't that what the masters said to justify slavery? (And explain mistakes made by slaves.) I can't really tell how she thinks that the moral state of slaves and the institution of slavery are linked. Would slaves (or even many free blacks) have access to a publication like the Christian Recorder anyway? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this was very interesting. It showed the different between two different slaves experiences told from the perspective of one. It allows the reader to gain an understanding of what the slaves saw rather than being told what they went through. I thought that it was interesting point of view. –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
<br />
There were so many disturbing things in this article that it's hard to know where to start. I guess one thing I found particularly striking was the general ignorance about health - it's okay to beat a pregnant woman as long as you dig a hole for her stomach first? Did they really think that did anything at all to protect the fetus? I was also really surprised by the frequent use of the word "breeders." Was that how slave women would have referred to themselves, or how whites would have referred to them, or was that a later term? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
Thelma Jenning's article really had me thinking about how often an occurrence Master and Slave produced children were. I automatically thought about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemming's and the result of their children (never sold and easily escaped). I never realized, however, the issue that was slave breeding. It makes (unfortunate) sense that it occurred because of the economics behind it, but even though this practice was not reportedly common, I wonder how often it really occurred. I also wonder when this practice was actually started, did it come out of the line of thought which included livestock breeding? Or was eugenics really being put into practice?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
== "A Reply to Harriet Beecher Stowe" Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening and so interesting. True, she was writing things that by today's standards are offensive and politically incorrect, but this is what primary sources offer to us, someone who isn't ashamed to admit their beliefs. I want to offer a quote from the reading "To Conclude. We have undertaken the defence of slavery in no temporizing vein. We do NOT say it is a necessary evil. We do NOT allow that it is a temporary make-shift to choke the course of Providence for man's convenience. It is NOT 'a sorrow and a wrong to be lived down.' We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless." (page 219). Understanding this statement helps one understand the entire patriarchal society. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Louisa McCords writing, she posed some very good points in comparison to what Ms. Stowe had written in ''Uncle Tom's Cabin''. Such as the fact that Ms. Stowe had never lived in the heart of the South, or that while Mrs. Shelby was suppose to be a strong intelligent woman she was portrayed as almost weak. While Ms. McCord made some very well argued points the one I could never agree with is that the black man is intellectually inferior to the white man. "Mrs. Stowe, in spite of experience, in spite of science, determines that the negro is intellectually the white man's equal." There is not science stating that they are unequal and how can she say that Mrs. Stowe has never experienced the intelligence of a black man? Just because she lived in the north doesn't mean she never came in contact with them. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
The sarcastic tone of this writing really drove me nuts. I realize that comes from a modern perspective, but McCord's alleged appeals to "science" and "common sense", meant to prove that slaves are obviously better off in slavery are just that much more infuriating because of the superior tone she uses. The other thing, more intellectually interesting than annoying, is that her critique of the fictional Mrs. Shelby is very gendered. She excuses Mr. Shelby's actions on the grounds that he is clearly hen-pecked and his crazy abolitionist wife has just driven him nuts. I have never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I wonder what the context for this passage really is- I highly doubt that McCord is an unbiased commentator. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Rebecca wrote, I also was struck by the sarcasm and snide remarks made by L.S.M. It was frustrating to read of how slavery was a HELPFUL institution to the slave race, who were a "blot upon creation" (220). The idea that slavery was an institution motivated by white benevolence is infuriating to read, especially after reading Angelina Weld's account of a cruel slave-owning mistress. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I had an incredibly hard time not skipping the tail end of this article, or, better, ripping it out. The idea that human beings could be viewed as "the homeless, useless negro...[who is] a blot upon creation...[and] a wild man" is deeply disturbing to me. Of course we've studied the institution of slavery itself, and how slaves were viewed in order to enable that institution, but the sarcasm dripping from this article, coupled with the casual nature with which McCord dismisses an entire race of people as a "blot upon creation," was a deeper level of acidity and hatred than I'd really seen before. McCord does not view slavery as a necessary evil, or an evil of any kind; she views it almost, it seems, as a kindness to slaves that just happens to be enormously profitable to white slaveowners. Sara makes an excellent point--that this has to be contextualized in the time period in which it was written--but even then, the fact that McCord denies that it's a necessary evil shows that at the very least, she had some sense of why Stowe wrote what she did, and what Stowe had meant to convey. I truly find it difficult to imagine that she was simply a product of her society, despite what Sara said; it seems to me that her hatred of slaves and championing of slavery hints at perhaps an unusually slavery-positive upbringing; it surprises me that, given her time in the North, she wasn't at least somewhat more neutral... -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimke Weld ''The Cruel Mistress'' -- 1839 ==<br />
<br />
In this source we hear the horrid stories of slavery. However, it is different because it does not focus on the oppressive white male but on the mistress. It is interesting to see the fault in white women. Also, it is interesting that Weld pushes on the physically abuse. She has to argue that most slave owners act like this cruel mistress. Even though she hints at slaves with souls, she focuses on the physically abuse. Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I think it is important that Angelina Grimke Weld continually emphasizes the the cruel mistress in question is "at the head of the fashionable elite city of Charleston" and more importantly "at the head of the moral and religious female society there." It is astounding that someone who claims to be of moral and pious authority can be so abusive and uncaring. However, the violence against the slaves is justified by slaveholders because slaves are viewed as property and not actual human beings. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Clare wrote I have to point at that even Grimke ackonledges the belief that "God in his providence had set over them--it was their DUTY to abide in abject submission, and hers to COMPEL them to do so--IT WAS THUS THAT SHE REASONED" (page 216. the Capitalization is in place of italics). This wasn't about cruelty to the woman mistresses, rather a belief that the slave was not a human being (mentioned at the end of the document). i also have to wonder to what extent the women mistresses were so violent and cruel had to do with an inadvert expression of their distaste for their own oppression. The slaves offerred them power so they took full advantage of it. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
While reading this entry I couldn't help but doubt that humans could ever be this cruel. That Angelina Grimke Weld must be exaggerating the cruelness of slave owners, particularly because she is against the whole idea. But when you think about it, the evidence of the cruelty humans are capable of is all around us. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Hypocrisy abounds in Weld's description of a slave-owning mistress and how she treats her slaves yet maintains her role as a religious woman in the Charleston community. The justification that it was a slave's "duty to abide in abject submission" is another reflection of the cruel slave society. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
We always mention the reasoning behind slavery and how Christianity "supported" it. But even with a different mentality from now and back in the time of Angelina Gimke Weld (1839), how could one explain that the same place for prayer and worship, was the same place for punishment (an inhumane and cruel punishment at that). I found it so mind boggling that she "order brothers to whip their own sisters and sisters their own brother, and yet no woman visited among the poor more than she did, or gave more liberally to relieve their wants." (216) I understand slavery was acceptable, but this torture and punishment is almost inexplicable. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
In reading this source the part that struck me the most was when Weld said, in regards to this woman's cruel behavior that, " no disgrace among the slaveholders and did not in the least injure her standing, either as a lady or a christian, in the aristocratic circle in which she moved." It appears that Weld sees that christianity has been tainted by southern views to accommodate the treatment of slaveowners onto their slaves. Could it be assumed that a part of Weld's reaction to the South can be derived from Southerners skewing the ideals of christianity to fit their slave driven lifestyle? For people like this cruel woman she discusses not only inhumanly treat their slaves but devalue a religion that is so important to those in the north. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
I think the most disturbing part of this article was when Weld was describing the mistress as a "Christian." Using the room she prayed in as "the very place in which, when her slaves were to be whipped with the cowhide, they were taken to receive the infliction." The behavior of this woman was absolutely disgusting. How she could carry herself throughout town as a "lady" and treat her slaves in the way she did, it seems unbelievable that this was ignored. We think in our current society if this treatment was going on that we might step in and help whoever was getting abused. Such a sad part of our history. --Remy B.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-10T00:10:45Z<p>KayleP: /* Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
We talk about how a lot of women's history comes from sources written by men. Therefore, it makes sense for African American sources to come form white owners or other white people. Gayle's diary is a perfect example. Even though she is mostly writing about her experiences, she does describe events and relationships with her slaves. Also, this source provides information not on only about African Americans but on the relationships with mistresses, who they most likely interacted the most. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
While we have talked many times in class about the acceptance of separation between men and women who are no longer happily married, it never seemed real. I was quite intrigued then when I saw in Sarah Haynesworth Gayle diary entry for "Monday 6th July 1835" that "Mr. and Mrs. Matheson have parted." It really brought out the fact that this did actually happen. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
What this text really drove home for me was how commonplace slavery was in the lives of Southerners by the 1820s and '30s. While she makes little quips about her relations with her slaves, these comments are thrown in with her everyday happenings. It also reaffirms that slave resistance was also another common aspect of the relationship between slaves and their owners as evidenced by Sarah's last entry where she comments on how difficult it is for her to control them. -- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I found the back and forth of Gayle's diary to be very telling of the environment in which slave owners were raised in a way that seems to oppose human relationships. It is clear that Gayle views her slaves as property but also provides comments that appear that she has a deeper emotional connection with them than southern society would allow for. However it appears that she doesn't recognize this connection she has with them as she also comments on how she wants to live up to the standards of slave ownership set by her parents. Could it be possible that the world in which people in the south lived totally removed their human compassion? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
While I agree with you, Rachel, that her diary shows how owner's viewed their slaves as property, I don't think it's a matter of how compassionate a white owner is. I honestly believe that many whites did not see the problem with having slaves, and thought all slaves were property. I think it is more about a question of power. Whites are expected to hold all power, so they must dominate and rule over their slaves. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
This is an important source because it shows a woman who is part of a large slave-holding family realizing the atrocity of the slave system. One particularly important realization is that "Men and women are punished when their masters and mistresses are brutes and not when they do wrong..." This notion is related to that of "The Cruel Mistress," in which the mistress would punish at her own whim regardless of whether the slaves had erred. Regardless of this insight, Chesnut still closes with "my countrywomen are as pure as angels - tho surrounded by another race who are -- the social evil!" It seems that Chesnut believes the institution of slavery is wrong but not the idea of racism. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
What is Mary Chesnut referring to when she mentions a car? Is it a carriage? Or a train car? Also, who is she referring to when she says "tho surrounded by another race who are--the social evil!" Is it the slaves? Or the men? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare, it is important (and quite refreshing) to take note that some whites in the south did think slavery was morally wrong. I think this is one of my favorite sources because not only does she discuss the wrong in the men, but also of the women. She mentions how the men and women do wrong, but go unpunished. She says, "...every lady tells you who is the father of all the Mulatto children in every body's house hold, but those in her own, she seems to think drop from the clouds or pretends so to think..." (222). She acknowledges the faults of both men and women in her society but concludes with her claiming her gratefulness for her country women. But I am a bit confused of who those country women are if they are not the ones she complains about earlier? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
<br />
Of all our readings this week, I think this is the one I'm going to be thinking about the longest. The contents were no shock to me; I've taken African American history classes and the substance of Rose Williams' life is a pretty familiar story. It felt different, though, to hear it from the source. The part which really got under my skin was at the end, when she talks about deciding never to marry because "once was enough". Being forced into something her master wanted to call a relationship, but which was only a well-organized rape, would be enough to put anybody off of the idea of marriage, but it still seems particularly sad to me because of how many ways her life might have been different if this had not happened. She also never says whether she had children, as her master wanted, and I wonder how that affected her life, as well. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
This story really captivated me. I was surprised that Rufus stayed away at night when Rose would tell him she didn't want to have relations with him. I know there is still some modesty and respect between the slaves no matter how much of a "bully" rufus was, but that really struck out to me. It was heartbreaking to know she never got married or ever wanted any other relation with a man because like Rebecca said, one time was enough. It was also surprising that from what we know from this account, Master Hawkins never had relations with Rose either to have more slave children, but instead put two slaves together and gave them a "home". Obviously, it is not the best situation, but out of the cases of master-slave rape that we have studied, this sadly seems to be of somewhat better treatment than those. -- Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really liked this excerpt because of the dialect and how it doesn't really seem like the editors took much out of her story. Through Rose's story, it showed me what life was like for slave women on a daily basis. This article also opening my eyes to how many times slaves were threatedened by their masters. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
<br />
How sad was this document???!!! A woman receiving her freedom and because she wanted to remain with her husband she asked to be reenslaved with her husband's master! It really makes you think of how detached these slave owners were to the human emotions of their slaves. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
This just shows the bonds that some slave families had. He or she had been sold away from each other and even though she could have made a life for herself in the North she wanted to be with her husband. I think that while this document is sad because it shows how slave families were broken up over plantations it also shows how much love these lave families were able to develop. –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Still, black abolitionist, along with other Philadelphia free women, forms “Female Publication Society” to promote the moral uplift of free and slave African Americans, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that Still follows the narrative of slaves being wicked and ignorant - isn't that what the masters said to justify slavery? (And explain mistakes made by slaves.) I can't really tell how she thinks that the moral state of slaves and the institution of slavery are linked. Would slaves (or even many free blacks) have access to a publication like the Christian Recorder anyway? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
<br />
There were so many disturbing things in this article that it's hard to know where to start. I guess one thing I found particularly striking was the general ignorance about health - it's okay to beat a pregnant woman as long as you dig a hole for her stomach first? Did they really think that did anything at all to protect the fetus? I was also really surprised by the frequent use of the word "breeders." Was that how slave women would have referred to themselves, or how whites would have referred to them, or was that a later term? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
Thelma Jenning's article really had me thinking about how often an occurrence Master and Slave produced children were. I automatically thought about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemming's and the result of their children (never sold and easily escaped). I never realized, however, the issue that was slave breeding. It makes (unfortunate) sense that it occurred because of the economics behind it, but even though this practice was not reportedly common, I wonder how often it really occurred. I also wonder when this practice was actually started, did it come out of the line of thought which included livestock breeding? Or was eugenics really being put into practice?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
== "A Reply to Harriet Beecher Stowe" Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening and so interesting. True, she was writing things that by today's standards are offensive and politically incorrect, but this is what primary sources offer to us, someone who isn't ashamed to admit their beliefs. I want to offer a quote from the reading "To Conclude. We have undertaken the defence of slavery in no temporizing vein. We do NOT say it is a necessary evil. We do NOT allow that it is a temporary make-shift to choke the course of Providence for man's convenience. It is NOT 'a sorrow and a wrong to be lived down.' We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless." (page 219). Understanding this statement helps one understand the entire patriarchal society. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Louisa McCords writing, she posed some very good points in comparison to what Ms. Stowe had written in ''Uncle Tom's Cabin''. Such as the fact that Ms. Stowe had never lived in the heart of the South, or that while Mrs. Shelby was suppose to be a strong intelligent woman she was portrayed as almost weak. While Ms. McCord made some very well argued points the one I could never agree with is that the black man is intellectually inferior to the white man. "Mrs. Stowe, in spite of experience, in spite of science, determines that the negro is intellectually the white man's equal." There is not science stating that they are unequal and how can she say that Mrs. Stowe has never experienced the intelligence of a black man? Just because she lived in the north doesn't mean she never came in contact with them. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
The sarcastic tone of this writing really drove me nuts. I realize that comes from a modern perspective, but McCord's alleged appeals to "science" and "common sense", meant to prove that slaves are obviously better off in slavery are just that much more infuriating because of the superior tone she uses. The other thing, more intellectually interesting than annoying, is that her critique of the fictional Mrs. Shelby is very gendered. She excuses Mr. Shelby's actions on the grounds that he is clearly hen-pecked and his crazy abolitionist wife has just driven him nuts. I have never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I wonder what the context for this passage really is- I highly doubt that McCord is an unbiased commentator. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Rebecca wrote, I also was struck by the sarcasm and snide remarks made by L.S.M. It was frustrating to read of how slavery was a HELPFUL institution to the slave race, who were a "blot upon creation" (220). The idea that slavery was an institution motivated by white benevolence is infuriating to read, especially after reading Angelina Weld's account of a cruel slave-owning mistress. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I had an incredibly hard time not skipping the tail end of this article, or, better, ripping it out. The idea that human beings could be viewed as "the homeless, useless negro...[who is] a blot upon creation...[and] a wild man" is deeply disturbing to me. Of course we've studied the institution of slavery itself, and how slaves were viewed in order to enable that institution, but the sarcasm dripping from this article, coupled with the casual nature with which McCord dismisses an entire race of people as a "blot upon creation," was a deeper level of acidity and hatred than I'd really seen before. McCord does not view slavery as a necessary evil, or an evil of any kind; she views it almost, it seems, as a kindness to slaves that just happens to be enormously profitable to white slaveowners. Sara makes an excellent point--that this has to be contextualized in the time period in which it was written--but even then, the fact that McCord denies that it's a necessary evil shows that at the very least, she had some sense of why Stowe wrote what she did, and what Stowe had meant to convey. I truly find it difficult to imagine that she was simply a product of her society, despite what Sara said; it seems to me that her hatred of slaves and championing of slavery hints at perhaps an unusually slavery-positive upbringing; it surprises me that, given her time in the North, she wasn't at least somewhat more neutral... -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimke Weld ''The Cruel Mistress'' -- 1839 ==<br />
<br />
In this source we hear the horrid stories of slavery. However, it is different because it does not focus on the oppressive white male but on the mistress. It is interesting to see the fault in white women. Also, it is interesting that Weld pushes on the physically abuse. She has to argue that most slave owners act like this cruel mistress. Even though she hints at slaves with souls, she focuses on the physically abuse. Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I think it is important that Angelina Grimke Weld continually emphasizes the the cruel mistress in question is "at the head of the fashionable elite city of Charleston" and more importantly "at the head of the moral and religious female society there." It is astounding that someone who claims to be of moral and pious authority can be so abusive and uncaring. However, the violence against the slaves is justified by slaveholders because slaves are viewed as property and not actual human beings. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Clare wrote I have to point at that even Grimke ackonledges the belief that "God in his providence had set over them--it was their DUTY to abide in abject submission, and hers to COMPEL them to do so--IT WAS THUS THAT SHE REASONED" (page 216. the Capitalization is in place of italics). This wasn't about cruelty to the woman mistresses, rather a belief that the slave was not a human being (mentioned at the end of the document). i also have to wonder to what extent the women mistresses were so violent and cruel had to do with an inadvert expression of their distaste for their own oppression. The slaves offerred them power so they took full advantage of it. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
While reading this entry I couldn't help but doubt that humans could ever be this cruel. That Angelina Grimke Weld must be exaggerating the cruelness of slave owners, particularly because she is against the whole idea. But when you think about it, the evidence of the cruelty humans are capable of is all around us. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Hypocrisy abounds in Weld's description of a slave-owning mistress and how she treats her slaves yet maintains her role as a religious woman in the Charleston community. The justification that it was a slave's "duty to abide in abject submission" is another reflection of the cruel slave society. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
We always mention the reasoning behind slavery and how Christianity "supported" it. But even with a different mentality from now and back in the time of Angelina Gimke Weld (1839), how could one explain that the same place for prayer and worship, was the same place for punishment (an inhumane and cruel punishment at that). I found it so mind boggling that she "order brothers to whip their own sisters and sisters their own brother, and yet no woman visited among the poor more than she did, or gave more liberally to relieve their wants." (216) I understand slavery was acceptable, but this torture and punishment is almost inexplicable. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
In reading this source the part that struck me the most was when Weld said, in regards to this woman's cruel behavior that, " no disgrace among the slaveholders and did not in the least injure her standing, either as a lady or a christian, in the aristocratic circle in which she moved." It appears that Weld sees that christianity has been tainted by southern views to accommodate the treatment of slaveowners onto their slaves. Could it be assumed that a part of Weld's reaction to the South can be derived from Southerners skewing the ideals of christianity to fit their slave driven lifestyle? For people like this cruel woman she discusses not only inhumanly treat their slaves but devalue a religion that is so important to those in the north. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
I think the most disturbing part of this article was when Weld was describing the mistress as a "Christian." Using the room she prayed in as "the very place in which, when her slaves were to be whipped with the cowhide, they were taken to receive the infliction." The behavior of this woman was absolutely disgusting. How she could carry herself throughout town as a "lady" and treat her slaves in the way she did, it seems unbelievable that this was ignored. We think in our current society if this treatment was going on that we might step in and help whoever was getting abused. Such a sad part of our history. --Remy B.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-27T00:23:33Z<p>KayleP: /* Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-27T00:19:52Z<p>KayleP: /* Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-20T00:09:00Z<p>KayleP: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Questions ==<br />
<br />
In many of the readings, I was surprised to read that women tended to leave possessions in unequal amounts to their heirs whereas men tended to split up what was theirs equally. I would have assumed that men would favor their sons over their daughters, but they tended to leave their offspring relatively equal shares (although in the form of land for sons and movable things for daughters). It is interesting that women favored their daughters in wills. Perhaps this is because women did not have many rights of ownership so the women wanted to aid their female relatives in any way possible. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
<br />
When reading the divorce laws of Connecticut, I expected the reasons for granting of divorces to be things such as adultery or desertion. What I did not expect was the long periods of time a spouse has to be away before the law considers the absence desertion. Three years with a total neglect of duty or seven years of providential absence seems like an extremely long amount of time, particularly for the wife being deserted. Especially since the woman cannot get married to another before the period is up and the divorce is granted, likely leaving the woman in very poor economical standing. In the case of Bridget Baxter, after the divorce was granted, the court allowed her to sell her husbands estate to pay off debts but I can imagine this would not be enough in the case of many women, especially if they were becoming indebted for the years their husbands were gone. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the divorce laws, I was surprised at how much they made marriage sound like slavery. The laws included words like "sett her free from her said husband," or "be free from her conjugall bonds." Even in the case of Robert Wade, the law said that he was "free from Joanne Wade." At first I thought that it was a negative portrayal of marriage, but I have reconsidered the possibility that they mean "bonds" in the best way, as marriage was a bond between people. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I read the New England Divorce notices and was really surprised and appalled by the 1662 "whereas the estate that her husband Baxter left with her is sold to pay debts, all excepting a bed and her wearing aparell" meaning they took EVERYTHING BUT THE SHIRT OFF HER BACK. I thought this was just an expression, but apparently it was not. So strange that they would be so harsh to a woman when the debt was her husbands and not her owns. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I found it ironic that women in New England were the only ones permitted a full divorce as compared to the rest of the colonies. Even though the women were granted divorces on very valid reasons it seems contradictory to the other laws would allow for severe punishments for premarital sex or coming to church dirty. How is it a woman could exercise enough power to end a marriage but could be reprimanded for offenses that seem trivial to divorce? For a relationship that was based in the church it seems that it should be much harder to break it and especially by the woman who was viewed as morally and spiritually weaker than her husband. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
<br />
I was really surprised by the Feme Sole Trader Acts in South Carolina. Obviously these women still had to have permission from their hubsands to be labeled as Feme Sole, but once they got that label they were free to do as they wished as far as their business went. It seems far outside of "progressive" for the time period. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
So, pre-marital sex was a big no-no. I'd imagine that the only way the courts found out would be if a) you had a "bastard child" (Mary Chelson) or b) actually told the courts (William and Mary Backway)? So they were both whipped and fined. However, when Rebecca Auborne admits to having a child with Samuel Kemble, she is whipped and he is just ordered to pay child support - why wouldn't he have been whipped like William Backway? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that there was a different standard based on where you live. Each of these women receive something from there husband but the Virginia will did not care whether or not she remarried. She was still the woman that had been his wife while he was alive. Was this because of the location or simply because of the customs? –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
<br />
This will stuck out to me more then the others. After reading a few, I am sitting here thinking about how their wills were written, compared to how wills are written today. They were literally leaving everything they owned to someone. A dozen napkins? Nowadays if that was left to you, I feel it would be more of an insult and/or a cruel joke. It really just shows you how much stock they put into what they owned. - Matt<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that being an administrator/executor of a will would jump-start a business career for women. Lebsock describes that "as the executors of administrators of their deceased husbands' estates. . .the administrator was obliged to dissolve partnerships, to collect and pay debts, to pursue litigation, to distribute the estate to the proper heirs, and to manage it in the meantime." It seems that women more or less got a crash-course in conducting business and would find some prosperity in their loss. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
It seems women's roles in the church and charity pushed them to make decisions to give their wealth to people in need. Women usually gave to other women, which makes sense because many poor people were widows and orphans. However, women did choose favorites when sharing their good fortune. Women had favorite slaves, daughters, or other women. For women dividing wills was rarely equal. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Women used their wealth and good fortune based on their own value systems that differed from men's values. Lebsock calls this "persistent personalism."And, this "persistent personalism" drove women to give to charity and the church. Also, to use their money for themselves or to certain individuals. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Malefactors and Complainants ==<br />
<br />
After reading these complaints, I was struck by the fact that all of these read “after she confessed”. Did all of these women really stand up in court and say yes it was me. I did this horrible thing that you are accusing me of. Were these women force to say these things, simply to get a more bearable punishment? –Kayle P</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-20T00:07:04Z<p>KayleP: /* Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Questions ==<br />
<br />
In many of the readings, I was surprised to read that women tended to leave possessions in unequal amounts to their heirs whereas men tended to split up what was theirs equally. I would have assumed that men would favor their sons over their daughters, but they tended to leave their offspring relatively equal shares (although in the form of land for sons and movable things for daughters). It is interesting that women favored their daughters in wills. Perhaps this is because women did not have many rights of ownership so the women wanted to aid their female relatives in any way possible. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
<br />
When reading the divorce laws of Connecticut, I expected the reasons for granting of divorces to be things such as adultery or desertion. What I did not expect was the long periods of time a spouse has to be away before the law considers the absence desertion. Three years with a total neglect of duty or seven years of providential absence seems like an extremely long amount of time, particularly for the wife being deserted. Especially since the woman cannot get married to another before the period is up and the divorce is granted, likely leaving the woman in very poor economical standing. In the case of Bridget Baxter, after the divorce was granted, the court allowed her to sell her husbands estate to pay off debts but I can imagine this would not be enough in the case of many women, especially if they were becoming indebted for the years their husbands were gone. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the divorce laws, I was surprised at how much they made marriage sound like slavery. The laws included words like "sett her free from her said husband," or "be free from her conjugall bonds." Even in the case of Robert Wade, the law said that he was "free from Joanne Wade." At first I thought that it was a negative portrayal of marriage, but I have reconsidered the possibility that they mean "bonds" in the best way, as marriage was a bond between people. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I read the New England Divorce notices and was really surprised and appalled by the 1662 "whereas the estate that her husband Baxter left with her is sold to pay debts, all excepting a bed and her wearing aparell" meaning they took EVERYTHING BUT THE SHIRT OFF HER BACK. I thought this was just an expression, but apparently it was not. So strange that they would be so harsh to a woman when the debt was her husbands and not her owns. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I found it ironic that women in New England were the only ones permitted a full divorce as compared to the rest of the colonies. Even though the women were granted divorces on very valid reasons it seems contradictory to the other laws would allow for severe punishments for premarital sex or coming to church dirty. How is it a woman could exercise enough power to end a marriage but could be reprimanded for offenses that seem trivial to divorce? For a relationship that was based in the church it seems that it should be much harder to break it and especially by the woman who was viewed as morally and spiritually weaker than her husband. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
<br />
I was really surprised by the Feme Sole Trader Acts in South Carolina. Obviously these women still had to have permission from their hubsands to be labeled as Feme Sole, but once they got that label they were free to do as they wished as far as their business went. It seems far outside of "progressive" for the time period. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
So, pre-marital sex was a big no-no. I'd imagine that the only way the courts found out would be if a) you had a "bastard child" (Mary Chelson) or b) actually told the courts (William and Mary Backway)? So they were both whipped and fined. However, when Rebecca Auborne admits to having a child with Samuel Kemble, she is whipped and he is just ordered to pay child support - why wouldn't he have been whipped like William Backway? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that there was a different standard based on where you live. Each of these women receive something from there husband but the Virginia will did not care whether or not she remarried. She was still the woman that had been his wife while he was alive. Was this because of the location or simply because of the customs? –Kayle P.<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
<br />
This will stuck out to me more then the others. After reading a few, I am sitting here thinking about how their wills were written, compared to how wills are written today. They were literally leaving everything they owned to someone. A dozen napkins? Nowadays if that was left to you, I feel it would be more of an insult and/or a cruel joke. It really just shows you how much stock they put into what they owned. - Matt<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that being an administrator/executor of a will would jump-start a business career for women. Lebsock describes that "as the executors of administrators of their deceased husbands' estates. . .the administrator was obliged to dissolve partnerships, to collect and pay debts, to pursue litigation, to distribute the estate to the proper heirs, and to manage it in the meantime." It seems that women more or less got a crash-course in conducting business and would find some prosperity in their loss. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
It seems women's roles in the church and charity pushed them to make decisions to give their wealth to people in need. Women usually gave to other women, which makes sense because many poor people were widows and orphans. However, women did choose favorites when sharing their good fortune. Women had favorite slaves, daughters, or other women. For women dividing wills was rarely equal. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Women used their wealth and good fortune based on their own value systems that differed from men's values. Lebsock calls this "persistent personalism."And, this "persistent personalism" drove women to give to charity and the church. Also, to use their money for themselves or to certain individuals. --Michelle M.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_7_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 7 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-13T03:55:25Z<p>KayleP: </p>
<hr />
<div>The diary of Martha Ballard was an insightful view into the world of midwifery by helping to clarify the deep connection women had to this responsibility. In last week's readings there was discussion of male doctors replacing the role of midwifes during child delivery and the resentment that was harbored by these women because of it. By reading Martha's diary, it becomes clear that being a midwife was much more than just a job but to women like her it was a way of life. Martha constantly discusses delivering babies and attending to the mothers in a very passionate way, displaying her own personal drive to help her community. Being a midwife appears to be what defines Ballard as a person, more so than her husband or religion, helping to clarify how dramatic the lifestyle change was for these women who were forced out of the delivery room by medical professionals. Being a midwife is what gave women power and social standing, and Martha appears to use her abilities as a successful midwife to obtain just that. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Martha Ballard had a terrible life. I also did my document paper on part of her diary and it seems like all she ever did was take care of other people and her family. That is just awful. She also spent a week or so in the portion of her diary that I worked with ill because of all the sick people she takes care of. It made me really sad. I do have to agree with Rachel, however, that she was defined by her status as a midwife. Probably because that is all she ever did, but still, at least it is a defining trait. Most women didn't have that. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
When reading Martha Ballard's diary, I was surprised by how many times she was called to help with births as well as care for the sick. At the end of the diary in Woloch, she states that shes assisted in twenty eight births for the past year. This seems like a high number from our perspective, but this was relatively normal in the late 1700s as women tended to have larger families, especially in New England. Furthermore, I thought it was interesting that she clarified seventeen of the children were daughters. I would have thought she would be more likely to state how many were sons, but perhaps this shows the beginning of a shift. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
I also was struck by the manner in which Martha Ballard recorded the events in her life. It is evident that her role as a midwife was her identity and that becomes evident by looking at the amount of time she spends relaying information concerning this matter. Like Rachel said, the life of a midwife gave Ballard a sense of purpose and status within the community. Her ability to constantly be helping others and sacrificing her own sleep ("I have lost 42 nights' sleep this year past") is an admirable trait. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
The Purrington Murders entires read like CSI: 18th Century New England, complete with lots of people coming to see the scene and the bodies - she writes that a hundred people came to see the corpses laid out, and it sounds like several different families responded at the scene! It sounded like it was both a very large community and a very close-knit one, or perhaps Martha just knew everyone because it seemed someone was sick nearly every day and they always came to her for help. She mentions later around the same time that another man had nearly killed his wife, and that didn't receive nearly so much concern or comment as the Purrington family's situation did; I wonder how much she or her community were influenced by the changing views of domestic violence among wealthier urban people. (Where would they have fallen in terms of location and class, anyway? It certainly sounds like it wasn't always easy to make ends meet.) I also wish she'd given more hint as to his motive; she only mentions that his wife had been quite ill, which hardly seems to be a good reason to murder her and his children. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I also did part of my last paper on her, and I too agree with Clare that it seemed like she had a terrible life. She was always home, always taking care of everyone and everything and just seemed sad in her writings. While I understand she was a midwife and this was part of her responsibility, it just seems like she was unhappy. - Matt<br />
<br />
The premarital pregnancy shows how Ballard's society felt about it. When Martha asks who the father is, it is law to ask a woman during labor because she will tell the truth at that time. I find it interesting that women "can't" lie while in labor. This was their testimony. Also, most of the women married the father's of their children. If not, then they stayed with their parents and married someone else. I believe there had to be some stigma, but in some parts of society today women are shunned for pregnancies outside of marriage. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Ok, wiki please save my comments this time. Maybe I don't have the emotional depth of Sara and Matt, but I didn't detect any sadness in her writing, only pragmatism. She seems to find her identity in her contribution to her community, rather than in her own feelings, which was pretty typical at the time. Introspection/self-pity are relatively new. I really enjoyed reading about the wide variety of medical emergencies that Ballard addressed. I guess I assumed that midwifery was delivery of babies exclusively, but Ballard seems to be a general practitioner. Are the doctors she refers to in the diary medical doctors or otherwise? --Stef<br />
I <br />
<br />
Like Stef, I was also intrigued by how Martha Ballard did more than help women give birth. It appears that she was very much relied on for her advice and was a well known and respected midwife which is portrayed by her constantly going to houses in need of aid. However, I disagree with the notion that she had a terrible life. Not once does she personally complain about her work and her constantly going out to help others in itself reflects the value she put on her work. If she truly began to get worn down, I am sure she would have been fine in giving herself a vacation. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
On the 19th she mentioned that she attended a lecture but didn’t say what it was about. Was it a medical lecture, how modern doctors are always traveling around to go to lectures? On the 21st she said she went to a meeting on Sunday, I’m assuming that means a church service? On September 6th she mentioned going to the town (how far I wonder is that?) meeting to hire Mr. Noble. “Voted to hire him till March.” Does this mean that she voted herself? On Sunday the 11th, she mentions that she had to inform a woman that her child had deceased. I’m sure she had gotten very used to this and desensitized to death, but I wish she could have given a hint to her feelings. She seems very passive in that entry mentioning telling the mother and the funeral is the following day. I was surprised that she mentioned things like people stubbing their foots or a bruised toe. I suppose maybe these could have been more serious during that time, but to me a bruised to seems to be such a small problem I’d be embarrassed to even ask for the doctor. On the 13th what did she mean by “Watched at the Fort this night”? -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I didn’t get the feeling from her journal that she hated her life. I think, in fact, that she greatly valued her profession and herself for that matter. She worked very hard and lost sleep and witnessed death, but what she did was important to people, she was making a difference and I think she loved it. From her writing, she seems very desensitized but I don’t think that means she hated her life, I think she is desensitized as a result of her profession. I’ve met many surgeons and doctors that have seen too much and can not allow horrible things to effect their day to day activities, or sanity… -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I'm going to weigh in on the side of everyone who doesn't think that she was particularly unhappy with her life. She was busy, certainly, but I didn't detect moroseness in her entries at all, just brevity. There are not many details, but I don't think that's a sign of depression. I think if she had not been happy doing what she was doing, she wouldn't have done it- it was not as though women were expected to work outside the home, after all, and it was not as though she was the only person available to help sick or injured neighbors. She mentions having "competition" and that there are doctors and other midwives present. Despite the loss fo 42 nights of sleep, I got the feeling this was a choice she made and was content with. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
When I was reading her diary, all I was thinking is that she was horribly over worked. The last line of the diary that was in our textbook is that she had lost 42 nights sleep this year….something that most women could not say. She ran a household, took care of a family and kept a whole town healthy. With someone that most likely only had a simple education, why was she given the job that took years of training? –Kayle P.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-05T20:29:43Z<p>KayleP: /* SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON, Charlotte: A Tale of Truth, 1794 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Catherine Scholten, "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art" 1977 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY, Story of Margaretta, 1798 ==<br />
<br />
It is particularly strange to me that a book excerpt written by a woman pretending to be a man about a woman was a best seller. Especially one so subtly in support of women's education, at the very least for the sake of the children whom she was raising. I think that had this been written by less eloquent and well-versed of a writer, it would have been blatant in its' authors' sex and vulgar in its' attempt at constructing a fake family. Since Judith Sargent Murray was atypical to her society (and would probably be atypical in today's society) in both sex roles and in intelligence levels, this fake story passed off as a true story succeeds. Even I would've thought this was a man writing if I had not reminded myself of such. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
What is most interesting is the fact that Murray was writing as a man about a young woman. To write the description of a good young women from male perspective shows that Murray must have heard or discussed with the men in her life about what characteristics a respectable young woman should own. Are these characteristics important to women? And, if so are they important in the same way their are important to men? --Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
One quote that struck me was “Persons when holding a pen, generally express themselves more freely than when engaged in conversation; and if they have a perfect confidence in those whom they address, the probability is, that, unbosoming themselves, they will not fail to unveil the inmost recesses of their souls.” While this quote is included in the story of Margaretta in terms of Margaretta, I think that it still says something about Judith Sargent Murray herself. The ideas she expresses in the story concerning education of women were not widely supported in her time. By adopting the point of view of a man writing about womens education, Murray allows herself to write of her true thoughts regarding the subject, ones she likely would not discuss vocally. –Clare O<br />
<br />
One woman had all the characteristics and talents; she spoke English and French, she was educated in geography and philosophy and much more. It was interesting to see that eventhough this was a woman disguised as a man, she introduced these thoughts of women having a well rounded education. I wonder if it had been a women with these thoughts, would she have received any/much scrutiny for bringing or introducing ideals such as these. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to see a woman write a man’s point of view. I agree with Sara though that I found it interesting that it was a “man” in support of women’s education and the series was a best seller. It would have been interesting to read the rest of the series. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON, Charlotte: A Tale of Truth, 1794 ==<br />
<br />
''"While the tear of compassion still trembled in my eye for the fate<br />
of the unhappy Charlotte, I may have children of my own, said I, to<br />
whom this recital may be of use, and if to your own children, said<br />
Benevolence, why not to the many daughters of Misfortune who, deprived<br />
of natural friends, or spoilt by a mistaken education, are thrown<br />
on an unfeeling world without the least power to defend themselves<br />
from the snares not only of the other sex, but from the more dangerous<br />
arts of the profligate of their own."'' (page 190). <br />
I include this quote because I really think that this is a concept that so many activist leaders could relate to... the dream of wanting a better world, not for themself, but for their CHILDREN. It also is significant because the person for whom Susanna Rowson feels had a bad life was not that of her own, but of Charlotte. Maybe it is that oppression is seen more extensively in those around the oppressed than in the oppressed themself, or maybe Susanna felt her life was NOT oppressed after hearing that of Charlottes. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The message is the ''honor'' of women is very important. If a women acts against her honor or goodwill, then ultimately she will end in death. I have a question for this story? Were men or women reading this story, or both? Or who was the intended audience? These questions could shed some light on how women were perceived to act. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Although the power and influence of men over women is highly apparent in this time period, I was rather shocked when Montraville essentially kidnapped Charlotte when she refused to go overseas with him due to loyalty and duty to her parents. More shocking however, is that fact that no one attempted to aid Charlotte when she was shrieking and obviously being taken against her will. Particularly Mademoiselle could have alerted someone to what was going on, but perhaps since she came to see Belcour that she was under his influence not to. Furthermore, once Montraville acquired Charlotte as his wife in the colonies, he treated her with indifference and neglect. This shows that males wanted to exert and demonstrate their power over women and once they had secured that power, the women required no more of their attention. –Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found it astonishing that this woman was such a successful writer during this time period, I suppose the themes were acceptable to the vast majority of men who allowed her works to be published. Preaching to young girls to obey her parents; if she dishonors herself and her parents by eloping, she will most certainly live a horrible life and die ashamed. I was curious, on page 194, what exactly does Rownson mean by “sober matron”, I thought her intended audience was the “young and thoughtless of the fair sex”. I found the title to be interesting as well, “Charlottle. A Tale of Truth” this implies that this is story is not only true but this is the horrible truth of the consequences of dishonor. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare, i was also surprised where the rest of the family was when she needed help. Montraville basically guilt-tripped Charlotte into going against her parents and leaving them for him. She was a woman of value, morals and beliefs that she was very strongly rooted in; but eventually gave into the love of her life. So far in class, we talk about how much power the male member of the family has, however, it was interesting to see how much influence and power he had with her, even before he became apart of the family; he was basically giving her ultimatums. (top of 200).... --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading the novel. I thought that for the time it was well thought out and that the reader was able to follow the storyline. What was even more amazing to me was that a woman wrote this and published it under her own name. I assumed even women that had attended the schooling were not encouraged to use their schooling other than to help with the rearing of future leaders. Does this mean that they are more works by women of this era, under their own names? –Kayle P</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-05T20:29:20Z<p>KayleP: /* JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY, Story of Margaretta, 1798 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Catherine Scholten, "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art" 1977 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY, Story of Margaretta, 1798 ==<br />
<br />
It is particularly strange to me that a book excerpt written by a woman pretending to be a man about a woman was a best seller. Especially one so subtly in support of women's education, at the very least for the sake of the children whom she was raising. I think that had this been written by less eloquent and well-versed of a writer, it would have been blatant in its' authors' sex and vulgar in its' attempt at constructing a fake family. Since Judith Sargent Murray was atypical to her society (and would probably be atypical in today's society) in both sex roles and in intelligence levels, this fake story passed off as a true story succeeds. Even I would've thought this was a man writing if I had not reminded myself of such. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
What is most interesting is the fact that Murray was writing as a man about a young woman. To write the description of a good young women from male perspective shows that Murray must have heard or discussed with the men in her life about what characteristics a respectable young woman should own. Are these characteristics important to women? And, if so are they important in the same way their are important to men? --Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
One quote that struck me was “Persons when holding a pen, generally express themselves more freely than when engaged in conversation; and if they have a perfect confidence in those whom they address, the probability is, that, unbosoming themselves, they will not fail to unveil the inmost recesses of their souls.” While this quote is included in the story of Margaretta in terms of Margaretta, I think that it still says something about Judith Sargent Murray herself. The ideas she expresses in the story concerning education of women were not widely supported in her time. By adopting the point of view of a man writing about womens education, Murray allows herself to write of her true thoughts regarding the subject, ones she likely would not discuss vocally. –Clare O<br />
<br />
One woman had all the characteristics and talents; she spoke English and French, she was educated in geography and philosophy and much more. It was interesting to see that eventhough this was a woman disguised as a man, she introduced these thoughts of women having a well rounded education. I wonder if it had been a women with these thoughts, would she have received any/much scrutiny for bringing or introducing ideals such as these. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to see a woman write a man’s point of view. I agree with Sara though that I found it interesting that it was a “man” in support of women’s education and the series was a best seller. It would have been interesting to read the rest of the series. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON, Charlotte: A Tale of Truth, 1794 ==<br />
<br />
''"While the tear of compassion still trembled in my eye for the fate<br />
of the unhappy Charlotte, I may have children of my own, said I, to<br />
whom this recital may be of use, and if to your own children, said<br />
Benevolence, why not to the many daughters of Misfortune who, deprived<br />
of natural friends, or spoilt by a mistaken education, are thrown<br />
on an unfeeling world without the least power to defend themselves<br />
from the snares not only of the other sex, but from the more dangerous<br />
arts of the profligate of their own."'' (page 190). <br />
I include this quote because I really think that this is a concept that so many activist leaders could relate to... the dream of wanting a better world, not for themself, but for their CHILDREN. It also is significant because the person for whom Susanna Rowson feels had a bad life was not that of her own, but of Charlotte. Maybe it is that oppression is seen more extensively in those around the oppressed than in the oppressed themself, or maybe Susanna felt her life was NOT oppressed after hearing that of Charlottes. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The message is the ''honor'' of women is very important. If a women acts against her honor or goodwill, then ultimately she will end in death. I have a question for this story? Were men or women reading this story, or both? Or who was the intended audience? These questions could shed some light on how women were perceived to act. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Although the power and influence of men over women is highly apparent in this time period, I was rather shocked when Montraville essentially kidnapped Charlotte when she refused to go overseas with him due to loyalty and duty to her parents. More shocking however, is that fact that no one attempted to aid Charlotte when she was shrieking and obviously being taken against her will. Particularly Mademoiselle could have alerted someone to what was going on, but perhaps since she came to see Belcour that she was under his influence not to. Furthermore, once Montraville acquired Charlotte as his wife in the colonies, he treated her with indifference and neglect. This shows that males wanted to exert and demonstrate their power over women and once they had secured that power, the women required no more of their attention. –Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found it astonishing that this woman was such a successful writer during this time period, I suppose the themes were acceptable to the vast majority of men who allowed her works to be published. Preaching to young girls to obey her parents; if she dishonors herself and her parents by eloping, she will most certainly live a horrible life and die ashamed. I was curious, on page 194, what exactly does Rownson mean by “sober matron”, I thought her intended audience was the “young and thoughtless of the fair sex”. I found the title to be interesting as well, “Charlottle. A Tale of Truth” this implies that this is story is not only true but this is the horrible truth of the consequences of dishonor. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare, i was also surprised where the rest of the family was when she needed help. Montraville basically guilt-tripped Charlotte into going against her parents and leaving them for him. She was a woman of value, morals and beliefs that she was very strongly rooted in; but eventually gave into the love of her life. So far in class, we talk about how much power the male member of the family has, however, it was interesting to see how much influence and power he had with her, even before he became apart of the family; he was basically giving her ultimatums. (top of 200).... --Aqsa Z.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-29T01:52:39Z<p>KayleP: /* Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
We talked about the idea of women as "adored and oppressed" in my Women's Studies class last year - positive and negative sexism, I think we called it, and discussed how the two reinforced each other. But other than pointing out that women are in trouble whether married or not, he doesn't go actually talk very much about that problem; rather, he seems to see women's oppression as a result of their emotional fragility, and asks men to give them a bit more credit without suggesting that their roles need change at all. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Eliza Wilkinson is annoyed with the fact that all men see women as “dairy and household” workers. She also feels oppressed by the men in her life. It seems to me with the upcoming fight with the British, she is hoping that her thoughts and writings will actually become a beacon of freedom for her and other women. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison being captured by the Indians was confusing to her. She goes back and forth from “our Indians and my Indian brother” to “the Indians”. She stayed loyal to the Indian tribe until they ran out of food. She took her kids and left to pursue other avenues to get food, and never returned. I will say this until the food shortage she does not appear to go along with the decision to do battle for the British, but she does recognize these Indians as her family even if she does not see eye to eye with their actions. -–Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
I actually found this reading quite confusing. Who's doing the writing? She's described as a Deponent, which Wikipedia describes as someone giving testimony outside of court in preparation for a trial. What was the trial? Also, I didn't understand what she meant by the quote Claire cited above, "the bullets would not cheat the gallows." I did find the exchange with the Quaker women who asked her to stay interesting. Would she be waiting for her husband to find her again after the war, on the off chance he survived? If that's what they were offering, I'm not surprised at all she choose to stay with the people she knew rather than waiting it out with strangers. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
Its interesting that The Revolutionary War is typically viewed as the colonists fight for independence but through the readings on Wheatley, Murray and Adams it proves that there was another war being fought within colonial life. It was extraordinary that Phillis was educated and treated to such a level that she was practically treated like a daughter by her masters allowing her to be able to cultivate these parallels between the struggles for freedom with Britain and slavery. Being a slave and woman what she wrote seems out of place in the subservient world women and especially slaves lived in at the time. Although, all but Adams wrote under false names they still carried a sense of entitlement to speak out against the lifestyle given to them. Which made me question whether the fight for freedom against Britain was seen as by women as their ticket to finally speak out or was it the male mindset that was being altered towards what role women were supposed to play?<br />
-Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
When it comes to discussing the American Revolution, it is rare to come across literature that discusses the point of view of the Tories and even less when it comes to the Tory-women. In reading this this diary snippet, I was not only intrigued by the different view of the revolution, but also at how Grace seemed more annoyed about the war in general and cared for neither side, despite her loyalist husband. I wonder how many women were just like Grace when it came to having an opinion (or lack thereof) about the war and how many of them were put out of their homes, despite the fact they did nothing personally to aide or hinder any side of the fight.--Heather T<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
Abigail comes off as a very strong and motivated woman in these letters. With each response back from John Adams, she seems to become even more determined. I personally enjoy the exchange between him and her where they refer to each other as "saucy". - Matt<br />
<br />
I loved reading these letters. They were very proper for the time period and at the same time you can see that they real do care for one another. John and Abigail really seem to genuinely care for one another and show they are not only strong individually but as a couple. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the "Principals of the Academy" and the rules that women would have to follow for the branches of literature, my first question is were the men disciplined in all of these rules? Specifically section II where they had to write fair and legible and shape every letter properly and use the points and capitals as needed - were men expected to write that way as well? And in section VIII, they wanted to connect the education with regular instruction in the Christian religion, what would happen if they weren't as accepting of the religion aspect? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
The Esther piece is special simply because it is written about women in the Revolution by a woman in the Revolution. <br />
Esther mentions that a woman’s patriotism is pure. As mothers and wives they surpass a man in their love for the public good. <br />
My favorite line in the piece is, “But it has been said, that they may apprehend, that, in the course of a long war, the view of their distresses may be lost, and their services be forgotten” (p. 116). With the minimal works we still have, how much have we lost?--Kris<br />
<br />
I agree with Kris, this is indeed a special piece. Esther is expressing her love for her country and her appreciation of the patriotic things women in history have done. She asks women to support the soldiers and proclaims that they are equally as patriotic as those soldiers fighting in the war. My favorite quote is in connection to the one Kris quoted on page 116, "Forgotten! never; I can answer in the name of all my sex. Brave Americans, your disinterestedness, your courage, and you constancy will always be dear to America, as long as she shall preserve her virtue." -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson was known for keeping detailed records of his slaves and this is no different. He takes note of the slaves that left for the British and the ones that have died. It interesting to see the records that were kept. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not '''''forbid''''' us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in '''''our love''''' for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-29T01:52:19Z<p>KayleP: /* Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
We talked about the idea of women as "adored and oppressed" in my Women's Studies class last year - positive and negative sexism, I think we called it, and discussed how the two reinforced each other. But other than pointing out that women are in trouble whether married or not, he doesn't go actually talk very much about that problem; rather, he seems to see women's oppression as a result of their emotional fragility, and asks men to give them a bit more credit without suggesting that their roles need change at all. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Eliza Wilkinson is annoyed with the fact that all men see women as “dairy and household” workers. She also feels oppressed by the men in her life. It seems to me with the upcoming fight with the British, she is hoping that her thoughts and writings will actually become a beacon of freedom for her and other women. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison being captured by the Indians was confusing to her. She goes back and forth from “our Indians and my Indian brother” to “the Indians”. She stayed loyal to the Indian tribe until they ran out of food. She took her kids and left to pursue other avenues to get food, and never returned. I will say this until the food shortage she does not appear to go along with the decision to do battle for the British, but she does recognize these Indians as her family even if she does not see eye to eye with their actions. -–Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O<br />
<br />
I actually found this reading quite confusing. Who's doing the writing? She's described as a Deponent, which Wikipedia describes as someone giving testimony outside of court in preparation for a trial. What was the trial? Also, I didn't understand what she meant by the quote Claire cited above, "the bullets would not cheat the gallows." I did find the exchange with the Quaker women who asked her to stay interesting. Would she be waiting for her husband to find her again after the war, on the off chance he survived? If that's what they were offering, I'm not surprised at all she choose to stay with the people she knew rather than waiting it out with strangers. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
Its interesting that The Revolutionary War is typically viewed as the colonists fight for independence but through the readings on Wheatley, Murray and Adams it proves that there was another war being fought within colonial life. It was extraordinary that Phillis was educated and treated to such a level that she was practically treated like a daughter by her masters allowing her to be able to cultivate these parallels between the struggles for freedom with Britain and slavery. Being a slave and woman what she wrote seems out of place in the subservient world women and especially slaves lived in at the time. Although, all but Adams wrote under false names they still carried a sense of entitlement to speak out against the lifestyle given to them. Which made me question whether the fight for freedom against Britain was seen as by women as their ticket to finally speak out or was it the male mindset that was being altered towards what role women were supposed to play?<br />
-Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
When it comes to discussing the American Revolution, it is rare to come across literature that discusses the point of view of the Tories and even less when it comes to the Tory-women. In reading this this diary snippet, I was not only intrigued by the different view of the revolution, but also at how Grace seemed more annoyed about the war in general and cared for neither side, despite her loyalist husband. I wonder how many women were just like Grace when it came to having an opinion (or lack thereof) about the war and how many of them were put out of their homes, despite the fact they did nothing personally to aide or hinder any side of the fight.--Heather T<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
Abigail comes off as a very strong and motivated woman in these letters. With each response back from John Adams, she seems to become even more determined. I personally enjoy the exchange between him and her where they refer to each other as "saucy". - Matt<br />
<br />
I loved reading these letters. They were very proper for the time period and at the same time you can see that they real do care for one another. John and Abigail really seem to genuinely care for one another and show they are not only strong individually but as a couple. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the "Principals of the Academy" and the rules that women would have to follow for the branches of literature, my first question is were the men disciplined in all of these rules? Specifically section II where they had to write fair and legible and shape every letter properly and use the points and capitals as needed - were men expected to write that way as well? And in section VIII, they wanted to connect the education with regular instruction in the Christian religion, what would happen if they weren't as accepting of the religion aspect? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
The Esther piece is special simply because it is written about women in the Revolution by a woman in the Revolution. <br />
Esther mentions that a woman’s patriotism is pure. As mothers and wives they surpass a man in their love for the public good. <br />
My favorite line in the piece is, “But it has been said, that they may apprehend, that, in the course of a long war, the view of their distresses may be lost, and their services be forgotten” (p. 116). With the minimal works we still have, how much have we lost?--Kris<br />
<br />
I agree with Kris, this is indeed a special piece. Esther is expressing her love for her country and her appreciation of the patriotic things women in history have done. She asks women to support the soldiers and proclaims that they are equally as patriotic as those soldiers fighting in the war. My favorite quote is in connection to the one Kris quoted on page 116, "Forgotten! never; I can answer in the name of all my sex. Brave Americans, your disinterestedness, your courage, and you constancy will always be dear to America, as long as she shall preserve her virtue." -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not '''''forbid''''' us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in '''''our love''''' for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-22T03:45:11Z<p>KayleP: /* George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
I found the distinctions between Puritan and Quaker women fascinating. First, Anne Hutchinson was banished for leading meetings; yet, Quaker women are encouraged to lead (other women). Second, Anne Bradstreet acknowledges that she has no power to bring her children to God, yet Quaker women recognize their strong influence over the faith of their children. How could two such opposite groups have a faith based on the same book? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I actually was not appropriately happy with the description of the egalitarian society of the quakers. Equal in spirituality and religion is not the same thing as being equal in society. Also, Anne Hutchinson was banned for leading meetings that ran opposite of the government (Which was the same as religious organizations). I think it's really easy to take equality in spirituality and religious leadership to mean the same thing as having power. Quaker women were not equal in society with their male counterparts, simply the society was not as important and the city of god was more important. --Sara <br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sarah Fiske's Conversion was its connection to Susanna Wesley's parenting techniques. Fiske, right or wrong , had to bend her will to the congregation and to god in order to be accepted. Wesley taught that bending the child's will is one of the most important tasks, so that the child will bend to god's will. ---Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in this reading the way in which Anne Bradstreet viewed suffering and adversity in her life. She is extremely honest; however, there is an underlying consistency in her faith as she seems to always remind herself of her beliefs. For example, she describes her affliction akin to God having "ground [her] to powder" (101). Then at the conclusion of this same paragraph, she states that "it is the absence and presence of God that makes Heaven or Hell" (101). Bradstreet's writings have given us a glimpse into the Puritan way of life and how her life was marked out in her mind by spiritual milestones. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
S== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
I'm amazed no one has commented on this one yet. I mean, we've learned who Anne Hutchinson was since we were in high school. This means not only is she a significant woman, but typical history itself finds her significant as well. There are very few women in history for whom this can be said. To read her words, where she eloquently destroys her opponent and uses her understanding of legal proceedings to her defense. The fact that she was so learned in the ways of commonlaw is almost as significant as the fact that we've learned about her for so long-- even back then not every one was learned in legal understandings. The more important question is, however, who are the women in this situation we don't learn about? --Sara<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
<br />
These all female meetings show a safe place for women to confide in each other. Not that these women are going to start a revolution, but to vent about the troubles of marriage, raising children and following god's will. It reminds me of Esther Burr's letters to her friend. Also, it is similar to Victorian era women's strong bonds in friendship. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening,” David Brainard discusses two “awakenings” of two Native Americans. The reliability of this source is extremely questionable. Brainard claims to have convinced a Native American woman of having a soul and she cries out for her soul’s salvation. However, Brainard states he “perceived the burden of her prayer to be [in Indian language] i.e. have mercy on me.” Brainard himself uses the word “perceived” which means he interpreted what the Indian woman was saying, which is not always reliable. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Brainard truly had a grasp on in Indian language and therefore it is possible that he misinterpreted what she said or even made things up. The information before the text stated that Brainard was expelled from Yale and was only later made a minister. It is possible he embellished or fabricated his missionary work to improve his reputation. -Clare O<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing is more of a testament to the power of words than the Salem witch trials. I find it astounding that accusations from neighbors can completely cost people their reputation and even their life, when widely believed. Furthermore, even if the accused takes the accusers to trial for slander, as in the case of Elizabeth Godman, it is likely that it will have no effect. It is shocking that people could lose their lives based on coincidences, such as Elizabeth, who was near when a child got sick, and supposed witchlike behavior, such as grinning in a “strange manner.” Perhaps this shows that there still was ties between religion and the courts, because fear of witchcraft is closely tied to religion, and the courts were likely to convict an accused witch. - Clare O<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare but unlike most of the later trials for witchcraft the sentence that was placed on Elizabeth was very lenient. “The court declared unto her that though the evidence is not sufficient as yet to take away her life, yet suspitions are cleere…” pg 55 So we know you’re a witch but we do not have enough to kill you, so instead we will banish you from going from house to house. It amazed me that logic did apply to the witchcraft trials before the time of the Salem trials and that not everyone accused of witch craft was killed. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
As someone who knits and sews myself, I have to say - wow, this woman's list of finished pieces is impressive. I'm curious about the change of format about a page into the diary, from a list of pieces worked on to more comments on her social relations. I wonder why she changed her focus in what she deemed important to write about. The list seems to come mostly before she was married, so maybe developing her skills as a housewife was important to her? She mentions a gift for her future husband among her products. Whereas after she married, maybe her role in the community became more important? I wonder why that would be? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
<br />
I have seen inventories from the colonial time period much like this one. For someone in 2011, it is sad to see human beings in a list like livestock. The list does provide us with information on how slaves were used or what skills slaves had. George Washington had his owns self sufficient village at Mont Vernon. --Michelle<br />
<br />
The records that slave owners kept never cease to amaze me. They really were quite detailed and I feel show some level of compassion. Knowing the slaves age would be in important for how long they would be able to work but if the slave was child it would not matter how old they were. Keeping records of their age shows at least, in my opinion some level of compassion. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Within the Karin Wulf's entry "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" I found the portion pertaining to the widows and their inheritance to be very enlightening. Wulf is able to clarify the assumptions that widows were solely dependent on the wealth left to them by their spouses. By explaining that women and men were interdependent upon each other with household income being a dual effort. It led me to wonder why widowed women were looked as so helpless and dependent on their deceased partners by society when it well known that it was far from the case? Even when citing prominent Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as inheritors to wealth the stereotype of the helpless widow was carried on. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was the pay difference between men and women doing the same work - women earned between 1/4th and 1/2th of what men did. After talking about the economics of changing from indentured servants to slaves last class, I wondered... wouldn't hiring women or supporting women's businesses then become the more economically viable option, since they worked for so much less? Did that encourage female business owners at all? I was also surprised that mortuary work was considered a woman's job; I wonder what sort of tasks were involved in that, and how the transition was made from women as mortuary workers to the modern image of a creepy male undertaker. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" is the apparent difference in societal circumstances for women in this region than from other areas. Even though it took widowhood or an inheritance of some other sort for women to go into business, it appears that this was a pretty accessible option for women to make a living for themselves. I wonder if women in the other regions would be able to easily go into this work like these Philadelphia women did (even though it was not a terribly easy thing to do for them either).--Heather T.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-22T03:36:35Z<p>KayleP: /* Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
I found the distinctions between Puritan and Quaker women fascinating. First, Anne Hutchinson was banished for leading meetings; yet, Quaker women are encouraged to lead (other women). Second, Anne Bradstreet acknowledges that she has no power to bring her children to God, yet Quaker women recognize their strong influence over the faith of their children. How could two such opposite groups have a faith based on the same book? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I actually was not appropriately happy with the description of the egalitarian society of the quakers. Equal in spirituality and religion is not the same thing as being equal in society. Also, Anne Hutchinson was banned for leading meetings that ran opposite of the government (Which was the same as religious organizations). I think it's really easy to take equality in spirituality and religious leadership to mean the same thing as having power. Quaker women were not equal in society with their male counterparts, simply the society was not as important and the city of god was more important. --Sara <br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sarah Fiske's Conversion was its connection to Susanna Wesley's parenting techniques. Fiske, right or wrong , had to bend her will to the congregation and to god in order to be accepted. Wesley taught that bending the child's will is one of the most important tasks, so that the child will bend to god's will. ---Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
S== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
I'm amazed no one has commented on this one yet. I mean, we've learned who Anne Hutchinson was since we were in high school. This means not only is she a significant woman, but typical history itself finds her significant as well. There are very few women in history for whom this can be said. To read her words, where she eloquently destroys her opponent and uses her understanding of legal proceedings to her defense. The fact that she was so learned in the ways of commonlaw is almost as significant as the fact that we've learned about her for so long-- even back then not every one was learned in legal understandings. The more important question is, however, who are the women in this situation we don't learn about? --Sara<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
<br />
These all female meetings show a safe place for women to confide in each other. Not that these women are going to start a revolution, but to vent about the troubles of marriage, raising children and following god's will. It reminds me of Esther Burr's letters to her friend. Also, it is similar to Victorian era women's strong bonds in friendship. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening,” David Brainard discusses two “awakenings” of two Native Americans. The reliability of this source is extremely questionable. Brainard claims to have convinced a Native American woman of having a soul and she cries out for her soul’s salvation. However, Brainard states he “perceived the burden of her prayer to be [in Indian language] i.e. have mercy on me.” Brainard himself uses the word “perceived” which means he interpreted what the Indian woman was saying, which is not always reliable. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Brainard truly had a grasp on in Indian language and therefore it is possible that he misinterpreted what she said or even made things up. The information before the text stated that Brainard was expelled from Yale and was only later made a minister. It is possible he embellished or fabricated his missionary work to improve his reputation. -Clare O<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing is more of a testament to the power of words than the Salem witch trials. I find it astounding that accusations from neighbors can completely cost people their reputation and even their life, when widely believed. Furthermore, even if the accused takes the accusers to trial for slander, as in the case of Elizabeth Godman, it is likely that it will have no effect. It is shocking that people could lose their lives based on coincidences, such as Elizabeth, who was near when a child got sick, and supposed witchlike behavior, such as grinning in a “strange manner.” Perhaps this shows that there still was ties between religion and the courts, because fear of witchcraft is closely tied to religion, and the courts were likely to convict an accused witch. - Clare O<br />
<br />
I agree with Clare but unlike most of the later trials for witchcraft the sentence that was placed on Elizabeth was very lenient. “The court declared unto her that though the evidence is not sufficient as yet to take away her life, yet suspitions are cleere…” pg 55 So we know you’re a witch but we do not have enough to kill you, so instead we will banish you from going from house to house. It amazed me that logic did apply to the witchcraft trials before the time of the Salem trials and that not everyone accused of witch craft was killed. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
As someone who knits and sews myself, I have to say - wow, this woman's list of finished pieces is impressive. I'm curious about the change of format about a page into the diary, from a list of pieces worked on to more comments on her social relations. I wonder why she changed her focus in what she deemed important to write about. The list seems to come mostly before she was married, so maybe developing her skills as a housewife was important to her? She mentions a gift for her future husband among her products. Whereas after she married, maybe her role in the community became more important? I wonder why that would be? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
<br />
I have seen inventories from the colonial time period much like this one. For someone in 2011, it is sad to see human beings in a list like livestock. The list does provide us with information on how slaves were used or what skills slaves had. George Washington had his owns self sufficient village at Mont Vernon. --Michelle<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Within the Karin Wulf's entry "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" I found the portion pertaining to the widows and their inheritance to be very enlightening. Wulf is able to clarify the assumptions that widows were solely dependent on the wealth left to them by their spouses. By explaining that women and men were interdependent upon each other with household income being a dual effort. It led me to wonder why widowed women were looked as so helpless and dependent on their deceased partners by society when it well known that it was far from the case? Even when citing prominent Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as inheritors to wealth the stereotype of the helpless widow was carried on. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was the pay difference between men and women doing the same work - women earned between 1/4th and 1/2th of what men did. After talking about the economics of changing from indentured servants to slaves last class, I wondered... wouldn't hiring women or supporting women's businesses then become the more economically viable option, since they worked for so much less? Did that encourage female business owners at all? I was also surprised that mortuary work was considered a woman's job; I wonder what sort of tasks were involved in that, and how the transition was made from women as mortuary workers to the modern image of a creepy male undertaker. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" is the apparent difference in societal circumstances for women in this region than from other areas. Even though it took widowhood or an inheritance of some other sort for women to go into business, it appears that this was a pretty accessible option for women to make a living for themselves. I wonder if women in the other regions would be able to easily go into this work like these Philadelphia women did (even though it was not a terribly easy thing to do for them either).--Heather T.</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-14T20:09:48Z<p>KayleP: /* Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
I found “To Use Her As His Wife” to be a very interesting read. I had no idea that a fundamental feature of an 18th century marriage was bridal pregnancy. Why don’t we hear stories about bridal pregnancy more often (Martha Root’s story)? It is also intriguing that these women were not chastised for their pregnancies out of wedlock, mainly because their children were not seen as bastards. How did these premarital pregnancies affect the family life after the couple was married? --Catherine K. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Wadsworth’s sermon discussing “A Well Ordered Family,” he describes that the ideal family is one in which the wife is submissive to the husband, but that they should be loving and affectionate to one another. He also describes a quarrel or disagreement as “the Devil’s work.” On one hand, he states that if a wife is not “so young, beautiful, healthy…” etc, God still requires the husband to love her and be not bitter. This sounds like a fairly positive position for women. However, Wadsworth goes on to say that if a husband is not “well-tempered,” the wife still is required to love and particularly obey him. In my view, this would allow husbands to be abusive or ill-tempered without repercussion because women must be submissive and obey them no matter what. This model ultimately failed and the stratification between men and women grew further. <br />
--Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
I was shocked when I read that letter from the girl to her father. I know that not all people came over to the New World willingly but I thought that most of them enjoyed being here once they got here. I would have never guessed that this girl was treated like, if not worse, than a slave and then started to beg her father who threw her out, for more. It makes me wonder what rights indentured servants had since they were not technically property, or were they? – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
<br />
While reading through the various gazettes, I noticed in the 1750's, girls were more or less being offered lessons in needle work and other types of crafts, where as the boys were being taught the reading, writing and arithmetic. They appeared to have been kept the sexes separate as well. Fast forward twenty years and it seems the girls are being offered the same craft work, but they are also able to learn the reading, writing and arithmetic, plus various other areas of interest (music being a common theme). - Matt<br />
<br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara<br />
<br />
In Abigail Bailey’s memoirs, “An Abominable Wickedness,” she describes how her husband had begun an incestuous relationship with one of their daughters. This particular account illuminates the lack of power of women during this time period in two distinct ways. First, Abigail Bailey was only able to have her husband arrested with the help of her brothers. It is astounding that women lacked rights to the extent that the law would ignore the fact that her husband was abusing their daughter, simply because a woman reported it. Secondly, the daughter who was being abused denied the opportunity to testify against her father. While her reasoning for this is unclear, it is possible that she was so afraid of the power the male authority of the household had over her that she refused to testify. <br />
--Clare O. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== TIED HAND AND FOOT -- ''Esther Burr, 1756-1757'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, I love that this is from Aaron Burr's mother (which is not important, I just like Aaron Burr). More importantly the line by Mr. Ewing which states that women should talk about "things that they understood. He did not think women knew what Friendship was. They were hardly capable fo anything so cool and rational as friendship (41)." First I had to wonder, was he talking about the Quakers when she captialized the word "Friendship" or was that just making it a proper noun instead of the contemporary usage of the word. I have to wonder. Second, funny that after reading how busy and tedious her life is in this journal I am saddened by the lack of respect for her sex (if not for herself) she deals with. Obviously he had to have viewed her as somewhat of a companion (not unusual for a woman of her status when you consider the Adams, Adams and Jefferson correspondence of the same time period) or he would not have discussed "women" with her as though she was not one of them, but still an insult to ALL women is an insult to particular women. --Sara<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in the Esther Burr letters:<br />
-The push for women to be married came from women just as much as it did from male ministers (excusing the fact that she was married to a minister).<br />
-Not marrying was considered a "murder of self." (Page 39, Woloch)<br />
-Did women in this era always refer to their husbands as "Mr Burr?"<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
What I found interesting was that she was able to keep a diary. Most of the time we are taught that women are not suppose to be taught to write and you even see that in some of the later readings that young girls had been taught to read the bible and nothing else. And in reference to what Mary Beth said, I don’t think that it is only their husbands they refer too. I think that that she refers to everyone with a title. –Kayle P</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-14T20:09:03Z<p>KayleP: /* TIED HAND AND FOOT -- ''Esther Burr, 1756-1757'' */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
I found “To Use Her As His Wife” to be a very interesting read. I had no idea that a fundamental feature of an 18th century marriage was bridal pregnancy. Why don’t we hear stories about bridal pregnancy more often (Martha Root’s story)? It is also intriguing that these women were not chastised for their pregnancies out of wedlock, mainly because their children were not seen as bastards. How did these premarital pregnancies affect the family life after the couple was married? --Catherine K. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Wadsworth’s sermon discussing “A Well Ordered Family,” he describes that the ideal family is one in which the wife is submissive to the husband, but that they should be loving and affectionate to one another. He also describes a quarrel or disagreement as “the Devil’s work.” On one hand, he states that if a wife is not “so young, beautiful, healthy…” etc, God still requires the husband to love her and be not bitter. This sounds like a fairly positive position for women. However, Wadsworth goes on to say that if a husband is not “well-tempered,” the wife still is required to love and particularly obey him. In my view, this would allow husbands to be abusive or ill-tempered without repercussion because women must be submissive and obey them no matter what. This model ultimately failed and the stratification between men and women grew further. <br />
--Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
<br />
While reading through the various gazettes, I noticed in the 1750's, girls were more or less being offered lessons in needle work and other types of crafts, where as the boys were being taught the reading, writing and arithmetic. They appeared to have been kept the sexes separate as well. Fast forward twenty years and it seems the girls are being offered the same craft work, but they are also able to learn the reading, writing and arithmetic, plus various other areas of interest (music being a common theme). - Matt<br />
<br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara<br />
<br />
In Abigail Bailey’s memoirs, “An Abominable Wickedness,” she describes how her husband had begun an incestuous relationship with one of their daughters. This particular account illuminates the lack of power of women during this time period in two distinct ways. First, Abigail Bailey was only able to have her husband arrested with the help of her brothers. It is astounding that women lacked rights to the extent that the law would ignore the fact that her husband was abusing their daughter, simply because a woman reported it. Secondly, the daughter who was being abused denied the opportunity to testify against her father. While her reasoning for this is unclear, it is possible that she was so afraid of the power the male authority of the household had over her that she refused to testify. <br />
--Clare O. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== TIED HAND AND FOOT -- ''Esther Burr, 1756-1757'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, I love that this is from Aaron Burr's mother (which is not important, I just like Aaron Burr). More importantly the line by Mr. Ewing which states that women should talk about "things that they understood. He did not think women knew what Friendship was. They were hardly capable fo anything so cool and rational as friendship (41)." First I had to wonder, was he talking about the Quakers when she captialized the word "Friendship" or was that just making it a proper noun instead of the contemporary usage of the word. I have to wonder. Second, funny that after reading how busy and tedious her life is in this journal I am saddened by the lack of respect for her sex (if not for herself) she deals with. Obviously he had to have viewed her as somewhat of a companion (not unusual for a woman of her status when you consider the Adams, Adams and Jefferson correspondence of the same time period) or he would not have discussed "women" with her as though she was not one of them, but still an insult to ALL women is an insult to particular women. --Sara<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in the Esther Burr letters:<br />
-The push for women to be married came from women just as much as it did from male ministers (excusing the fact that she was married to a minister).<br />
-Not marrying was considered a "murder of self." (Page 39, Woloch)<br />
-Did women in this era always refer to their husbands as "Mr Burr?"<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
What I found interesting was that she was able to keep a diary. Most of the time we are taught that women are not suppose to be taught to write and you even see that in some of the later readings that young girls had been taught to read the bible and nothing else. And in reference to what Mary Beth said, I don’t think that it is only their husbands they refer too. I think that that she refers to everyone with a title. –Kayle P</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-07T20:17:38Z<p>KayleP: /* Samuel de Champlain, 1616 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
<br />
What do these primary sources reveal about the nature of women's experiences in colonial-era interactions?<br />
<br />
The arrival of Europeans can truly mark the end of one people's way of life through conforming to a foreign model of religion and social structure demonstrated through changing gender roles. Through many of these early encounters as well as from ''The First Ship'' reading that both parties view of each other was completely alien. As told my Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison, it is evident the social structure that they were forced into was foreign with gender roles carried out in a nontraditional sense. These contrasts, in ways of life sharply decline, as seen in the story of Sarah Ahhaton were she was made to feel remorseful for her adulterous actions. Actions that some fifty years early would have "incur no ill repute or insult" according to Champlain. It is clear that when Europeans arrived in America they encountered a people whose female members shared a mutual respect with male members, maintaining positions of power in both the public and private world. Although, documentation throughout this time was heavily biased, the permanent shift in culture and life ways for the Native Americans is abundantly clear. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
Woloch says that all tribes had a gendered division of labor, but doesn't Brooks' essay claim that, at least in Navajo tribes, a lot of labor was gender-integrated? I wonder how much different divisions of labor impacted captive women's experiences. I also found the idea of "ransomed" captives curious. Did the captors see it as "ransoming" too, or was it just selling for them? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I also found the accounts of the two women taken captive interesting. Since most Native American stories and traditions were passed down orally rather than written I think it's important to use these accounts to add to Native American History. I think that you can neither believe all, some or none with what you read with these accounts. I would be more skeptical of the male accounts since they were observing based on their beliefs of what women's roles should be. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
European culture coming to the "new" world did destroy in part the Native American way of life and structure. This group of people had a system of justice (chiefs and councils) and the men and women had a working relationship that is so rarely seen in other cultures that was basically demoralized by these new settlers. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I think it is important to note that a culture will not change if one attempts to force that change upon the people of that culture (unless you kill them, then they give in pretty easily to your new customs). The men in these tribal systems had to have some predisposed ability to get rid of their way of life or they would have been killed or been fighting against it (which did happen, plenty were killed and plenty fault simply because of a difference of cultural beliefs). --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the first chapter of Woloch’s book quite interesting, and it seems to shed some light on the varying social structures between the American natives and the European colonists. In many native tribes, it was customary for the women to not only play the wife, mother and housekeeper role, but they were the main agriculturists for the tribes as well. Viewed as being savage by the colonists, these native women were only doing what they considered to be their “fair share” of the duties. Although their work was considered hard and strenuous just as well as the men’s, they were still accustomed to performing those duties and they were still responsible for everything else involving family life. They were not forced into slave labor, nor were they forced to remain in their relationships or marriages when they became unhappy. In comparison to the white women settlers, I feel as if the native women had more rights and freedoms than they did. In some cases, native women were even allowed to serve as council members. It’s amazing to see how much culture and environment has an effect on an overall perspective and way of life. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is extremely important to remember that the majority of resources available concerning the lives of Native American women are written by European men. The reason is that the Native American tribes did not have their own written language which I found extremely surprising. Some of the sources written by the Europeans are better than others. For example, it is interesting how Samuel de Champlain describes the Huron women as doing most of the work and serving as "mules" for their husbands, while their husbands simply hunt and go to war. However, John Heckewelder observed Delaware Indian families and came to a different conclusion, that women were in fact "cheerfully" accepting their fair share of labor and were not in a manner being treated as slaves. It is interesting to note that Champlain wrote his account in 1616 while Heckewelder wrote his in the mid eighteenth century. I wonder if this passage of time had an effect on the perceptions of the English, or if the two simply had different points of view. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the introduction to "First Encounters" in Woloch's book, she mentions that "During the era of colonization, Europeans at home and abroad had an insatiable curiosity about the New World." Perhaps it is possible that the sources we do have on Native American women are exaggerated in order to appeal to this rabid public. For example, John Smith's third account in which Pocahontas saves him from being killed is much more interesting to readers than his first account describing diplomacy. Another example would be Mary Rowlandson, who completely demonized the Native Americans and disregards any act of kindness. She describes them as a "scourge" and as having "inhumane, and many times devilish cruelty to the English." These incredibly harsh words would surely pique the interest of the European public as well. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
So little is known about the complex and diverse group of Native American women. How much should we trust the accounts of literate white men and women? How can we be sure that we recieve an unaltered and unbiased view of these women's lives? We cannot, thus, it is imperative that we take an objective eye when reading others narritives on a people without a clear voice in our history books. Although it is interesting and beneficial to compare the differing accounts of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson we do not have the accounts from their captors. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I would say we are probably getting a very biased account of the lives of Native American women, when our impression is filtered through the culture of white Americans. In the case of these two readings, I think we can try to determine how strong the bias was, and what kind of bias the authors held, by looking at their individual circumstances. These two writers had very different experiences, which shaped their view of the Native Americans with whom they lived. I think, in general, Mary Jemison's account is probably more historically reliable because she was taken captive at a younger age, when her impressions of the world were still being formed and maybe still malleable. She also learned the local language and came to respect the people with whom she lived. Mary Rowlandson did not assimilate this way, or make the same connections with her captors. -- Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I found Mary Rowlandson account to be very interesting because most of the accounts about Native American captures have the captives not wanting to return to white society like Mary Jemison’s account. Most people never wanted to leave the community that they became a part of but Mary Rowlandson had the opposite experience. It’s interesting to see both sides. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
In chapter one of Woloch, it is said that “all tribes adhered to a gendered division of the labor.” This division of labor was very interesting to the Europeans who wrote about Indian life, as women had many responsibilities that required hard labor. John Heckewelder didn’t seem to have much respect for the Native American women or of “savage life” in general. He talks of the women harshly saying: their “labours… are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society; but they are no more than their fair share…” This opinion is opposed by Samuel de Champlain who is harsher on the Native American men saying they “do nothing but hunt for deer and other animals…make cabins and go to war.” This seems a healthy list of duties to me, but compared to the long list Champlain provided of the women’s duties, it seems small and of little consequence. Some European accounts of Indian life seem to think that these tasks seem fair and are often shared among the men and women out of respect to each other. This respect between the two sexes seems to be somewhat universal in many of the essays. Both women and men alike have a say in the government, particularly among the Iroquois. I was surprised that this seemed less shocking to the Europeans than the amount of work the Native American women did. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading Heckewelder's account of the division of labor and responsibility within Delaware Indian families, I was struck by the parallels and differences between the narrative of an American non-Native American woman and that of a Native American woman. While Native American men performed the majority of the more intense physical labor, women also had responsibilities that took them out of the house and allowed them to play a key role in the foodgathering. Additionally, the fact that the parents of both interested parties would bring food that had been caught/grown by their child fascinated me, because unlike the European/early US model of women's worth, a woman in Native American societies brought to the marriage her skill sets as related to food growth and scavenging, and those skills played an important role in finding a partner. In European tradition, a woman would bring to a marriage the dowry that her father/family could afford, bringing to the table on her own behalf only her character and looks. In assessing a potential daughter-in-law's farming and cooking skills, parents could consider more than charm. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the account of John Heckewelder and the way in which he described the gender roles of the Delaware Indian Families. Heckewelder was thorough in his descriptions about the work of the women. However, he was always quick to compare their labor with that of the men and made it clear that the women's work was inferior. Because the men were out hunting, they were doing work in which "their existence depend[ed]" (32). It is evident by looking at this text that Heckewelder was assessing the Native Americans through the lens of the static European gender roles that existed at the time. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
The European accounts of the Native American marriages, I found very interesting. Samuel de Champlain describes it as “a sort of marriage” while Heckelwelder looks down upon it: “Marriages among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life; it is understood…that the parties are not to live together any longer than they shall be pleased with each other.” It seems that there was a lot of, for lack of a better term, “sleeping around” and that children could “not be sure of being legitimate. What I found more interesting than anything else were the personal accounts of the two women who had been taken captive. I found myself asking myself what I would have done in that situation. Mary Rowlandson obviously disliked her captors, though her opinion of them may have changes slightly in their moments of kindness. Rowlandson had a husband and other family members waiting for her at a home she had already formed roots in. Her captors were her enemies and she naturally thought poorly of them. Mary Jemison’s scenario is more unique. She was young when she was taken and when given the chance to be free, she chose to stay with her adopted Indian family. Did she stay out of convenience because she had nothing to go home to? -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I, as well, thought the impression of marriage was of importance. I mean, what even were Native American marriages like? I don't know, but I can assume they didn't entail the sort of things we post-Victorian romantics assign to them. I especially thought it was of importance to note the article which discussed jumping from hut to hut with the acquiesce of ones' spouse. Although it was probably meant to detail just how barbaric and promiscious the Natives were, it also reinfornces my point that even the European's marriages were not what we are naturally inclined to think of them as. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I thought that their marriage traditions were very complex. They have all of the traditions that go along with marriage and I think that they are very remarkable that all of their traditions were upheld. These traditions are more intricate than the English and it is quite remarkable. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting (and a little humorous) that John Tanner was purchased for whiskey, blankets, tobacco and "other articles of great value". It seems to have been customary during this time, for a mother that had lost a child, to go out and be able to trade items for "new" children. Times have definitely changed.. -- Matt<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
The Native American men wanted the women to become baptized. From what we've read, the women for the most part, seemed to have a good bit of power and did almost everything to keep everything running and well kept, yet the men are blaming the women for all of their misfortunes? - Matt<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the passage “Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640,” it begins by saying that “They [Native American men] resolved to call together the women, to urge them to be instructed and to receive holy Baptism.” One of my questions is: Why was it that the men were more receptive to the Jesuit’s Christianity than women? And more importantly, did that have anything to do with the difference in gender expectations of Christian and Native American culture? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640," was the woman at the end of the passage who leaves the tribe to protest against conversion. I also found it interesting how the English went after her and after they could not find her allowed her to punish herself by going four days without food because some of my readings for my Early Colonial History course suggest that Native Americans were perfectly fine without food for a few days. Also, knowing how the men of the tribe respected their women and treated them about equally, I wonder why these men would still insist upon conversion to Christianity if the women were so against it?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-07T20:17:15Z<p>KayleP: /* Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
<br />
What do these primary sources reveal about the nature of women's experiences in colonial-era interactions?<br />
<br />
The arrival of Europeans can truly mark the end of one people's way of life through conforming to a foreign model of religion and social structure demonstrated through changing gender roles. Through many of these early encounters as well as from ''The First Ship'' reading that both parties view of each other was completely alien. As told my Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison, it is evident the social structure that they were forced into was foreign with gender roles carried out in a nontraditional sense. These contrasts, in ways of life sharply decline, as seen in the story of Sarah Ahhaton were she was made to feel remorseful for her adulterous actions. Actions that some fifty years early would have "incur no ill repute or insult" according to Champlain. It is clear that when Europeans arrived in America they encountered a people whose female members shared a mutual respect with male members, maintaining positions of power in both the public and private world. Although, documentation throughout this time was heavily biased, the permanent shift in culture and life ways for the Native Americans is abundantly clear. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
Woloch says that all tribes had a gendered division of labor, but doesn't Brooks' essay claim that, at least in Navajo tribes, a lot of labor was gender-integrated? I wonder how much different divisions of labor impacted captive women's experiences. I also found the idea of "ransomed" captives curious. Did the captors see it as "ransoming" too, or was it just selling for them? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I also found the accounts of the two women taken captive interesting. Since most Native American stories and traditions were passed down orally rather than written I think it's important to use these accounts to add to Native American History. I think that you can neither believe all, some or none with what you read with these accounts. I would be more skeptical of the male accounts since they were observing based on their beliefs of what women's roles should be. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
European culture coming to the "new" world did destroy in part the Native American way of life and structure. This group of people had a system of justice (chiefs and councils) and the men and women had a working relationship that is so rarely seen in other cultures that was basically demoralized by these new settlers. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I think it is important to note that a culture will not change if one attempts to force that change upon the people of that culture (unless you kill them, then they give in pretty easily to your new customs). The men in these tribal systems had to have some predisposed ability to get rid of their way of life or they would have been killed or been fighting against it (which did happen, plenty were killed and plenty fault simply because of a difference of cultural beliefs). --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the first chapter of Woloch’s book quite interesting, and it seems to shed some light on the varying social structures between the American natives and the European colonists. In many native tribes, it was customary for the women to not only play the wife, mother and housekeeper role, but they were the main agriculturists for the tribes as well. Viewed as being savage by the colonists, these native women were only doing what they considered to be their “fair share” of the duties. Although their work was considered hard and strenuous just as well as the men’s, they were still accustomed to performing those duties and they were still responsible for everything else involving family life. They were not forced into slave labor, nor were they forced to remain in their relationships or marriages when they became unhappy. In comparison to the white women settlers, I feel as if the native women had more rights and freedoms than they did. In some cases, native women were even allowed to serve as council members. It’s amazing to see how much culture and environment has an effect on an overall perspective and way of life. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is extremely important to remember that the majority of resources available concerning the lives of Native American women are written by European men. The reason is that the Native American tribes did not have their own written language which I found extremely surprising. Some of the sources written by the Europeans are better than others. For example, it is interesting how Samuel de Champlain describes the Huron women as doing most of the work and serving as "mules" for their husbands, while their husbands simply hunt and go to war. However, John Heckewelder observed Delaware Indian families and came to a different conclusion, that women were in fact "cheerfully" accepting their fair share of labor and were not in a manner being treated as slaves. It is interesting to note that Champlain wrote his account in 1616 while Heckewelder wrote his in the mid eighteenth century. I wonder if this passage of time had an effect on the perceptions of the English, or if the two simply had different points of view. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the introduction to "First Encounters" in Woloch's book, she mentions that "During the era of colonization, Europeans at home and abroad had an insatiable curiosity about the New World." Perhaps it is possible that the sources we do have on Native American women are exaggerated in order to appeal to this rabid public. For example, John Smith's third account in which Pocahontas saves him from being killed is much more interesting to readers than his first account describing diplomacy. Another example would be Mary Rowlandson, who completely demonized the Native Americans and disregards any act of kindness. She describes them as a "scourge" and as having "inhumane, and many times devilish cruelty to the English." These incredibly harsh words would surely pique the interest of the European public as well. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
So little is known about the complex and diverse group of Native American women. How much should we trust the accounts of literate white men and women? How can we be sure that we recieve an unaltered and unbiased view of these women's lives? We cannot, thus, it is imperative that we take an objective eye when reading others narritives on a people without a clear voice in our history books. Although it is interesting and beneficial to compare the differing accounts of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson we do not have the accounts from their captors. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I would say we are probably getting a very biased account of the lives of Native American women, when our impression is filtered through the culture of white Americans. In the case of these two readings, I think we can try to determine how strong the bias was, and what kind of bias the authors held, by looking at their individual circumstances. These two writers had very different experiences, which shaped their view of the Native Americans with whom they lived. I think, in general, Mary Jemison's account is probably more historically reliable because she was taken captive at a younger age, when her impressions of the world were still being formed and maybe still malleable. She also learned the local language and came to respect the people with whom she lived. Mary Rowlandson did not assimilate this way, or make the same connections with her captors. -- Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I found Mary Rowlandson account to be very interesting because most of the accounts about Native American captures have the captives not wanting to return to white society like Mary Jemison’s account. Most people never wanted to leave the community that they became a part of but Mary Rowlandson had the opposite experience. It’s interesting to see both sides. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
In chapter one of Woloch, it is said that “all tribes adhered to a gendered division of the labor.” This division of labor was very interesting to the Europeans who wrote about Indian life, as women had many responsibilities that required hard labor. John Heckewelder didn’t seem to have much respect for the Native American women or of “savage life” in general. He talks of the women harshly saying: their “labours… are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society; but they are no more than their fair share…” This opinion is opposed by Samuel de Champlain who is harsher on the Native American men saying they “do nothing but hunt for deer and other animals…make cabins and go to war.” This seems a healthy list of duties to me, but compared to the long list Champlain provided of the women’s duties, it seems small and of little consequence. Some European accounts of Indian life seem to think that these tasks seem fair and are often shared among the men and women out of respect to each other. This respect between the two sexes seems to be somewhat universal in many of the essays. Both women and men alike have a say in the government, particularly among the Iroquois. I was surprised that this seemed less shocking to the Europeans than the amount of work the Native American women did. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading Heckewelder's account of the division of labor and responsibility within Delaware Indian families, I was struck by the parallels and differences between the narrative of an American non-Native American woman and that of a Native American woman. While Native American men performed the majority of the more intense physical labor, women also had responsibilities that took them out of the house and allowed them to play a key role in the foodgathering. Additionally, the fact that the parents of both interested parties would bring food that had been caught/grown by their child fascinated me, because unlike the European/early US model of women's worth, a woman in Native American societies brought to the marriage her skill sets as related to food growth and scavenging, and those skills played an important role in finding a partner. In European tradition, a woman would bring to a marriage the dowry that her father/family could afford, bringing to the table on her own behalf only her character and looks. In assessing a potential daughter-in-law's farming and cooking skills, parents could consider more than charm. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the account of John Heckewelder and the way in which he described the gender roles of the Delaware Indian Families. Heckewelder was thorough in his descriptions about the work of the women. However, he was always quick to compare their labor with that of the men and made it clear that the women's work was inferior. Because the men were out hunting, they were doing work in which "their existence depend[ed]" (32). It is evident by looking at this text that Heckewelder was assessing the Native Americans through the lens of the static European gender roles that existed at the time. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
The European accounts of the Native American marriages, I found very interesting. Samuel de Champlain describes it as “a sort of marriage” while Heckelwelder looks down upon it: “Marriages among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life; it is understood…that the parties are not to live together any longer than they shall be pleased with each other.” It seems that there was a lot of, for lack of a better term, “sleeping around” and that children could “not be sure of being legitimate. What I found more interesting than anything else were the personal accounts of the two women who had been taken captive. I found myself asking myself what I would have done in that situation. Mary Rowlandson obviously disliked her captors, though her opinion of them may have changes slightly in their moments of kindness. Rowlandson had a husband and other family members waiting for her at a home she had already formed roots in. Her captors were her enemies and she naturally thought poorly of them. Mary Jemison’s scenario is more unique. She was young when she was taken and when given the chance to be free, she chose to stay with her adopted Indian family. Did she stay out of convenience because she had nothing to go home to? -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I, as well, thought the impression of marriage was of importance. I mean, what even were Native American marriages like? I don't know, but I can assume they didn't entail the sort of things we post-Victorian romantics assign to them. I especially thought it was of importance to note the article which discussed jumping from hut to hut with the acquiesce of ones' spouse. Although it was probably meant to detail just how barbaric and promiscious the Natives were, it also reinfornces my point that even the European's marriages were not what we are naturally inclined to think of them as. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting (and a little humorous) that John Tanner was purchased for whiskey, blankets, tobacco and "other articles of great value". It seems to have been customary during this time, for a mother that had lost a child, to go out and be able to trade items for "new" children. Times have definitely changed.. -- Matt<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
The Native American men wanted the women to become baptized. From what we've read, the women for the most part, seemed to have a good bit of power and did almost everything to keep everything running and well kept, yet the men are blaming the women for all of their misfortunes? - Matt<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the passage “Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640,” it begins by saying that “They [Native American men] resolved to call together the women, to urge them to be instructed and to receive holy Baptism.” One of my questions is: Why was it that the men were more receptive to the Jesuit’s Christianity than women? And more importantly, did that have anything to do with the difference in gender expectations of Christian and Native American culture? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640," was the woman at the end of the passage who leaves the tribe to protest against conversion. I also found it interesting how the English went after her and after they could not find her allowed her to punish herself by going four days without food because some of my readings for my Early Colonial History course suggest that Native Americans were perfectly fine without food for a few days. Also, knowing how the men of the tribe respected their women and treated them about equally, I wonder why these men would still insist upon conversion to Christianity if the women were so against it?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-01T04:26:05Z<p>KayleP: /* Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
What really struck me about these readings is the conflict between gender history, women's history, and their subdivisions. It seems that none of these disciplines can never satisfy the historical audience because of the attention, or lack of attention, given to a specific person or groups of persons. I was also struck by how women's history had to work to stand alone from general history, but then lacked the consideration of women of different races and cultures. Is this issue still prevalent today? Or has the topic of women's history evolved beyond this issue?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
Being the second time I have been required to read this section (which is why I was so quick about posting) I have to comment on the fact that the concept of social history and its restraints have a larger meaning to me now, further in my education, than they did the first time I read this. Being primarily a Religion major, it is easy to see how different perspectives and different outlooks on gender, race, socioeconomic class, culture and community play a huge role in the shape of the story of history. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
All the texts within the reading seem to have this common bond of striving to rise from oppression in order to reach this goal of acceptance within a scholarly world dominated by white males. Interestingly enough, once white women find this acceptance they are reluctant to fully encompass all women through race and culture. It seems to me that the once oppressed (white women) have now become the oppressor in an attempt to maintain their position of power with their male counterparts. By the end of it all where do black women fit in? For the are treated like second class citizens by their fellow females as well as in their culture define by a public "world" and domestic "sphere" that is exclusively male dominated. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In the intro the editor asks the question: “is it possible to take the same approach to writing a comprehensive history of all of America’s women, or must historians employ different categories of analysis for different groups while simultaneously avoiding dichotomous thinking?” After reading the four articles, I believe the field is still not sure how to answer the question. In the first essay Haulman explains the history of women’s history, and how the study of women opened more research on other subjects. While creating a new way to look at the past, women’s history also invited other areas to be explored, like, race and class. While race and class contribute to the study, they also complicate women’s history. It is interesting to look at women’s history is at the same time unifying and dividing. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting points in the Kate Haulman’s essay is her idea of gender roles and how certain activities are deemed to be fit for one gender and not the other. She asks “If a man knits, is he still a “man”? And is knitting still “woman’s” work?” It would be interesting to see how the field of gender studies addresses the blurring of gender roles that has become more and more prevalent in recent years. For example, would a stay at home dad be considered a man since he is taking on a domestic job traditionally viewed as feminine? Or would a breadwinning woman be viewed in masculine terms? -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
When reading through these articles, I noticed a distinct parallel between the Haulman and Bock essays, and another between the Castaneda and Alexander essays. Although all four essays focused on the oppression of women and the need to focus on American Women’s History, Haulman and Bock’s essays focused on American Women’s History in general, whereas Castaneda and Alexander’s essays seemed more racially motivated rather than gender oriented. I found the approaches that all 4 women took interesting, especially Haulman’s approach by actually breaking down the meaning of each word in “American Women’s History”. It really made me think how the simple breakdown of each word categorizes American women’s history as a whole. Which women were considered American? Were African-American women considered American? Or Mexican-American women? What is the definition of American? Does it mean to be born a citizen of the nation, or maybe minority women weren’t considered American at all because they had no rights under the constitution. In all essence, even white middle class women lacked specific rights under the Constitution, because the document was geared mainly for male dominance. I commend Castaneda and Alexander for their drives to seek equality for minority women in history, however I feel as if to be seeking equality, the terms must be equal as well. For example, Alexander states that “feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model is not applicable….” I understand the racial differences between the two groups, but when speaking out about feminism as a whole, I believe it is important for women to maintain together as one large group, not broken down into varying divisions. By maintaining one single large group, I feel as though more of an impact can be made. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman ==<br />
<br />
I found many things in the first essay, by Kate Haulman, to be very interesting. I had never before questioned or even considered the definition of “woman” or “female”. On page four when she comments on Lerner’s suggestion of assessing male and female cultures at the intersection of said cultures. She says the approach of “add women and stir” would keep women marginalized from history rather than part of the whole. Haulman also touches upon the fact that one woman does not represent the whole. When including women in the study of history we must take into account factors such as race, religion, income, etc. On page five, Haulman makes a very interesting reference to an essay by Joan Wallach Scott in which she calls for “…the consideration of “woman”, “female”, and “feminine” as concepts shaped by the societies in which they existed, rather than static realities.” I found this reference to be very interesting as well as completely true. --Emma C.<br />
<br />
The essay by Haulman struck me as a timeline of sorts, wherein she details the progression of approaches towards women’s history in America. She lays out an evolution from a focus on “noteworthy women” to the lives of the supposedly average woman and finally to “Gender Studies” where the specification is that it is no longer a women’s only area of study. I may be oversimplifying, but this progression sounds a great deal like the evolution of the study of human history in general. Some of the earliest works of history where on notable figures, such as saints and rulers, and then ventured into the study of individuals and further into a study of how “humanity” is even defined. Like I said, that is a simplified example, but as I was reading the comparison kept reoccurring to me and seemed worthy of a public comment. -- Cammy C.<br />
<br />
The dichotomy of sex vs. gender is one that fascinates me, because--like many of the dichotomies/questions Haulman mentions--it applies equally to men and to women. Women's or domestic spheres have increasingly been addressed, if not taught, in history classes in middle and high school. However, the way in which gender roles affected not only women but men ("If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still 'woman's' work?"[p.5]), and the way in which women's history has, historically, been almost entirely the history of upper-class white women, are both significant issues that I have never before considered. I'm embarrassed for an American Women's History class I took in high school, which focused on middle- to upper-class white women in the United States of America, with no mention of precolonial women at all. At the time, that seemed logical to me; however, seeing how many preconceptions and assumptions went into that, (all women represented by white upper-class women; America as synonymous with the US; gender and sex as equivalent in terms of social roles, etc.) it occurs to me that in fact that class covered the much narrower scope of "Great actions of a few white, biologically female, Anglophone United States citizens/residents." And that sounds like a significantly less interesting class. --Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
"Add women and stir". This is probably one of the most interesting lines in all of Haulman's essay. It sums up her idea that when scholars first began to pay more attention to women's contributions and achievements in history, they only focused on noteworthy women who had done something outside of the norm and in the realm of the male word. The accomplishments of a few, exceptional, white, middle/upper-class, women were the only representation of women we saw in history. There was little to no significance given to the everyday lives of women at all. However now, with the idea of gender studies scholar have begun "to consider 'man' or 'male' as a topic of inquiry, not the assumed and moral standard against which all other form of identity were measured"(p.5) To me, this is an idea that is not really ever addressed. We can easily say that there are many women of the past who we now hold is high esteem, but Haulman is quite right to point out that most of the notable women of the past are notable because they were either connected to a powerful man (like Abigail Adams), they did something during a significant time period (Clara Barton and the Civil War), or because they accomplished something in an area usually reserved for men ( Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie for physics). This idea of placing women in a "separate sphere" will, I think, do much for the study of women's history because it will allow more for the appreciation of the average women in her everyday life. -- Grace Christenson<br />
<br />
"Defining 'American Women's History'" was my favorite section to read in this week's assigned pages. The first thing that stuck out to me is on page 2, "Scholars initially sought out 'notable women,' or 'women worthies,' to study, exceptional individuals who nonetheless remained largely invisible within traditional histories." It is very true that women were given attention only if they were wealthy, married or related to a notable man, or made a remarkable accomplishment. A passage that also stuck out to me was when Haulman admitted that early women's history focused on white upperclass women who were from good areas. These women were supposed to be your ideal, everyday, normal female. You don't have to be a genius to know that wasn't the way life really was. My favorite part of the passage was on page six. Haulman attempted to define the term "American." She stated that many people have a different meaning of the word. Some consider it to only mean people from the United States, while others may include Mexicans or Native Americans. She made it very evident of how important it is for someone to define the term so the reader knows who exactly you are talking about. -- Ashley Valentine<br />
<br />
“In order to write ‘American’ women’s history, scholars must ask what meaning and uses the term had for women in the past and why.” This struck me when I was reading simply because it would have never occurred to me to define women, in the past or in the present. “Woman” is just a word that is part of most people’s vocabulary and with a commonly accepted definition so having to define it would be difficult. However to study it, it would be the first step. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
On page 11 in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock the author mentions "The concept 'gender' has been introduced into women's history and women's studies in the 1970s as a social, cultural, political and historical category, in order to express the insight that women's subordination, inferiroity and powerlessness are not dictated by nature, but are social cultural, politcal and historical constructions." To me, this can be expanded to inlcude all other categories of identities (i.e. race, sexuality, culture, etc.) and is behind the complexity found in historical study. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The first thing that really jumped out at me in reading was on page 10 under Public versus private. "Male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared and cared for my women's labour". This is entirely true, even in most cases today. Personally speaking as one of the few males in this class, I know that the person I've become, is almost entirely because of my mother and her availability to me growing up. -- Matt<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's article made some of my favorite points from this reading. I agree with the assertion she seems to be making that dichotomies are not sufficient, and that in order to truly understand the history of any group, the subjects of study need to be given credit for greater subtlety in their lives than any dichotomy allows. The idea of "public vs. private" for example; Bock points out that women's work in the "private sphere" shaped the public sphere, because it was women whose parenting had the greatest effect on the men who occupied the "public" sphere. So, women were working in the public sphere as well, but simply in a different way then were the men they influenced. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
The term gender as being more than just a way to distinguish between male and female. The article discusses the affect that is had on the social history of women’s study, relating back to Haulman’s essay and back to the nature and culture dichotomies. It makes me wonder why it becomes understood outside of the field of women’s studies that sex now meant “‘biological’ and ‘gender’ as ‘social’ or cultural…” –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Castaneda ==<br />
<br />
A repeated theme in these essays was the need to move beyond a dichotomous framework for understanding women's history (women are more than just non-males, whiteness and maleness should not be considered the norm). The Castaneda essay was a little thorny for me because, while encouraging historians to seek cultural roots in precolonial norms, she refers several times to "third-world nations." Isn't this phrase in itself reinforcing a dichotomy? --Stefanie L.<br />
<br />
Castenada showed me an angle to women’s history that I doubt would ever have crossed my mind otherwise. Unlike Alexander’s later essay on the similar topic of the relationship between race and gender studies, Castenada seemed to put more emphasis than I would have thought of on colonialism and the origin of races to explain why typical women’s studies was not adequate to describe the history of women of color. I understand that grasping the struggles of third worlds can help women with a related ancestry identify with their roots more than woman’s studies and its habit of being more focused on white women. However, that separation of studies reminded me of dichotomies shown in Bock’s essay that she said needed to be challenged into reconciliation of the sides, rather than allow separation. -- Cammy C.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alexander ==<br />
<br />
In Alexander’s article she states, “Early studies of race and gender failed to recognize that race does not only operate as an additional oppressive force but it also forms the foundation of how Black women live their daily lives, and what kinds of liberation strategies they embrace (pg.20)” This quote stands out because it emphasizes that race is not an oppressive force but an identity. The strong ties Black women have to their race affect them just as much as being women. Their race sets their experiences apart from other women. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the differences between the early written records (pre 1975) of white and black woman's histories fascinating. By comparing the different articles it can be ascertained that historically histories written about white women focus on child rearing, giving birth and homemaking; whereas histories written about black woman focus on sexuality and their "role" as whores and vehicles for sex. Interestingly, although different, both histories focus on woman's relationship with and influence on white men proving that woman’s significance and history was synonymous with the history of white men. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I found the second article in our reading very interesting. What does it really mean to be a "working mother"? When I was younger, I had a friend who had a "stay at home mom." I am still close to this friend and I can see how close she is with her mom and I am almost envious of their relationship (my mom works outside the home). I also saw how much her mom did around the house (chores, tutored one of her children, nannied other children, cooked,etc.) all without getting paid. <br />
<br />
I also liked the "Women of Color" article by Antonia I. Castaneda. In a sociology class I had, I learned that white men often carry the stereotype that Black women are exotic/forbidden/loose. I find this ironic because White slaveholders had relationships with their Black women slaves. <br />
<br />
Finally, I was interested to read about gender equality vs physiological difference and how gender roles are socially constructed throughout history. What/who determine's men's and women's roles? <br />
<br />
--Catherine Kennedy<br />
<br />
<br />
Alexander writes that "you cannot divorce the Black woman from the community; if you do not understand the black community you will not understand the Black woman." This statement reminds me of a previous class in which we discussed the Second Sex by Simone de Beauvior. She wrote that men are viewed as the "one" while women are viewed as the "other," however women cannot "organize themselves as a unit" because there is nothing concrete binding them, and they often relate more to the men of their race/religion/ethnicity/etc. than other women that are different. Alexander mentions this idea by stating that it has been argued that "race and class created a chasm that made a singular, unified womanhood impossible." -- Clare O'Brien<br />
<br />
Alexander's article built on those prior--particularly Castaneda's--by further noting the "conflation of 'woman' with 'white woman.'[p.19] Alexander points out, quite correctly, that the conflation she refers to frustrated black women scholars seeking a more balanced history of women. In fact, by allowing "woman" to be synonymous with "white woman," historians further marginalized black women, essentially stripping them of the right to call themselves "women" (that term referring, of course, to upper-class white female US citizens). In choosing to so narrow the scope of what constituted womanhood, early feminist historians disenfranchised whole groups of the populace of the very basic right of sex (and gender?) identity. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that Alexander felt that most women would put race before gender, in how they identify themselves. As she said in her essay "..although Black women's experiences may be gender, they are shaped most compellingly by their role as members of the Black community." This also fed into her discussion of the importance of looking at the history of Black women separately from that of white women's. She made it clear that it is impossible for gender to "privilege" over race. It is interesting that in Haulman's essay, she mentions so often the "bonds of womanhood" and how women are brought together by the experiences they share, but in Alexanders essay, she seems to reject the idea that ALL women can be linked together, but that only certain groups of women can be bonded. --Grace Christenson</div>KaylePhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-01T04:25:43Z<p>KayleP: /* Kate Haulman */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
What really struck me about these readings is the conflict between gender history, women's history, and their subdivisions. It seems that none of these disciplines can never satisfy the historical audience because of the attention, or lack of attention, given to a specific person or groups of persons. I was also struck by how women's history had to work to stand alone from general history, but then lacked the consideration of women of different races and cultures. Is this issue still prevalent today? Or has the topic of women's history evolved beyond this issue?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
Being the second time I have been required to read this section (which is why I was so quick about posting) I have to comment on the fact that the concept of social history and its restraints have a larger meaning to me now, further in my education, than they did the first time I read this. Being primarily a Religion major, it is easy to see how different perspectives and different outlooks on gender, race, socioeconomic class, culture and community play a huge role in the shape of the story of history. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
All the texts within the reading seem to have this common bond of striving to rise from oppression in order to reach this goal of acceptance within a scholarly world dominated by white males. Interestingly enough, once white women find this acceptance they are reluctant to fully encompass all women through race and culture. It seems to me that the once oppressed (white women) have now become the oppressor in an attempt to maintain their position of power with their male counterparts. By the end of it all where do black women fit in? For the are treated like second class citizens by their fellow females as well as in their culture define by a public "world" and domestic "sphere" that is exclusively male dominated. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In the intro the editor asks the question: “is it possible to take the same approach to writing a comprehensive history of all of America’s women, or must historians employ different categories of analysis for different groups while simultaneously avoiding dichotomous thinking?” After reading the four articles, I believe the field is still not sure how to answer the question. In the first essay Haulman explains the history of women’s history, and how the study of women opened more research on other subjects. While creating a new way to look at the past, women’s history also invited other areas to be explored, like, race and class. While race and class contribute to the study, they also complicate women’s history. It is interesting to look at women’s history is at the same time unifying and dividing. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting points in the Kate Haulman’s essay is her idea of gender roles and how certain activities are deemed to be fit for one gender and not the other. She asks “If a man knits, is he still a “man”? And is knitting still “woman’s” work?” It would be interesting to see how the field of gender studies addresses the blurring of gender roles that has become more and more prevalent in recent years. For example, would a stay at home dad be considered a man since he is taking on a domestic job traditionally viewed as feminine? Or would a breadwinning woman be viewed in masculine terms? -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
When reading through these articles, I noticed a distinct parallel between the Haulman and Bock essays, and another between the Castaneda and Alexander essays. Although all four essays focused on the oppression of women and the need to focus on American Women’s History, Haulman and Bock’s essays focused on American Women’s History in general, whereas Castaneda and Alexander’s essays seemed more racially motivated rather than gender oriented. I found the approaches that all 4 women took interesting, especially Haulman’s approach by actually breaking down the meaning of each word in “American Women’s History”. It really made me think how the simple breakdown of each word categorizes American women’s history as a whole. Which women were considered American? Were African-American women considered American? Or Mexican-American women? What is the definition of American? Does it mean to be born a citizen of the nation, or maybe minority women weren’t considered American at all because they had no rights under the constitution. In all essence, even white middle class women lacked specific rights under the Constitution, because the document was geared mainly for male dominance. I commend Castaneda and Alexander for their drives to seek equality for minority women in history, however I feel as if to be seeking equality, the terms must be equal as well. For example, Alexander states that “feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model is not applicable….” I understand the racial differences between the two groups, but when speaking out about feminism as a whole, I believe it is important for women to maintain together as one large group, not broken down into varying divisions. By maintaining one single large group, I feel as though more of an impact can be made. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman ==<br />
<br />
I found many things in the first essay, by Kate Haulman, to be very interesting. I had never before questioned or even considered the definition of “woman” or “female”. On page four when she comments on Lerner’s suggestion of assessing male and female cultures at the intersection of said cultures. She says the approach of “add women and stir” would keep women marginalized from history rather than part of the whole. Haulman also touches upon the fact that one woman does not represent the whole. When including women in the study of history we must take into account factors such as race, religion, income, etc. On page five, Haulman makes a very interesting reference to an essay by Joan Wallach Scott in which she calls for “…the consideration of “woman”, “female”, and “feminine” as concepts shaped by the societies in which they existed, rather than static realities.” I found this reference to be very interesting as well as completely true. --Emma C.<br />
<br />
The essay by Haulman struck me as a timeline of sorts, wherein she details the progression of approaches towards women’s history in America. She lays out an evolution from a focus on “noteworthy women” to the lives of the supposedly average woman and finally to “Gender Studies” where the specification is that it is no longer a women’s only area of study. I may be oversimplifying, but this progression sounds a great deal like the evolution of the study of human history in general. Some of the earliest works of history where on notable figures, such as saints and rulers, and then ventured into the study of individuals and further into a study of how “humanity” is even defined. Like I said, that is a simplified example, but as I was reading the comparison kept reoccurring to me and seemed worthy of a public comment. -- Cammy C.<br />
<br />
The dichotomy of sex vs. gender is one that fascinates me, because--like many of the dichotomies/questions Haulman mentions--it applies equally to men and to women. Women's or domestic spheres have increasingly been addressed, if not taught, in history classes in middle and high school. However, the way in which gender roles affected not only women but men ("If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still 'woman's' work?"[p.5]), and the way in which women's history has, historically, been almost entirely the history of upper-class white women, are both significant issues that I have never before considered. I'm embarrassed for an American Women's History class I took in high school, which focused on middle- to upper-class white women in the United States of America, with no mention of precolonial women at all. At the time, that seemed logical to me; however, seeing how many preconceptions and assumptions went into that, (all women represented by white upper-class women; America as synonymous with the US; gender and sex as equivalent in terms of social roles, etc.) it occurs to me that in fact that class covered the much narrower scope of "Great actions of a few white, biologically female, Anglophone United States citizens/residents." And that sounds like a significantly less interesting class. --Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
"Add women and stir". This is probably one of the most interesting lines in all of Haulman's essay. It sums up her idea that when scholars first began to pay more attention to women's contributions and achievements in history, they only focused on noteworthy women who had done something outside of the norm and in the realm of the male word. The accomplishments of a few, exceptional, white, middle/upper-class, women were the only representation of women we saw in history. There was little to no significance given to the everyday lives of women at all. However now, with the idea of gender studies scholar have begun "to consider 'man' or 'male' as a topic of inquiry, not the assumed and moral standard against which all other form of identity were measured"(p.5) To me, this is an idea that is not really ever addressed. We can easily say that there are many women of the past who we now hold is high esteem, but Haulman is quite right to point out that most of the notable women of the past are notable because they were either connected to a powerful man (like Abigail Adams), they did something during a significant time period (Clara Barton and the Civil War), or because they accomplished something in an area usually reserved for men ( Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie for physics). This idea of placing women in a "separate sphere" will, I think, do much for the study of women's history because it will allow more for the appreciation of the average women in her everyday life. -- Grace Christenson<br />
<br />
"Defining 'American Women's History'" was my favorite section to read in this week's assigned pages. The first thing that stuck out to me is on page 2, "Scholars initially sought out 'notable women,' or 'women worthies,' to study, exceptional individuals who nonetheless remained largely invisible within traditional histories." It is very true that women were given attention only if they were wealthy, married or related to a notable man, or made a remarkable accomplishment. A passage that also stuck out to me was when Haulman admitted that early women's history focused on white upperclass women who were from good areas. These women were supposed to be your ideal, everyday, normal female. You don't have to be a genius to know that wasn't the way life really was. My favorite part of the passage was on page six. Haulman attempted to define the term "American." She stated that many people have a different meaning of the word. Some consider it to only mean people from the United States, while others may include Mexicans or Native Americans. She made it very evident of how important it is for someone to define the term so the reader knows who exactly you are talking about. -- Ashley Valentine<br />
<br />
“In order to write ‘American’ women’s history, scholars must ask what meaning and uses the term had for women in the past and why.” This struck me when I was reading simply because it would have never occurred to me to define women, in the past or in the present. “Woman” is just a word that is part of most people’s vocabulary and with a commonly accepted definition so having to define it would be difficult. However to study it, it would be the first step. – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
On page 11 in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock the author mentions "The concept 'gender' has been introduced into women's history and women's studies in the 1970s as a social, cultural, political and historical category, in order to express the insight that women's subordination, inferiroity and powerlessness are not dictated by nature, but are social cultural, politcal and historical constructions." To me, this can be expanded to inlcude all other categories of identities (i.e. race, sexuality, culture, etc.) and is behind the complexity found in historical study. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The first thing that really jumped out at me in reading was on page 10 under Public versus private. "Male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared and cared for my women's labour". This is entirely true, even in most cases today. Personally speaking as one of the few males in this class, I know that the person I've become, is almost entirely because of my mother and her availability to me growing up. -- Matt<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's article made some of my favorite points from this reading. I agree with the assertion she seems to be making that dichotomies are not sufficient, and that in order to truly understand the history of any group, the subjects of study need to be given credit for greater subtlety in their lives than any dichotomy allows. The idea of "public vs. private" for example; Bock points out that women's work in the "private sphere" shaped the public sphere, because it was women whose parenting had the greatest effect on the men who occupied the "public" sphere. So, women were working in the public sphere as well, but simply in a different way then were the men they influenced. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Castaneda ==<br />
<br />
A repeated theme in these essays was the need to move beyond a dichotomous framework for understanding women's history (women are more than just non-males, whiteness and maleness should not be considered the norm). The Castaneda essay was a little thorny for me because, while encouraging historians to seek cultural roots in precolonial norms, she refers several times to "third-world nations." Isn't this phrase in itself reinforcing a dichotomy? --Stefanie L.<br />
<br />
Castenada showed me an angle to women’s history that I doubt would ever have crossed my mind otherwise. Unlike Alexander’s later essay on the similar topic of the relationship between race and gender studies, Castenada seemed to put more emphasis than I would have thought of on colonialism and the origin of races to explain why typical women’s studies was not adequate to describe the history of women of color. I understand that grasping the struggles of third worlds can help women with a related ancestry identify with their roots more than woman’s studies and its habit of being more focused on white women. However, that separation of studies reminded me of dichotomies shown in Bock’s essay that she said needed to be challenged into reconciliation of the sides, rather than allow separation. -- Cammy C.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alexander ==<br />
<br />
In Alexander’s article she states, “Early studies of race and gender failed to recognize that race does not only operate as an additional oppressive force but it also forms the foundation of how Black women live their daily lives, and what kinds of liberation strategies they embrace (pg.20)” This quote stands out because it emphasizes that race is not an oppressive force but an identity. The strong ties Black women have to their race affect them just as much as being women. Their race sets their experiences apart from other women. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the differences between the early written records (pre 1975) of white and black woman's histories fascinating. By comparing the different articles it can be ascertained that historically histories written about white women focus on child rearing, giving birth and homemaking; whereas histories written about black woman focus on sexuality and their "role" as whores and vehicles for sex. Interestingly, although different, both histories focus on woman's relationship with and influence on white men proving that woman’s significance and history was synonymous with the history of white men. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I found the second article in our reading very interesting. What does it really mean to be a "working mother"? When I was younger, I had a friend who had a "stay at home mom." I am still close to this friend and I can see how close she is with her mom and I am almost envious of their relationship (my mom works outside the home). I also saw how much her mom did around the house (chores, tutored one of her children, nannied other children, cooked,etc.) all without getting paid. <br />
<br />
I also liked the "Women of Color" article by Antonia I. Castaneda. In a sociology class I had, I learned that white men often carry the stereotype that Black women are exotic/forbidden/loose. I find this ironic because White slaveholders had relationships with their Black women slaves. <br />
<br />
Finally, I was interested to read about gender equality vs physiological difference and how gender roles are socially constructed throughout history. What/who determine's men's and women's roles? <br />
<br />
--Catherine Kennedy<br />
<br />
<br />
Alexander writes that "you cannot divorce the Black woman from the community; if you do not understand the black community you will not understand the Black woman." This statement reminds me of a previous class in which we discussed the Second Sex by Simone de Beauvior. She wrote that men are viewed as the "one" while women are viewed as the "other," however women cannot "organize themselves as a unit" because there is nothing concrete binding them, and they often relate more to the men of their race/religion/ethnicity/etc. than other women that are different. Alexander mentions this idea by stating that it has been argued that "race and class created a chasm that made a singular, unified womanhood impossible." -- Clare O'Brien<br />
<br />
Alexander's article built on those prior--particularly Castaneda's--by further noting the "conflation of 'woman' with 'white woman.'[p.19] Alexander points out, quite correctly, that the conflation she refers to frustrated black women scholars seeking a more balanced history of women. In fact, by allowing "woman" to be synonymous with "white woman," historians further marginalized black women, essentially stripping them of the right to call themselves "women" (that term referring, of course, to upper-class white female US citizens). In choosing to so narrow the scope of what constituted womanhood, early feminist historians disenfranchised whole groups of the populace of the very basic right of sex (and gender?) identity. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that Alexander felt that most women would put race before gender, in how they identify themselves. As she said in her essay "..although Black women's experiences may be gender, they are shaped most compellingly by their role as members of the Black community." This also fed into her discussion of the importance of looking at the history of Black women separately from that of white women's. She made it clear that it is impossible for gender to "privilege" over race. It is interesting that in Haulman's essay, she mentions so often the "bonds of womanhood" and how women are brought together by the experiences they share, but in Alexanders essay, she seems to reject the idea that ALL women can be linked together, but that only certain groups of women can be bonded. --Grace Christenson</div>KayleP Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38