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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=KokeefeMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:15:56ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-22T04:38:57Z<p>Kokeefe: /* Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==<br />
<br />
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference. What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn't just get support from other "hard hatted" women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the "sisterhood" aspect of the women's lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving. Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through. Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy. It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy. She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them. She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women. As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, "Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two" (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss. I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married. I enjoyed Eisenberg's perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can't imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive. “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan<br />
<br />
The most important thing that kept these women going, despite the difficult working conditions was the camaraderie among these women and without this, working in construction and life would of been more difficult. The higher graduation rate in the trade school was "owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other" (278). They also formed groups for personal support and to discuss the varied problems they faced on the job-site. It seems when times are desperate, women have constantly bonded together to acheive a goal weather it be the right to vote, or just gaining respect and fitting in on a constuction site. They have an immense sense of pride in what they accomplish and this is demonstrated at the end of this excerpt where an older Eisenberg drove around showing her daughter the buildings she had a part in. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I always pay vague attention when I pass by construction work. The reading said that before the 1970s construction related work was dominated almost one hundred percent by white males. And that number is still high if the sites I see are anything to go by, though I think there are many non-white men entering the field, particularly Hispanics. Last week, when I went by the Eagle Village construction, I actually saw a woman walking amongst the men. One woman. I actually looked for more because I was so surprised (and almost confused a long haired man in a ponytail with woman but that’s another story). I almost did want to cheer her like some women did for Eisenberg. The field seems to be becoming more ethnically diverse, but it’s nowhere near becoming more sexually diverse. I can only recall seeing about two or three women doing construction in most of my lifetime. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I liked this piece, although I was a little surprised by the level of vulgarity the male construction workers displayed. I know the stereotypical image of the male construction worker is a sex crazed pig with low levels of manners, but I was actually shocked by the comment the one man made about raping all of the old women in the nursing home. That was beyond the pale, but I wondered if it was said more for shock value than for anything else. EFritz<br />
<br />
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==<br />
<br />
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. <br />
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
==Jamala McFadden Tells Her Story of Welfare Assistance in the 1990s, 2002==<br />
Jamala McFadden's story was very inspiring to me. She was pregnant at 15, which probably made it seem like her life was over. Instead, Jamala made the best out of the situation and worked extremely hard to prove everyone wrong. Many times, I think people assume that other people on welfare don't deserve it or use it for the wrong reasons. Jamala was not one of those people. She attended college and was almost a 4.0 student, took care of her son, and had a job all at the same time. I can only imagine how rewarding it was when she finished law school. It was interesting that there was not any type of childcare service for the university. I'm not sure if that was something that was normal at large universities, but I feel like childcare should have been offered. I think it is admirable of those single parents who have children to go out and get an education. By not having childcare services, I feel like that is a disservice to women, and it is also discouraging them from reaching their full potential. Lack of childcare, whether it be in the workplace or at universities, is wrong because it inhibits women from being successful. Why restrict someone who is trying to better their own life? In my opinion, the welfare money Jamala McFadden used throughout her life was paid back to society through her amazing successes. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
<br />
The show 16 & Pregnant , which runs on MTV, follows the lives of teen moms who all initially come to the conclusion that their lives are over (at least as they know it.) I think if those girls were able to read about Jamala they would have a role model to look to because of her ambition and her desire to achieve despite the obstacles. She is the type of person, not just the type of woman, who demonstrates that people are sometimes the victim of their circumstances, and not passive bystanders. She worked so hard to attain her education and took care of her son by working as well as caring for him. Had she had childcare available, it may have been a slight relief for her and a small decrease in her daily pressure. Even today there are places of employment where childcare is not openly available, however I have heard of some community colleges providing childcare so that single mothers can get their education which I feel is an important service to offer and a true benefit that will allow more single parents to gain the education needed to support their child (children). –jmarshal<br />
<br />
== The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277) It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn<br />
<br />
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper. My interviewee's father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did. "[They] didn't think I ought to go" (274). However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity. Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable. Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class. Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions. This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton's determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Norma Rae was an interesting piece. Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together. Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions. Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it. A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up. When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I! -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn't sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, "Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter."(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==<br />
<br />
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268). We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan has stated. It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify. The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon's distinction between ''a'' man and ''the'' man. She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare. Her line, "The truth is that A.F.D.C is like a supersexist marriage. You trade in ''a'' man for ''the'' man" (287). It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence. This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states, "There's one good thing about welfare. It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don't make it. If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything" (289). If this doesn't read like empowerment, I'm not sure what else does. -abratchi<br />
<br />
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan's and Abratchi's comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn't say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like "In this country if you're any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you're all those things you don't count at all except as a statistic." ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today's society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn't read a testimonial of today's Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I too thought there were similarities between 1972 and today when reading this article. When Johnnie Tillmon points out that "the truth is a job doesn't necessarily mean an adequate income" (pg. 288) she could be talking about today, especially for women. We talked about the wage gap in class a bit yesterday, but it was fitting because yesterday was actually Equal Pay Day. With the current wage gap, women who worked for all of 2009 had to work until April 20, 2010 to earn the same amount that men made in 2009 alone. That illustrates how significant a problem pay differences are today, and they were worse for women like Tillmon trying to support their families. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
==Sex and Sports, Mariah Burton Nelson, 1994==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This article highlights the transition Nelson was forced to make from the community she found as a young woman where she felt free and empowered to celebrate herself and express herself as a lesbian, to the "real world" where she was forced to choose between being open about her homosexuality or continue playing professional basketball. I couldn't believe they sent the women on the California team to charm school in order to "portray a feminine (that is, heterosexual) image." [311] The focus on this transition effectively illustrates the societal stifling of those perceived to be different, particularly those who challenge socially-encouraged gender roles. This transition is reflected in a sort of reverse in the following account "La Mujer," where the writer finds her individuality and strength when she is finally able to explore her identity after a stifling adolescence. -Erin B. <br />
<br />
My grandmother had to play half court basketball in a skirt when she was in school, so the fact that women had a professional basketball league at all was a huge step up. But men still resented and feared women's entrance into the realm of professional sports. Nelson's coach called the team girls so that he didn't have to take them seriously as adults (and perhaps so that they themselves would be fooled into thinking they didn't deserve to be treated as equals). Maybe these men thought that women playing sports would somehow take away from men sports, that if women could be strong and talented enough to play basketball that the men playing the same sport would lose their legitimacy somehow. After all, if a "girl" could do it, then what was so special about them? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While I don't like how the Pioneers coach treated his players, I think he is right when saying that sports is a business. I think there are a lot of interesting debates that revolve around this topic. I would assume that the reason more men's college sports are shown on television is because more people watch them, which means more money can be made on advertising. Is it then unreasonable to spend more money on a program that makes more money for the college? Also, I believe in most professional sports there is something like the personal conduct policy that the NFL has, which states that players have to avoid "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League" (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/21598/nfl-personal-conduct-policy). I don't think it is right that Nelson got fired for making an appearance at Gay Pride Day, but it probably has more to do with money than what's wrong or right. My guess is that Pioneers did not want an openly gay woman on the team because they felt that it would change their image to a point where they would lose fans and therefore lose money. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==<br />
<br />
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn't had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it's just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem to be a "size" 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its' true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement "Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success" (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don't understand how a male who isn't exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it's hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won't run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it's okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It's a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society's standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn't an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it? --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
This was a ridiculously moving account of an extremely common issue. The help that she got was exceptional as well and, sadly, most girls don't get this kind of treatment. I worked in emotional and behavioral facilities for close to two years and saw girls like this all the time. A couple of the women i met didn't make it. Chernik articulates a lot of the pathology behind this disease powerfully. "I had reduced my world to a plate of steamed carrots, and over this tiny kingdom I proudly crowned myself queen." [322] This passage illustrated her desire to shrink (and ultimately disappear) not just in size, but in character, in personality and strength. The writer uses the word "impotence" to describe the effects of the disease, which struck me as a powerful characterization. The social significance of the prevalence of this disorder can't be understated. I'm sure I can't speak for all women, but I'd guess that a lot of the females who read this can identify (or could in the past) with some of the mentality associated with an unhealthy body image. The praise that she received was the scariest part. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
I agree that the praise is the scariest part--it's what keeps fueling Chernik's delusions--and it comes from all sides (not only the random strangers, but also her friends and family). The most chilling part of her essay, for me, is when she has her body fat tested, is found to be severely underweight, and is outright congratulated, and even rewarded, for her unhealthiness. That's the turning point in her story, when she realizes that anorexia is not really about controlling her body/life, but really society controlling her. I think the pathology here is very very interesting, and that more women and girls need to read this essay, to see what it's really like to be a full-fledged anorexic, that it is an out-of-control disease and not glamorous at all. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
<br />
This article really struck me, as three of my friends have struggled with anorexia. One of them is a guy, so I do not want us to forget that body image is not only something women struggle with. However, I think it is safe to say that it is a much more pronounced problem for women. One of the most striking things about this piece is the societal idea that the most beautiful women are those “who resemble little girls.” This idea caused Chernik to reject the changes puberty wrought in her rather than embrace them, and this is incredibly sad to me. And these societal perceptions of beauty are a much more amorphous thing to fight against than unequal wages or something similar, as the government can only enact so many laws against the media without abridging the right to free speech, and it certainly can’t command people to change their minds about beauty. Hopefully, as more women like Chernik who have struggled with eating disorders become more outspoken about their experiences, change will come. – Alice W<br />
<br />
It just struck me that it's important to remember that when we say "society," we mean both men AND women. As much as it's sometimes easier (from a woman's perspective) to point the finger at the "patriarchy" or "gendered media" or "male chauvinist pigs" as the parties responsible for the objectification of women as sex objects, and therefore lay down a standard of beauty/appearance (and consequently weight), I have to remind myself that we as women do more than our fair share of reinforcing these beauty myths. In reality, our willingness to follow beauty trends and subject ourselves to what boils down to self-torture in pursuit of an unreachable ideal, and our willingness to expect and encourage our friends to do the same, keeps the flawed expectations at status quo. Thoughts? --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
Just like everyone above me, I was very moved and upset by this piece. I nearly lost two of my best friends to anorexia, and reading Chernik's words really resonated with their stories. I think there is something very valid and absolutely true in the media forcing lanky, thin women on us as the ideal. It is an ideal that most cannot live up to and for some leads to this horrible disease or its sister, bulimia. However, I think there is also something for individuals who may fit society's ideal, and brought to anorexia in an effort to try and maintain it. Like Sarah mentioned, her family, her friends, complete strangers complimented her on her emaciation. I think as a discussion it should not be about "real women have curves" or being a 00, because there are women who are naturally 00 and are not voluptuous. I feel it should be a discussion of health, not of a size, because otherwise we are just perpetuating it. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==<br />
<br />
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, "It doesn't take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,..."(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between these Mexican American women organizing the farm workers and the African American women involved in the black civil rights movement. Both faced intense discrimination from the men within their own movements. Even though these women worked side by side with men in the fields, the men still didn't believe they should be involved in political action. Yet the farm workers at least had the support of Cesar Chavez who specifically sought out women activists, something the black civil rights workers did not have. Chavez seems to have been very forward thinking in his refusal to allow traditional Mexican American dynamics to keep women in the home and away from organizing, something that I'm sure helped his movement greatly. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==<br />
<br />
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points. I think her willingness to show that the issue of "date rape" actually produces a negative view on women is interesting. She believes that "date rape" victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings. I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious. Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings. Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual. -abratchi<br />
<br />
<br />
I am still unsure how I feel about this article. I have known people who have come extremely close to being date raped (luckily they had a friend or two that recognized what had happened and came to their aide) and to think that at any point it could be swept away as “hysteria” is hard to understand. From other classes I have taken, it is more common for women to be characterized as “hysterical” (a long time ago women were called hysterical when they menstruated or had severe mood swings due to PMS, now it is more understood and while the term hysterical is still used today, it still almost always refers to women. Just a random tid-bit of information) than men and the actions taken against women falls the same way. I think there is a difference between being sexual and consenting to sex, saying that a girl does not take responsibility for “date-rape” is almost saying the same thing as “she was asking for it” by wearing a certain outfit. I do agree with CBrau that today the term “rape” is used much too loosely and has as a result made the idea of rape less common (the shock value is not as high as it was when the term first came into use).—jmarshal <br />
<br />
<br />
I would have to agree with Roiphe that when it comes to rape, some people really do go overboard with it. It is of course a very serious issue, but I at least agree with her irritation with women who are suspcious of all their male friends. Those poor guys! And rape including including more than the physical act (i.e. verbal coercion)? I think this warping of the definition can be likened to how the seriousness of rape is really downplayed in our culture today. People have it in their every day vocabulary (it's a commonly used internet and gaming term) and many people still don't realize just how traumatizing rape can be (not to mention, some people don't seem to treat it like the crime it is!). I am just wondering how we went from one extreme to the other; from hysteria to disinterest? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
<br />
This date rape article reminded me of a much more recent article in today's news. Alex Knepper, a student columnist from American University, recently wrote an article saying, "Any woman who heads to a party, drinks five cups of jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex." This has sense triggered tons of controversy, placing the definition date rape into debate. Although it is possible there could be some truth of his statement, it still a very sensitive topic to suggest ANY woman who behaves this way "wants sex." -- David Fitch<br />
Here is a direct link to the article http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/02/earlyshow/main6357129.shtml<br />
<br />
<br />
I think what's most problematic about this article is that while Roiphe does point out that the term rape is perhaps too broad, she does not give a specific enough example of where exactly to draw the line. I agree that it's become a sort of blanket term for a wide variety of unwanted sexual advances, and sometimes is applied even more arbitrarily (CBrau: One day while playing Call of Duty my teenage brother used the phrase "I totally raped him" (referring to an opposing player). Last time that ever happened, believe you me.) While it's true that what we consider date rape does occur (far more often than we know), we need to remember that remorse after the fact ALONE does not make it okay to call rape. Whoever does the sitting down and defining of terms needs to reevaluate the criteria for something being called "rape." --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==<br />
<br />
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, "cripple" and said, "[people]-wince at the word ''cripple'', as they do not at handicapped or disabled."(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Like Megan, I was so uplifted by and impressed with Nancy Mairs' strength, courage and humor, maybe not despite her disbility but because of it. Mairs empahsizes that her MS is no who she is, it does not define her. She is a person living with MS, not a victim of it. However, at the same time, she acknowledges her disability and how it has helped shape her into a fierce and stalwart person. That balance is key is Nancy Mairs' ability to live with and push through her disability. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the "World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits," 1978==<br />
<br />
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn't believe the disparity between men and women's pay, such as this woman: "whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the ''Times''' Washington bureau." (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, "sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper." (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a "genteel form" that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn't understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, "If she weren't a woman, she'd be in the bullpen right now!" (P. 465) Why didn't he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.<br />
<br />
== A Day in the Kitchen (photograph) ==<br />
<br />
When I saw this picture, I immediately had the thought that this woman is proud of her job. Just the way that she carries herself and her facial expression, she seems to take great pride in her work. And yet, we have to ask ourselves at least two things. Has she been posed? And is she actually happy with what she is doing? Her expression seems genuine, but maybe she is a woman that makes the best out of what she has. Perhaps if she had the option to become a chef or not, she would not have. It could only be through society's limited career options for blacks that she became a chef. And in the caption, it is implied that even though African American women have held jobs longer than white women, they are still discriminated against and pushed aside by those lesser experienced white women. This certainly makes one think. Do employers really look at skill? Or are they still blindsided by prejudices? They probably were when this photo was taken (1976). -- CBrau<br />
<br />
<br />
I really like "A Day in the Kitchen." This woman just looks proud and happy. Velma James, a head chef, seems to be the queen of her kitchen. It's unfortunate though that she represented a role, one that seemed to place the limits as to how far a black woman could go in the workforce of the 70's. The main reason I love this picture is because I believe it symbolizes the strength, courage, and spirit of black women who had the determination to provide for their families. On the other hand the media could of posed her to look this way but I personally think being a head chef is a pretty prominent position.-- David Fitch<br />
<br />
==Target Women, Critiquing Depictions of Women in the Media==<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken discussed on Tuesday the continually questionable depiction of women in the media and the criticisms of it. I can’t say the number of times my mother has seen a commercial and made a derisive comment about why it has to be mom cleaning up after her incompetent husband and kids, or why around Mother’s Day there are commercials about getting appliances and jewelry while during Father’s Day it’s electronics or actually cool things, or how only women seem to have digestive or plumbing problems. I wanted to share with you all [http://current.com/shows/infomania/target-women/ Target Women with Sarah Haskins], which is basically a humorous and sarcastic challenge to all those ridiculous, shallow commercials. How to be a [http://current.com/shows/infomania/89771812_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-super-special.htm lady] according to commercials: yogurt! looking cute while exercising! cleaning the house! cooking! heart to hearts with girlfriends! jewelry face! marriage! -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Yes! I was so sad when she stopped making new episodes of Target Women. -Mary Ann</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-22T04:27:44Z<p>Kokeefe: /* The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==<br />
<br />
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference. What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn't just get support from other "hard hatted" women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the "sisterhood" aspect of the women's lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving. Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through. Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy. It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy. She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them. She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women. As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, "Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two" (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss. I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married. I enjoyed Eisenberg's perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can't imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive. “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan<br />
<br />
The most important thing that kept these women going, despite the difficult working conditions was the camaraderie among these women and without this, working in construction and life would of been more difficult. The higher graduation rate in the trade school was "owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other" (278). They also formed groups for personal support and to discuss the varied problems they faced on the job-site. It seems when times are desperate, women have constantly bonded together to acheive a goal weather it be the right to vote, or just gaining respect and fitting in on a constuction site. They have an immense sense of pride in what they accomplish and this is demonstrated at the end of this excerpt where an older Eisenberg drove around showing her daughter the buildings she had a part in. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I always pay vague attention when I pass by construction work. The reading said that before the 1970s construction related work was dominated almost one hundred percent by white males. And that number is still high if the sites I see are anything to go by, though I think there are many non-white men entering the field, particularly Hispanics. Last week, when I went by the Eagle Village construction, I actually saw a woman walking amongst the men. One woman. I actually looked for more because I was so surprised (and almost confused a long haired man in a ponytail with woman but that’s another story). I almost did want to cheer her like some women did for Eisenberg. The field seems to be becoming more ethnically diverse, but it’s nowhere near becoming more sexually diverse. I can only recall seeing about two or three women doing construction in most of my lifetime. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I liked this piece, although I was a little surprised by the level of vulgarity the male construction workers displayed. I know the stereotypical image of the male construction worker is a sex crazed pig with low levels of manners, but I was actually shocked by the comment the one man made about raping all of the old women in the nursing home. That was beyond the pale, but I wondered if it was said more for shock value than for anything else. EFritz<br />
<br />
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==<br />
<br />
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. <br />
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
==Jamala McFadden Tells Her Story of Welfare Assistance in the 1990s, 2002==<br />
Jamala McFadden's story was very inspiring to me. She was pregnant at 15, which probably made it seem like her life was over. Instead, Jamala made the best out of the situation and worked extremely hard to prove everyone wrong. Many times, I think people assume that other people on welfare don't deserve it or use it for the wrong reasons. Jamala was not one of those people. She attended college and was almost a 4.0 student, took care of her son, and had a job all at the same time. I can only imagine how rewarding it was when she finished law school. It was interesting that there was not any type of childcare service for the university. I'm not sure if that was something that was normal at large universities, but I feel like childcare should have been offered. I think it is admirable of those single parents who have children to go out and get an education. By not having childcare services, I feel like that is a disservice to women, and it is also discouraging them from reaching their full potential. Lack of childcare, whether it be in the workplace or at universities, is wrong because it inhibits women from being successful. Why restrict someone who is trying to better their own life? In my opinion, the welfare money Jamala McFadden used throughout her life was paid back to society through her amazing successes. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
<br />
The show 16 & Pregnant , which runs on MTV, follows the lives of teen moms who all initially come to the conclusion that their lives are over (at least as they know it.) I think if those girls were able to read about Jamala they would have a role model to look to because of her ambition and her desire to achieve despite the obstacles. She is the type of person, not just the type of woman, who demonstrates that people are sometimes the victim of their circumstances, and not passive bystanders. She worked so hard to attain her education and took care of her son by working as well as caring for him. Had she had childcare available, it may have been a slight relief for her and a small decrease in her daily pressure. Even today there are places of employment where childcare is not openly available, however I have heard of some community colleges providing childcare so that single mothers can get their education which I feel is an important service to offer and a true benefit that will allow more single parents to gain the education needed to support their child (children). –jmarshal<br />
<br />
== The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277) It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn<br />
<br />
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper. My interviewee's father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did. "[They] didn't think I ought to go" (274). However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity. Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable. Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class. Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions. This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton's determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Norma Rae was an interesting piece. Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together. Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions. Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it. A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up. When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I! -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn't sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, "Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter."(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==<br />
<br />
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268). We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan has stated. It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify. The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon's distinction between ''a'' man and ''the'' man. She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare. Her line, "The truth is that A.F.D.C is like a supersexist marriage. You trade in ''a'' man for ''the'' man" (287). It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence. This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states, "There's one good thing about welfare. It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don't make it. If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything" (289). If this doesn't read like empowerment, I'm not sure what else does. -abratchi<br />
<br />
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan's and Abratchi's comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn't say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like "In this country if you're any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you're all those things you don't count at all except as a statistic." ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today's society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn't read a testimonial of today's Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I too thought there were similarities between 1972 and today when reading this article. When Johnnie Tillmon points out that "the truth is a job doesn't necessarily mean an adequate income" (pg. 288) she could be talking about today, especially for women. We talked about the wage gap in class a bit yesterday, but it was fitting because yesterday was actually Equal Pay Day. With the current wage gap, women who worked for all of 2009 had to work until April 20, 2010 to earn the same amount that men made in 2009 alone. That illustrates how significant a problem pay differences are today, and they were worse for women like Tillmon trying to support their families. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
==Sex and Sports, Mariah Burton Nelson, 1994==<br />
<br />
This article highlights the transition Nelson was forced to make from the community she found as a young woman where she felt free and empowered to celebrate herself and express herself as a lesbian, to the "real world" where she was forced to choose between being open about her homosexuality or continue playing professional basketball. I couldn't believe they sent the women on the California team to charm school in order to "portray a feminine (that is, heterosexual) image." [311] The focus on this transition effectively illustrates the societal stifling of those perceived to be different, particularly those who challenge socially-encouraged gender roles. This transition is reflected in a sort of reverse in the following account "La Mujer," where the writer finds her individuality and strength when she is finally able to explore her identity after a stifling adolescence. -Erin B. <br />
<br />
My grandmother had to play half court basketball in a skirt when she was in school, so the fact that women had a professional basketball league at all was a huge step up. But men still resented and feared women's entrance into the realm of professional sports. Nelson's coach called the team girls so that he didn't have to take them seriously as adults (and perhaps so that they themselves would be fooled into thinking they didn't deserve to be treated as equals). Maybe these men thought that women playing sports would somehow take away from men sports, that if women could be strong and talented enough to play basketball that the men playing the same sport would lose their legitimacy somehow. After all, if a "girl" could do it, then what was so special about them? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==<br />
<br />
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn't had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it's just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem to be a "size" 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its' true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement "Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success" (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don't understand how a male who isn't exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it's hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won't run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it's okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It's a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society's standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn't an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it? --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
This was a ridiculously moving account of an extremely common issue. The help that she got was exceptional as well and, sadly, most girls don't get this kind of treatment. I worked in emotional and behavioral facilities for close to two years and saw girls like this all the time. A couple of the women i met didn't make it. Chernik articulates a lot of the pathology behind this disease powerfully. "I had reduced my world to a plate of steamed carrots, and over this tiny kingdom I proudly crowned myself queen." [322] This passage illustrated her desire to shrink (and ultimately disappear) not just in size, but in character, in personality and strength. The writer uses the word "impotence" to describe the effects of the disease, which struck me as a powerful characterization. The social significance of the prevalence of this disorder can't be understated. I'm sure I can't speak for all women, but I'd guess that a lot of the females who read this can identify (or could in the past) with some of the mentality associated with an unhealthy body image. The praise that she received was the scariest part. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
I agree that the praise is the scariest part--it's what keeps fueling Chernik's delusions--and it comes from all sides (not only the random strangers, but also her friends and family). The most chilling part of her essay, for me, is when she has her body fat tested, is found to be severely underweight, and is outright congratulated, and even rewarded, for her unhealthiness. That's the turning point in her story, when she realizes that anorexia is not really about controlling her body/life, but really society controlling her. I think the pathology here is very very interesting, and that more women and girls need to read this essay, to see what it's really like to be a full-fledged anorexic, that it is an out-of-control disease and not glamorous at all. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
<br />
This article really struck me, as three of my friends have struggled with anorexia. One of them is a guy, so I do not want us to forget that body image is not only something women struggle with. However, I think it is safe to say that it is a much more pronounced problem for women. One of the most striking things about this piece is the societal idea that the most beautiful women are those “who resemble little girls.” This idea caused Chernik to reject the changes puberty wrought in her rather than embrace them, and this is incredibly sad to me. And these societal perceptions of beauty are a much more amorphous thing to fight against than unequal wages or something similar, as the government can only enact so many laws against the media without abridging the right to free speech, and it certainly can’t command people to change their minds about beauty. Hopefully, as more women like Chernik who have struggled with eating disorders become more outspoken about their experiences, change will come. – Alice W<br />
<br />
It just struck me that it's important to remember that when we say "society," we mean both men AND women. As much as it's sometimes easier (from a woman's perspective) to point the finger at the "patriarchy" or "gendered media" or "male chauvinist pigs" as the parties responsible for the objectification of women as sex objects, and therefore lay down a standard of beauty/appearance (and consequently weight), I have to remind myself that we as women do more than our fair share of reinforcing these beauty myths. In reality, our willingness to follow beauty trends and subject ourselves to what boils down to self-torture in pursuit of an unreachable ideal, and our willingness to expect and encourage our friends to do the same, keeps the flawed expectations at status quo. Thoughts? --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
Just like everyone above me, I was very moved and upset by this piece. I nearly lost two of my best friends to anorexia, and reading Chernik's words really resonated with their stories. I think there is something very valid and absolutely true in the media forcing lanky, thin women on us as the ideal. It is an ideal that most cannot live up to and for some leads to this horrible disease or its sister, bulimia. However, I think there is also something for individuals who may fit society's ideal, and brought to anorexia in an effort to try and maintain it. Like Sarah mentioned, her family, her friends, complete strangers complimented her on her emaciation. I think as a discussion it should not be about "real women have curves" or being a 00, because there are women who are naturally 00 and are not voluptuous. I feel it should be a discussion of health, not of a size, because otherwise we are just perpetuating it. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==<br />
<br />
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, "It doesn't take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,..."(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between these Mexican American women organizing the farm workers and the African American women involved in the black civil rights movement. Both faced intense discrimination from the men within their own movements. Even though these women worked side by side with men in the fields, the men still didn't believe they should be involved in political action. Yet the farm workers at least had the support of Cesar Chavez who specifically sought out women activists, something the black civil rights workers did not have. Chavez seems to have been very forward thinking in his refusal to allow traditional Mexican American dynamics to keep women in the home and away from organizing, something that I'm sure helped his movement greatly. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==<br />
<br />
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points. I think her willingness to show that the issue of "date rape" actually produces a negative view on women is interesting. She believes that "date rape" victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings. I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious. Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings. Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual. -abratchi<br />
<br />
<br />
I am still unsure how I feel about this article. I have known people who have come extremely close to being date raped (luckily they had a friend or two that recognized what had happened and came to their aide) and to think that at any point it could be swept away as “hysteria” is hard to understand. From other classes I have taken, it is more common for women to be characterized as “hysterical” (a long time ago women were called hysterical when they menstruated or had severe mood swings due to PMS, now it is more understood and while the term hysterical is still used today, it still almost always refers to women. Just a random tid-bit of information) than men and the actions taken against women falls the same way. I think there is a difference between being sexual and consenting to sex, saying that a girl does not take responsibility for “date-rape” is almost saying the same thing as “she was asking for it” by wearing a certain outfit. I do agree with CBrau that today the term “rape” is used much too loosely and has as a result made the idea of rape less common (the shock value is not as high as it was when the term first came into use).—jmarshal <br />
<br />
<br />
I would have to agree with Roiphe that when it comes to rape, some people really do go overboard with it. It is of course a very serious issue, but I at least agree with her irritation with women who are suspcious of all their male friends. Those poor guys! And rape including including more than the physical act (i.e. verbal coercion)? I think this warping of the definition can be likened to how the seriousness of rape is really downplayed in our culture today. People have it in their every day vocabulary (it's a commonly used internet and gaming term) and many people still don't realize just how traumatizing rape can be (not to mention, some people don't seem to treat it like the crime it is!). I am just wondering how we went from one extreme to the other; from hysteria to disinterest? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
<br />
This date rape article reminded me of a much more recent article in today's news. Alex Knepper, a student columnist from American University, recently wrote an article saying, "Any woman who heads to a party, drinks five cups of jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex." This has sense triggered tons of controversy, placing the definition date rape into debate. Although it is possible there could be some truth of his statement, it still a very sensitive topic to suggest ANY woman who behaves this way "wants sex." -- David Fitch<br />
Here is a direct link to the article http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/02/earlyshow/main6357129.shtml<br />
<br />
<br />
I think what's most problematic about this article is that while Roiphe does point out that the term rape is perhaps too broad, she does not give a specific enough example of where exactly to draw the line. I agree that it's become a sort of blanket term for a wide variety of unwanted sexual advances, and sometimes is applied even more arbitrarily (CBrau: One day while playing Call of Duty my teenage brother used the phrase "I totally raped him" (referring to an opposing player). Last time that ever happened, believe you me.) While it's true that what we consider date rape does occur (far more often than we know), we need to remember that remorse after the fact ALONE does not make it okay to call rape. Whoever does the sitting down and defining of terms needs to reevaluate the criteria for something being called "rape." --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==<br />
<br />
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, "cripple" and said, "[people]-wince at the word ''cripple'', as they do not at handicapped or disabled."(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the "World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits," 1978==<br />
<br />
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn't believe the disparity between men and women's pay, such as this woman: "whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the ''Times''' Washington bureau." (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, "sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper." (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a "genteel form" that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn't understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, "If she weren't a woman, she'd be in the bullpen right now!" (P. 465) Why didn't he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.<br />
<br />
== A Day in the Kitchen (photograph) ==<br />
<br />
When I saw this picture, I immediately had the thought that this woman is proud of her job. Just the way that she carries herself and her facial expression, she seems to take great pride in her work. And yet, we have to ask ourselves at least two things. Has she been posed? And is she actually happy with what she is doing? Her expression seems genuine, but maybe she is a woman that makes the best out of what she has. Perhaps if she had the option to become a chef or not, she would not have. It could only be through society's limited career options for blacks that she became a chef. And in the caption, it is implied that even though African American women have held jobs longer than white women, they are still discriminated against and pushed aside by those lesser experienced white women. This certainly makes one think. Do employers really look at skill? Or are they still blindsided by prejudices? They probably were when this photo was taken (1976). -- CBrau<br />
<br />
<br />
I really like "A Day in the Kitchen." This woman just looks proud and happy. Velma James, a head chef, seems to be the queen of her kitchen. It's unfortunate though that she represented a role, one that seemed to place the limits as to how far a black woman could go in the workforce of the 70's. The main reason I love this picture is because I believe it symbolizes the strength, courage, and spirit of black women who had the determination to provide for their families. On the other hand the media could of posed her to look this way but I personally think being a head chef is a pretty prominent position.-- David Fitch<br />
<br />
==Target Women, Critiquing Depictions of Women in the Media==<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken discussed on Tuesday the continually questionable depiction of women in the media and the criticisms of it. I can’t say the number of times my mother has seen a commercial and made a derisive comment about why it has to be mom cleaning up after her incompetent husband and kids, or why around Mother’s Day there are commercials about getting appliances and jewelry while during Father’s Day it’s electronics or actually cool things, or how only women seem to have digestive or plumbing problems. I wanted to share with you all [http://current.com/shows/infomania/target-women/ Target Women with Sarah Haskins], which is basically a humorous and sarcastic challenge to all those ridiculous, shallow commercials. How to be a [http://current.com/shows/infomania/89771812_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-super-special.htm lady] according to commercials: yogurt! looking cute while exercising! cleaning the house! cooking! heart to hearts with girlfriends! jewelry face! marriage! -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Yes! I was so sad when she stopped making new episodes of Target Women. -Mary Ann</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-22T04:27:21Z<p>Kokeefe: /* The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==<br />
<br />
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference. What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn't just get support from other "hard hatted" women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the "sisterhood" aspect of the women's lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving. Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through. Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy. It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy. She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them. She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women. As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, "Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two" (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss. I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married. I enjoyed Eisenberg's perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can't imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive. “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan<br />
<br />
The most important thing that kept these women going, despite the difficult working conditions was the camaraderie among these women and without this, working in construction and life would of been more difficult. The higher graduation rate in the trade school was "owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other" (278). They also formed groups for personal support and to discuss the varied problems they faced on the job-site. It seems when times are desperate, women have constantly bonded together to acheive a goal weather it be the right to vote, or just gaining respect and fitting in on a constuction site. They have an immense sense of pride in what they accomplish and this is demonstrated at the end of this excerpt where an older Eisenberg drove around showing her daughter the buildings she had a part in. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I always pay vague attention when I pass by construction work. The reading said that before the 1970s construction related work was dominated almost one hundred percent by white males. And that number is still high if the sites I see are anything to go by, though I think there are many non-white men entering the field, particularly Hispanics. Last week, when I went by the Eagle Village construction, I actually saw a woman walking amongst the men. One woman. I actually looked for more because I was so surprised (and almost confused a long haired man in a ponytail with woman but that’s another story). I almost did want to cheer her like some women did for Eisenberg. The field seems to be becoming more ethnically diverse, but it’s nowhere near becoming more sexually diverse. I can only recall seeing about two or three women doing construction in most of my lifetime. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I liked this piece, although I was a little surprised by the level of vulgarity the male construction workers displayed. I know the stereotypical image of the male construction worker is a sex crazed pig with low levels of manners, but I was actually shocked by the comment the one man made about raping all of the old women in the nursing home. That was beyond the pale, but I wondered if it was said more for shock value than for anything else. EFritz<br />
<br />
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==<br />
<br />
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. <br />
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
==Jamala McFadden Tells Her Story of Welfare Assistance in the 1990s, 2002==<br />
Jamala McFadden's story was very inspiring to me. She was pregnant at 15, which probably made it seem like her life was over. Instead, Jamala made the best out of the situation and worked extremely hard to prove everyone wrong. Many times, I think people assume that other people on welfare don't deserve it or use it for the wrong reasons. Jamala was not one of those people. She attended college and was almost a 4.0 student, took care of her son, and had a job all at the same time. I can only imagine how rewarding it was when she finished law school. It was interesting that there was not any type of childcare service for the university. I'm not sure if that was something that was normal at large universities, but I feel like childcare should have been offered. I think it is admirable of those single parents who have children to go out and get an education. By not having childcare services, I feel like that is a disservice to women, and it is also discouraging them from reaching their full potential. Lack of childcare, whether it be in the workplace or at universities, is wrong because it inhibits women from being successful. Why restrict someone who is trying to better their own life? In my opinion, the welfare money Jamala McFadden used throughout her life was paid back to society through her amazing successes. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
<br />
The show 16 & Pregnant , which runs on MTV, follows the lives of teen moms who all initially come to the conclusion that their lives are over (at least as they know it.) I think if those girls were able to read about Jamala they would have a role model to look to because of her ambition and her desire to achieve despite the obstacles. She is the type of person, not just the type of woman, who demonstrates that people are sometimes the victim of their circumstances, and not passive bystanders. She worked so hard to attain her education and took care of her son by working as well as caring for him. Had she had childcare available, it may have been a slight relief for her and a small decrease in her daily pressure. Even today there are places of employment where childcare is not openly available, however I have heard of some community colleges providing childcare so that single mothers can get their education which I feel is an important service to offer and a true benefit that will allow more single parents to gain the education needed to support their child (children). –jmarshal<br />
<br />
== The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277) It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn<br />
<br />
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper. My interviewee's father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did. "[They] didn't think I ought to go" (274). However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity. Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable. Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class. Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions. This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton's determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Norma Rae was an interesting piece. Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together. Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions. Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it. A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up. When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I! -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn't sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, "Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter."(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==<br />
<br />
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268). We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan has stated. It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify. The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon's distinction between ''a'' man and ''the'' man. She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare. Her line, "The truth is that A.F.D.C is like a supersexist marriage. You trade in ''a'' man for ''the'' man" (287). It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence. This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states, "There's one good thing about welfare. It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don't make it. If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything" (289). If this doesn't read like empowerment, I'm not sure what else does. -abratchi<br />
<br />
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan's and Abratchi's comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn't say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like "In this country if you're any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you're all those things you don't count at all except as a statistic." ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today's society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn't read a testimonial of today's Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I too thought there were similarities between 1972 and today when reading this article. When Johnnie Tillmon points out that "the truth is a job doesn't necessarily mean an adequate income" (pg. 288) she could be talking about today, especially for women. We talked about the wage gap in class a bit yesterday, but it was fitting because yesterday was actually Equal Pay Day. With the current wage gap, women who worked for all of 2009 had to work until April 20, 2010 to earn the same amount that men made in 2009 alone. That illustrates how significant a problem pay differences are today, and they were worse for women like Tillmon trying to support their families. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
==Sex and Sports, Mariah Burton Nelson, 1994==<br />
<br />
This article highlights the transition Nelson was forced to make from the community she found as a young woman where she felt free and empowered to celebrate herself and express herself as a lesbian, to the "real world" where she was forced to choose between being open about her homosexuality or continue playing professional basketball. I couldn't believe they sent the women on the California team to charm school in order to "portray a feminine (that is, heterosexual) image." [311] The focus on this transition effectively illustrates the societal stifling of those perceived to be different, particularly those who challenge socially-encouraged gender roles. This transition is reflected in a sort of reverse in the following account "La Mujer," where the writer finds her individuality and strength when she is finally able to explore her identity after a stifling adolescence. -Erin B. <br />
<br />
My grandmother had to play half court basketball in a skirt when she was in school, so the fact that women had a professional basketball league at all was a huge step up. But men still resented and feared women's entrance into the realm of professional sports. Nelson's coach called the team girls so that he didn't have to take them seriously as adults (and perhaps so that they themselves would be fooled into thinking they didn't deserve to be treated as equals). Maybe these men thought that women playing sports would somehow take away from men sports, that if women could be strong and talented enough to play basketball that the men playing the same sport would lose their legitimacy somehow. After all, if a "girl" could do it, then what was so special about them? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==<br />
<br />
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn't had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it's just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem to be a "size" 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its' true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement "Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success" (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don't understand how a male who isn't exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it's hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won't run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it's okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It's a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society's standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn't an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it? --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
This was a ridiculously moving account of an extremely common issue. The help that she got was exceptional as well and, sadly, most girls don't get this kind of treatment. I worked in emotional and behavioral facilities for close to two years and saw girls like this all the time. A couple of the women i met didn't make it. Chernik articulates a lot of the pathology behind this disease powerfully. "I had reduced my world to a plate of steamed carrots, and over this tiny kingdom I proudly crowned myself queen." [322] This passage illustrated her desire to shrink (and ultimately disappear) not just in size, but in character, in personality and strength. The writer uses the word "impotence" to describe the effects of the disease, which struck me as a powerful characterization. The social significance of the prevalence of this disorder can't be understated. I'm sure I can't speak for all women, but I'd guess that a lot of the females who read this can identify (or could in the past) with some of the mentality associated with an unhealthy body image. The praise that she received was the scariest part. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
I agree that the praise is the scariest part--it's what keeps fueling Chernik's delusions--and it comes from all sides (not only the random strangers, but also her friends and family). The most chilling part of her essay, for me, is when she has her body fat tested, is found to be severely underweight, and is outright congratulated, and even rewarded, for her unhealthiness. That's the turning point in her story, when she realizes that anorexia is not really about controlling her body/life, but really society controlling her. I think the pathology here is very very interesting, and that more women and girls need to read this essay, to see what it's really like to be a full-fledged anorexic, that it is an out-of-control disease and not glamorous at all. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
<br />
This article really struck me, as three of my friends have struggled with anorexia. One of them is a guy, so I do not want us to forget that body image is not only something women struggle with. However, I think it is safe to say that it is a much more pronounced problem for women. One of the most striking things about this piece is the societal idea that the most beautiful women are those “who resemble little girls.” This idea caused Chernik to reject the changes puberty wrought in her rather than embrace them, and this is incredibly sad to me. And these societal perceptions of beauty are a much more amorphous thing to fight against than unequal wages or something similar, as the government can only enact so many laws against the media without abridging the right to free speech, and it certainly can’t command people to change their minds about beauty. Hopefully, as more women like Chernik who have struggled with eating disorders become more outspoken about their experiences, change will come. – Alice W<br />
<br />
It just struck me that it's important to remember that when we say "society," we mean both men AND women. As much as it's sometimes easier (from a woman's perspective) to point the finger at the "patriarchy" or "gendered media" or "male chauvinist pigs" as the parties responsible for the objectification of women as sex objects, and therefore lay down a standard of beauty/appearance (and consequently weight), I have to remind myself that we as women do more than our fair share of reinforcing these beauty myths. In reality, our willingness to follow beauty trends and subject ourselves to what boils down to self-torture in pursuit of an unreachable ideal, and our willingness to expect and encourage our friends to do the same, keeps the flawed expectations at status quo. Thoughts? --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
Just like everyone above me, I was very moved and upset by this piece. I nearly lost two of my best friends to anorexia, and reading Chernik's words really resonated with their stories. I think there is something very valid and absolutely true in the media forcing lanky, thin women on us as the ideal. It is an ideal that most cannot live up to and for some leads to this horrible disease or its sister, bulimia. However, I think there is also something for individuals who may fit society's ideal, and brought to anorexia in an effort to try and maintain it. Like Sarah mentioned, her family, her friends, complete strangers complimented her on her emaciation. I think as a discussion it should not be about "real women have curves" or being a 00, because there are women who are naturally 00 and are not voluptuous. I feel it should be a discussion of health, not of a size, because otherwise we are just perpetuating it.<br />
<br />
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==<br />
<br />
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, "It doesn't take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,..."(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between these Mexican American women organizing the farm workers and the African American women involved in the black civil rights movement. Both faced intense discrimination from the men within their own movements. Even though these women worked side by side with men in the fields, the men still didn't believe they should be involved in political action. Yet the farm workers at least had the support of Cesar Chavez who specifically sought out women activists, something the black civil rights workers did not have. Chavez seems to have been very forward thinking in his refusal to allow traditional Mexican American dynamics to keep women in the home and away from organizing, something that I'm sure helped his movement greatly. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==<br />
<br />
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points. I think her willingness to show that the issue of "date rape" actually produces a negative view on women is interesting. She believes that "date rape" victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings. I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious. Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings. Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual. -abratchi<br />
<br />
<br />
I am still unsure how I feel about this article. I have known people who have come extremely close to being date raped (luckily they had a friend or two that recognized what had happened and came to their aide) and to think that at any point it could be swept away as “hysteria” is hard to understand. From other classes I have taken, it is more common for women to be characterized as “hysterical” (a long time ago women were called hysterical when they menstruated or had severe mood swings due to PMS, now it is more understood and while the term hysterical is still used today, it still almost always refers to women. Just a random tid-bit of information) than men and the actions taken against women falls the same way. I think there is a difference between being sexual and consenting to sex, saying that a girl does not take responsibility for “date-rape” is almost saying the same thing as “she was asking for it” by wearing a certain outfit. I do agree with CBrau that today the term “rape” is used much too loosely and has as a result made the idea of rape less common (the shock value is not as high as it was when the term first came into use).—jmarshal <br />
<br />
<br />
I would have to agree with Roiphe that when it comes to rape, some people really do go overboard with it. It is of course a very serious issue, but I at least agree with her irritation with women who are suspcious of all their male friends. Those poor guys! And rape including including more than the physical act (i.e. verbal coercion)? I think this warping of the definition can be likened to how the seriousness of rape is really downplayed in our culture today. People have it in their every day vocabulary (it's a commonly used internet and gaming term) and many people still don't realize just how traumatizing rape can be (not to mention, some people don't seem to treat it like the crime it is!). I am just wondering how we went from one extreme to the other; from hysteria to disinterest? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
<br />
This date rape article reminded me of a much more recent article in today's news. Alex Knepper, a student columnist from American University, recently wrote an article saying, "Any woman who heads to a party, drinks five cups of jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex." This has sense triggered tons of controversy, placing the definition date rape into debate. Although it is possible there could be some truth of his statement, it still a very sensitive topic to suggest ANY woman who behaves this way "wants sex." -- David Fitch<br />
Here is a direct link to the article http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/02/earlyshow/main6357129.shtml<br />
<br />
<br />
I think what's most problematic about this article is that while Roiphe does point out that the term rape is perhaps too broad, she does not give a specific enough example of where exactly to draw the line. I agree that it's become a sort of blanket term for a wide variety of unwanted sexual advances, and sometimes is applied even more arbitrarily (CBrau: One day while playing Call of Duty my teenage brother used the phrase "I totally raped him" (referring to an opposing player). Last time that ever happened, believe you me.) While it's true that what we consider date rape does occur (far more often than we know), we need to remember that remorse after the fact ALONE does not make it okay to call rape. Whoever does the sitting down and defining of terms needs to reevaluate the criteria for something being called "rape." --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==<br />
<br />
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, "cripple" and said, "[people]-wince at the word ''cripple'', as they do not at handicapped or disabled."(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the "World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits," 1978==<br />
<br />
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn't believe the disparity between men and women's pay, such as this woman: "whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the ''Times''' Washington bureau." (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, "sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper." (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a "genteel form" that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn't understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, "If she weren't a woman, she'd be in the bullpen right now!" (P. 465) Why didn't he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.<br />
<br />
== A Day in the Kitchen (photograph) ==<br />
<br />
When I saw this picture, I immediately had the thought that this woman is proud of her job. Just the way that she carries herself and her facial expression, she seems to take great pride in her work. And yet, we have to ask ourselves at least two things. Has she been posed? And is she actually happy with what she is doing? Her expression seems genuine, but maybe she is a woman that makes the best out of what she has. Perhaps if she had the option to become a chef or not, she would not have. It could only be through society's limited career options for blacks that she became a chef. And in the caption, it is implied that even though African American women have held jobs longer than white women, they are still discriminated against and pushed aside by those lesser experienced white women. This certainly makes one think. Do employers really look at skill? Or are they still blindsided by prejudices? They probably were when this photo was taken (1976). -- CBrau<br />
<br />
<br />
I really like "A Day in the Kitchen." This woman just looks proud and happy. Velma James, a head chef, seems to be the queen of her kitchen. It's unfortunate though that she represented a role, one that seemed to place the limits as to how far a black woman could go in the workforce of the 70's. The main reason I love this picture is because I believe it symbolizes the strength, courage, and spirit of black women who had the determination to provide for their families. On the other hand the media could of posed her to look this way but I personally think being a head chef is a pretty prominent position.-- David Fitch<br />
<br />
==Target Women, Critiquing Depictions of Women in the Media==<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken discussed on Tuesday the continually questionable depiction of women in the media and the criticisms of it. I can’t say the number of times my mother has seen a commercial and made a derisive comment about why it has to be mom cleaning up after her incompetent husband and kids, or why around Mother’s Day there are commercials about getting appliances and jewelry while during Father’s Day it’s electronics or actually cool things, or how only women seem to have digestive or plumbing problems. I wanted to share with you all [http://current.com/shows/infomania/target-women/ Target Women with Sarah Haskins], which is basically a humorous and sarcastic challenge to all those ridiculous, shallow commercials. How to be a [http://current.com/shows/infomania/89771812_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-super-special.htm lady] according to commercials: yogurt! looking cute while exercising! cleaning the house! cooking! heart to hearts with girlfriends! jewelry face! marriage! -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Yes! I was so sad when she stopped making new episodes of Target Women. -Mary Ann</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-04-17T03:47:06Z<p>Kokeefe: </p>
<hr />
<div>THIS WEEK'S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING. You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers. A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.<br />
<br />
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).<br />
<br />
Class discussion: We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What patterns do you see? What experiences stand out? Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we've talked about in class?'''<br />
<br />
== ==<br />
<br />
I definitely see that "typical housewife and mother" trend with a majority of the women interviewed. The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs. I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn't been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn't what society expected. However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later. With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching). Overall, I think it's important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with CBrau. I was surprised by how many other women had experiences that were similar to the woman that I interviewed. Like CBrau stated, women seemed to enter into nursing and teaching the most, but it seemed like they were forced into these positions for lack of opportunity elsewhere. It also seems like most of the women were forced into these positions because their fathers or husbands believed that they would be starting a family and spending money on an education was wasteful. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting and amusing that in Alices' paper, Lois Wagner had miniature army corps suits and have fake machine guns and little did they know that the real women in the WAC never saw any action in battle. Also, these were just young girls and had no idea of a feminist movement or what women were going through at this particular period yet they were supporting the efforts of women, even if they were too young to understand. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I loved the story about the WAC suits! Normally you would think of boys putting on uniforms and imitating soldiers, and yet here was a little girl doing it. I've honestly never thought about little girls being interested in the military or what children had to balance during WWII ("fun and fear"). -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I saw many similarities between the women who were interviewed including the roles they had as mothers, wives, and women in the workforce and society. I definitely saw the pattern of many women who worked in the domestic sphere who also sometimes worked in careers outside the home. Most of the women seemed to have had children of the baby boom generation or were baby boomers themselves. In Dvorak's paper, the woman she interviewed challenged some of the trends of the time by focusing on her education and career of dentistry rather than on finding a husband and starting a family right away. I also noticed in Rowley's paper, the woman got a divorce about the time in the 1960s that we talked about in class when there seemed to be a high divorce rate. I think it's interesting so see the similarities between the people who were interviewed but good to also note that all of their stories are still unique in their own way. -Avanness<br />
<br />
The similarities between the women interviewed are clearly defined, many became mothers and housewives right after graduation and a few had careers but the majority of women thought they should fulfill the roles they were told to. They produced the children who led further reforms for women and I saw in a few papers such as Mary Ann's the women, who produced the baby boomers, did not have time to be politically active and brushed it aside. It reminded me of the woman I interviewed who admitted they were too tied up in their worlds to pay attention to outside influences. In a few papers I thought the women who were single mothers and able to support themselves and children were leaders of the Women's Movement even if they did not openly admit it. Those women started the trend towards independence and without their mark in the workplace and challenging "male dominated roles" women may not have acheived what they did in the 1960-1970s era. I agree with Avanness it is important to note that even with all the similarities all of the women were exceptional in their stories. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with the sentiments already expressed here, that the majority of women who were interviewed and written about had similar experiences and how interesting that is. It also seemed that many of these women remembered feeling alone in their struggle to maintain the family and the struggles to either work or not to work. I find this very interesting because many of these women had friends who were having similar struggles, but I think that earlier in the 20th century talking about and sharing the daily struggles that individuals went through was not considered appropriate. I would have thought that these women would not have felt so secluded and alone in their struggle, but I think they lived in a different world than our generation does now and I think technology plays a major role in that openness that is seen now. These women were not raised in a technologically based culture and the technology that was around literally was new and never seen before which sometimes made life more difficult than it needed to be. <br />
I also found it interesting that these women remember the role of women as housewives and mothers, and some of them had fonder views of those roles than others. A few thought of housework as something other than unpaid labor (just something they had to do that didn’t affect the structure and stability of the family) and I think that those would remembered it as something they were expected to do rather than what they wanted to do voluntarily seemed to remember it less fondly. Would anyone else agree? Maybe I’m reading too far into things. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
<br />
As I read through these papers, many of us focused on working women because I think that is something that changed continuously throughout the 20th century. The trends of women working never remained the same; they changed almost decade to decade. It seemed that many of the women interviewed returned to work after raising their children and I think for most women that was a way of raising self-esteem, that women were capable of being both a wife and a career women. I think the idea of women not working because of the influence it would have on their children was another recurring trend. In Taylor Brann’s paper, she talked about a woman who left her job in the 1980s to take care of her children. It was almost socially unacceptable for women to even think of balancing work and a career at the time, espeically when the focus was transitioning more and more towards the family. Although I say that most experiences seemed similar, I think some stood out, such as Meg’s interview and Fitch’s interview. In both these interviews, the women they interviewed seemed to have no problem finding jobs or even moving into the professional world and I think that was definitely a step in the right direction. These women seemed to have defied some of the odds against women, especially for Meg's interviewee, who worked as a dental professional. Another noticeable feature was the jobs women traditionally took on. Many of them were related to nursing, or clerical work. Along with everyone else, it amazed me that although these women lived their life at different times in the 20th century, their experiences were quite similar, with history being passed down from generation to generation. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
First, I’d like to add a detail to my own paper that was in my footnotes, but since the footnotes did not show up in Google Docs, I want to say it here, because I think it’s important. Why exactly Lois left Mary Washington is uncertain, since in previous conversations I’ve had with her, she claimed that the school kicked her out for getting married. Though, if it’s true that the school kicked her out, I’m under the suspicion that it’s more likely because she was pregnant. However, when I sat down with her in the interview, she changed the story to the one presented in the main body of my paper. In the long run, it doesn’t change the fact that she has no regrets about never finishing college, but it would effect how we view the college’s policy towards such a situation. <br />
<br />
On a different topic, I found it interesting to see the women’s reactions to the feminist movement. Ms. Blalock outright opposed the movement, not because she objected to women working or equality between men and women, but because she saw it as detrimental to children. There is no denying the authority she has on the subject of children, having been an educator for so long, but it makes me think of our earlier discussions of how someone always sees the American family as being on the brink of failure. Other women, like Deb Lee and Sue Ward, don’t seem to particularly dislike the movement, but it did not appear to really play much into their lives, which judging from my own interview as well, seems typical. - Alice W<br />
<br />
<br />
Ms. Bobbi Blalock had an interesting outlook on women’s view of the family. She seems to have traditional views based in older generations. Though this is not prevalent in the other interviews, it does seem striking because she placed a strong importance on the woman being in the home and that offering security to children. It does make me question if the brashness of the 1960’s and 70’s was a little too over the top for some women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time. Working mothers have struggled with maintaining both for many decades, but for the most part (aside from WWII), society was against them working. As was mentioned in the lecture (which I wish I could have used in my paper), society’s view on working women began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. Some women, as the papers showed, managed to balance work and family and do it successfully, and for once they had the backing of the public while they were doing it. Daycares, for instance, were a great help in maintaining this balance. However, many mothers still struggled with the balance, and while they had society more willing to support them working, they now had a new ideal to live up to. My interviewee, for instance, drove herself into depression in her attempt to “have it all,” and she believes that the media helped trick women into thinking they can do it all. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It is interesting how strikingly similar the experiences of many of the interviewed women were. Among the slew of really well written papers that I read, I focused on three in particular, Taylor Braun's, Catherine Brau's, and Ellen Fritz's paper. These three interviewees shared a similar view to each other in the fact that they rejected or simply cared not to participate in the NOW movement and women's liberation. In Braun and Fritz's papers the women felt that they wanted to focus on raising their children and maintaining a healthy family. In Brau's paper, her interviewee had very little time to devote to the women's lib movement, though, like my interview subject, she was involved in the anti-war movement. These women expressed many of the concerns and comments that we have been discussing in class about a women's balance between domestic and public life, with their family and work, and the roles they played in all of these arenas. I appreciated how some of the other papers focused on the academic efforts that their interviewees pursued. My interviewee also received a college degree and returned to school later in life to pursue her law degree. What I thought was really interesting is that my interviewee felt that she did not live the “typical” life that many baby boomer women did, but after reading these papers, her answers turned out to be so similar to many of the others. I agree with Megan to an extent about how the women fulfilled the roles that they were “supposed to” fill, but some of them really seemed to want that life. In Taylor’s paper, her interviewee felt guilty and wrong for returning to work once the children were in school. It seems that some of the women did not want to fulfill the typical roles but others seemed content in their actions. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Coming off what Caryn said I think it is interesting that her subject felt that her experiences were not typical yet this project showed that alot of women had similar experiences. I think it reflects that perhaps some women felt they were alone in there desire to continue there life after children and marriage. It reminded me of Betty Friedans article where she found women discussing this "unnameable problem" as if it were taboo. I know my interviewee felt isolated in her experiences as a working mother and eventually a divorcee yet this study shows that many women were dealing with the same issues. But i do think it is interesting that the subjects would feel like there experience was atypical of other women, yet in reality it may not have been. -Emma<br />
<br />
Like Caryn, I noticed that a lot of the women had similar life experiences, or that there were at least some common themes among a lot of the papers. The fact that so many women were happy being housewives always strikes me, because I always revert to the image of the depressed and oppressed mid-century wife and mother. Yes, some women felt restricted by that life, but not all, and we shouldn't forget that many women were happy when we look at what, to many of us, appears to have been a pretty limiting situation. Socioeconomic status also played a huge role in these women's lives in terms of the education and opportunities open to them but also in the expectations set for them. For example, Women whose parents had some money were expected to go to college, meaning that they probably weren't marrying while still in high school. Finally, many of the women broke traditional norms in different ways, from not marrying at all, to going to dental school, to raising children as a single parent. The big name leaders of the women's rights movement did a lot, but it's really the collective actions of all of these everyday women that created the more egalitarian society we have today, yet most of them seem largely unaware of the changes they were helping to bring about. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann how it can be a little surprising to hear how women could be happy being housewives. I think sometimes in class we forget that many people were happy with society's expectations. This ties back into what we talked about earlier in the semester with paid vs. unpaid work. It is interesting how some of the woman took the role of being a mother as the focus on their life, while others did not seem to compare it to a job at all. There seems to be a little difference in how some of the women who raised kids view their life versus the way those who choose not to, though really each woman is just as much of an individual regardless of what choices they made. -J Rowley<br />
<br />
Even if women were limited to specific fields when trying to obtain work, I found that many were working for at least a point in their lives. Many of these women were middle class and attended high school and even college. Most women got jobs after college or after high school and either kept working or got married. It seems like a fair amount of women stayed in the home, but it was becoming less expected of them and many worked even if they were also raising families. There were a few single mothers and they worked mostly because they had no choice and were the sole provider's for their family. Working women were certainly becoming more prominent. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Many of these women had similar life experiences regarding their role in the latter half of the 20th century. What I found fascinating was that the women that had children at an early age often sought a career after their children were older. These women found a second life at the age of 40 or 45 in which they had raised their family and now had the opportunity and freedom to pursue their dreams. Additionally, these women have the benefit of life experiences which would affect their choices for the future. The professional women who had gone to college right from high school often waited to their late 20's or early 30's to start a family and then were either forced to choose between their career or their kids; or to put their children into daycare. They are also more financially secure and stable than the women who married at a young age. Who's to say which option is better. Women, unlike men in society, are forced to be put in the position of making these decisions and living with any ramifications. - EFritz<br />
<br />
So, reading through a couple of these papers, I started to notice a trend around the third paper of women who were being (what is recognized today as) oppressed, but never really felt that it was that much of an issue to them. By that I mean, most of these women recognized that "women" in general were not permitted the same opportunity as men, but that it wouldn't affect them (Holman’s paper even says “Although she never felt restricted from any job she desired, she did observe that there were only so many positions open to women.8” which I think perfectly exemplifies my point). And of these women, I have to say, it seems to have produced a biased opinion that it worked out for every woman. I feel like these women in particular were very successful in their lives. They are now fairly old, have lived a long life, and seem to not fret and worry about the money or other particulars in their lives now. Maybe their life wasn't always easy, but it still says something that they made it to be over the age of 55. I think sometimes it is forgotten that that is a huge life accomplishment, to be old. I think it also may have been to the benefit of these women to ignore the fact that the oppression of women may affect them, because if they ignore it, then they can surpass it. As all of the women who are mentioned in the 4 papers, (Holman, Brau, Whiteaker, Makarios) in particular that I noticed this trend of not noticing the oppression of themselves in, have done. It also really surprises me that no one above me seemed to have noticed this. –ssellers<br />
<br />
As most people have stated, I noticed a lot of similarities between a lot of the papers I read. I noticed that a lot of women worked and attended school. After doing my own interview and comparing it with the trends discussed in class, it feels like more women were able to attend school than actually did. I agree with a lot of what Taylor stated above, "Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time." This was a trend I noticed as well among the papers. It appears that a lot of these women who were interviewed either had to work or chose to work, but there was some ultimate cost to it. Whether it was relationships or their own health. I think that Sarah brings up a good point that I myself did not catch until reading her post. A lot of these women are old and their opinion is biased. My interviewee for example never once stated that her situation was hard, even though she worked as a full-time nurse, with four children and a husband who was a doctor and in the navy. I think that a lot of time as older people look back, things might not seem as bad as they were. -abratchi<br />
<br />
There seemed to be trend in which the women in these interviews maintained motherhood and work so well in spite of society saying that you cannot achieve both. These women overcame challenges, heartaches, and divorce and at the same time embraced life, love, and raised their children. The women coming out of middle class families had more opportunities. I recognized the shift in expectations and push for oneself to go to college in these women’s experiences also. But I agree with Sarah, these are reflective memories, so we can't get a total feeling of what that person felt at that time, it's more glossed over sometimes. I think it's important to remember that we only captured pieces of their lives in the interview. There was a lot of really interesting things that I couldn't all fit in 2 pages, did anyone else have that problem? -MHimes<br />
<br />
I found it fascinating that despite the geographical location, many of the women who shared similar socioeconomic statuses had similar experiences. For example, Mrs. Ripley, who Megan interviewed, seemed to be a well-off woman from the South. She had a very similar story to the upper class Northern woman that I interviewed. The main difference I found was that the Northern woman I interviewed was very progressive, while the Southern woman Megan interviewed seemed to be more conservative. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
A very surprising trend that I noticed was how easily many of these women would drop what they were doing to get married! Alice Wagner, for example, described the life of Lois Wagner who was attending Mary Washington and quit school in her junior year to get married. This is similar to the person I interviewed who got a highly prestigious grant to do medical research at the Rockefeller Institute for sickle cell anemia and methadone, but met her husband and chose not to attend Rockefeller Institute. These women put so much work towards their education, and they just stop as soon as they got married. That is why I am not surprised that the U.S. Government eventually saw women as a misused resource. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I noticed many of these women working as secretaries or doing work in the clerical field. Two worked as secretaries in the government and these were jobs that were deemed as "acceptable" by society. This seems to follow the trend of what we learned in class in that women worked, but they were often confined to specific jobs. Nursing seemed to be another one of those "accepted" positions and through the papers, it seemed as if it was very female dominated. It seems like after and around and during the war, women were confined by societies expectations to specific jobs, but over the years, thos restrictions lifted and they have spread their skills. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I found a great variety in the interview papers that we as a class created. In some interviews the women held tight to those typical roles of women in the early 20th century as mothers and wives. Others challenged the trends, either by fate or their own ambitions and tried to maintain an independent and family lifestyle at the same time. I noticed a pattern in the lives of the women as they fought the battle of being a working women or a housewife. These were the two extremes to being a woman, and many tried to have both but more times than not returned to being a housewife in the long run. A few challenged the trends of being a “normal” housewife by either unintentional manner’s like Rowley’s and Smethurst’s interviewee’s did by trying to balance being a mother and an independent women. Both, while having children, continued with their education and motherly duties. Other’s such as Leckner’s interviewee and my grandmother conformed to the prescribed roles at the time; marrying young, having children, and never working. While even others were neither part of one or the other extreme. Brau’s interviewee was the perfect example of a women who was somewhere in the middle. She did not get married, even after the loss of her finance and earning herself a degree. At the same time though, she took care of the household at a young age and then always took care of family when they fell ill. The experience that stood out to me most was that Brau’s interviewee was seen as “self-fish” when she finally started taking care of herself and spending money on herself. One the most important life lesson’s I’ve learned so far has been to first take care of myself and then others. We as women always put others before ourselves and sacrifice our own happiness. No one should have to do that and that was just what these women were battling with, trying to make themselves and their family happy at the same time; a battle that is still fought on today in the hearts of many women. -Morgan<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading all of these interview assignments. For me, this has been the most interesting part of the course because these women who were interviewed provide us with a direct link to the past and reflect many of the themes we have covered. The main theme I recognized in most of these are the stereotypes in the roles of women, more specifically their role in the house. It seems like most were comfortable with being wives, mothers, and domestic oriented. Another trend related to what we have talked about in class was the role of women working during World War II. It was a temporary role for women and when their husbands came back it seems many were willing to go back to the way it was before. The most interesting quote I liked was in Emma Pecks paper, where her grandmother got married after WWII because it was "the fashionable thing to do." The movement to suburbia was a big thing too that some mentioned. Many of these papers reminded me of "Leave it to Beaver," just from looking at how communities functioned. Another thing was the lack or not lack of jobs available for women depending on what period of time they lived as well as the types. Overall these interviews gave a great perspective of womens' achievements, oppressions, and have made me gain more respect for the contributions of their lifetime. --David Fitch<br />
<br />
While each one was interesting and enlightening, I did not see a single uniting pattern in these interviews. I think with the varying ages, locations, socio-economic backgrounds, etc. finding one would be unlikely. Each woman had her own ideas about woman's issues. Just like we learned about in class, how once women got the right to vote, they did not vote exactly the same - no two women, no two people are going to feel exactly the same about education, working outside the home, motherhood, marriage and a host of other issues. However, all the interviews were alike in their richness and insight. I think the interviews agree with we have learned about it class. Historically, the woman was usually at home, raising the children, completely out of the public realm. During the lives of these women, that was becoming increasingly only part of women’s experiences. Some women were single and worked, some were married and worked; Married women, mothers worked or stayed at home or both. The experiences of women were becomingly increasingly varied, as seen through the very diverse lives of our interviewees. --kokeefe</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-04-07T19:18:35Z<p>Kokeefe: /* "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==<br />
<br />
"Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie" (p. 225). We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail. I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played. I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women. They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike. White women also understood the important of keeping black women's involvement in the boycotts a secret. It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired. I'm just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement? Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so. To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two. My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it. Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized. The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well. I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret. The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott. -- Mhimes<br />
<br />
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I'm sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on "suspicion," and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. "The white people really believed that. They didn't see through it all."(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan<br />
<br />
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie. I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change. The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case? The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen? Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was. It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear. Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed. It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I don't believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the "roar of indignation" over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery's white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of "respectable women" themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==<br />
<br />
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced. In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason: "forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies." So, the procedure was a permanent birth control. I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455). I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking. Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I've only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan<br />
<br />
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin. The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression. They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable. The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from multiplying. I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane. When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing. The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women. Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace. Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk<br />
<br />
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies. I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities? I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior. I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
== "More Than a Lady" Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women's Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==<br />
<br />
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan<br />
<br />
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn't completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike & proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn't truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn't have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson's voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man's voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it ''must'' belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it's sad that she didn't live to see all the progress that's been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson's actions "fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness" (pg 557), a trait we've seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more "feminine" when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women. I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how "Ebony" tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman. The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job. An interesting example she used was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work. An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities. These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility. With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in? As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory. What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white. But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together. If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were. To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds," Laila Haidarali ==<br />
<br />
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig ==<br />
<br />
The last line of this article struck me the most, "I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to." If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans. His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-04-07T19:03:29Z<p>Kokeefe: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==<br />
<br />
"Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie" (p. 225). We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail. I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played. I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women. They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike. White women also understood the important of keeping black women's involvement in the boycotts a secret. It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired. I'm just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement? Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so. To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two. My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it. Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized. The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well. I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret. The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott. -- Mhimes<br />
<br />
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I'm sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on "suspicion," and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. "The white people really believed that. They didn't see through it all."(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan<br />
<br />
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie. I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change. The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case? The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen? Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was. It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear. Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed. It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I don't believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the "roar of indignation" over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery's white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of "respectable women" themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==<br />
<br />
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced. In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason: "forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies." So, the procedure was a permanent birth control. I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455). I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking. Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I've only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan<br />
<br />
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin. The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression. They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable. The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from multiplying. I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane. When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing. The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women. Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace. Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk<br />
<br />
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies. I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities? I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior. I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
== "More Than a Lady" Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women's Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==<br />
<br />
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan<br />
<br />
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn't completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike & proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn't truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn't have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson's voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man's voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it ''must'' belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it's sad that she didn't live to see all the progress that's been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson's actions "fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness" (pg 557), a trait we've seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more "feminine" when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women. I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how "Ebony" tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman. The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job. An interesting example she used was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work. An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities. These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility. With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in? As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory. What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white. But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together. If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were. To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds," Laila Haidarali ==<br />
<br />
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig ==</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-04-07T19:00:12Z<p>Kokeefe: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==<br />
<br />
"Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie" (p. 225). We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail. I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played. I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women. They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike. White women also understood the important of keeping black women's involvement in the boycotts a secret. It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired. I'm just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement? Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so. To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two. My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it. Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized. The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well. I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret. The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott. -- Mhimes<br />
<br />
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I'm sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on "suspicion," and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. "The white people really believed that. They didn't see through it all."(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan<br />
<br />
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie. I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change. The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case? The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen? Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was. It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear. Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed. It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I don't believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the "roar of indignation" over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery's white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of "respectable women" themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==<br />
<br />
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced. In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason: "forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies." So, the procedure was a permanent birth control. I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455). I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking. Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I've only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan<br />
<br />
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin. The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression. They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable. The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from multiplying. I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane. When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing. The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women. Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace. Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk<br />
<br />
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies. I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities? I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior. I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
== "More Than a Lady" Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women's Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==<br />
<br />
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan<br />
<br />
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn't completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike & proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn't truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn't have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson's voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man's voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it ''must'' belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it's sad that she didn't live to see all the progress that's been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson's actions "fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness" (pg 557), a trait we've seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more "feminine" when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women. I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how "Ebony" tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman. The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job. An interesting example she used was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work. An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities. These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility. With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in? As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory. What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white. But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together. If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were. To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds," Laila Haidarali ==<br />
<br />
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-03-31T20:39:43Z<p>Kokeefe: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
== "Balancing Work and Family," Betty Jeanne Boggs ==<br />
"Always this-- 'because you're a woman'" (page 208). I was really moved by this article and felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. I can't believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn't pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. I still felt strong emotions towards her statement "For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn't know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby" (page 210) because it's something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can't imagine it's ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don't allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it's nice to imagine. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but I also noticed her husband's willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war. I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she "wanted to be in two places at one time." I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker, and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today's working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs' story, and I feel that it's a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs' case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs' did want to eventually continue her career she didn't do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, "...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go," (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn't think it was possible to juggle both or weren't sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn't think it was possible otherwise the "problem that has no name" would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Rachel Carson ==<br />
<br />
I am not the world's biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. Ridiculous that her response "No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now" (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that "A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world" (page 228). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==<br />
<br />
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when ''he'' has achieved complete control over ''himself'' and his environment. Only then can ''he'' meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future? Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Erin, I noticed that Church uses 'he' throughout the piece, but I don't necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just a quirk of grammar. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women "will be taking their rightful place in world affairs," and so girls should be "provided with the same opportunities" (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of 'parents' rather than simply the role of 'mother. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann's statement above. One of Church's main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that "neither the father nor mother should reign supreme" (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that "girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys" (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don't believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. I also found the wording of Church's essay interesting when she states "women will be taking their ''rightful'' places in society" (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs. --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==<br />
<br />
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Regardless of one's moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn't mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn't fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)in today's world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said "Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual" (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman's right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I'm happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, I'm also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??) because if she hadn't had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson's decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn't a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It's amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
=="An Unplanned Pregnancy", by Joanna Rubin==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, "When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics" (217). Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, "Although I didn't for a minute think I didn't want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn't 'Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.'"(217) She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn't "taking the easy way out," it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece. I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
=="The Problem That Has No Name," Betty Friedan, 1963==<br />
<br />
I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife. This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women's lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they'd still feel isolated in that they couldn't share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It's telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry "just to know they are not alone." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home. Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties. If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them? In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife? It became a moral dilemma. Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles. I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.) Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts. -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Farnham and Lundberg==<br />
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they ''have jobs themselves''? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting. It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities. But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences. I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home. Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations. Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family? I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family. -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==<br />
I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around. Just imagine being in that courtroom. Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace. Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how "women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making" (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can't handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
=="Star Struck," Vicki L. Ruiz ==<br />
<br />
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920's to 1950's written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today. All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.” -- Kokeefe</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-03-31T00:43:44Z<p>Kokeefe: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==<br />
<br />
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when ''he'' has achieved complete control over ''himself'' and his environment. Only then can ''he'' meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future? Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==<br />
<br />
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
=="An Unplanned Pregnancy", by Joanna Rubin==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, "When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics" (217). Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered. -- Kokeefe</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-24T18:44:07Z<p>Kokeefe: /* Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman. She was able to make more money than she had before the War. Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child. I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill's experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I'm glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn't, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller's poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill's off hand comment of "they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse" (186). I know this is a women's history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==<br />
<br />
"Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job" (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today's understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it's easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers<br />
<br />
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply "didn't click" for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn't someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==<br />
<br />
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II's new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family's heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it's not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that "she'd never had the time" to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It's easy to see how real-life women in Gertie's situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, ''The Doll maker'', I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of what they wanted their life to be like. I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage. Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted. As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages. -MHimes<br />
<br />
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine. Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan<br />
<br />
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression. This family moved to Detroit due to the country's massive mobilization and hopefully a job. I think their experience there was nothing like they expected. They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status. But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work. Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring. The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was "adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room." I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living. Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==<br />
<br />
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were "perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater" (pg. 375) was on to something. It's noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn't seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to "less exhausting" positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army. “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==<br />
<br />
I felt for these Japanese-American people. There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was a terrible time in American History. We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps. This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S. In continuing with Morgan's mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower. These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad. The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
For Morgan's comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler's concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America's internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-24T18:25:26Z<p>Kokeefe: /* Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman. She was able to make more money than she had before the War. Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child. I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill's experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I'm glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn't, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller's poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill's off hand comment of "they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse" (186). I know this is a women's history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==<br />
<br />
"Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job" (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today's understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it's easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers<br />
<br />
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply "didn't click" for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn't someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==<br />
<br />
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II's new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family's heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it's not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that "she'd never had the time" to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It's easy to see how real-life women in Gertie's situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, ''The Doll maker'', I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of what they wanted their life to be like. I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage. Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted. As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages. -MHimes<br />
<br />
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine. Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan<br />
<br />
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression. This family moved to Detroit due to the country's massive mobilization and hopefully a job. I think their experience there was nothing like they expected. They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status. But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work. Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring. The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was "adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room." I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living. Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==<br />
<br />
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were "perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater" (pg. 375) was on to something. It's noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn't seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to "less exhausting" positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army. “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==<br />
<br />
I felt for these Japanese-American people. There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was a terrible time in American History. We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps. This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S. In continuing with Morgan's mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower. These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad. The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-17T03:39:20Z<p>Kokeefe: /* American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help */</p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters "were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action" (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-17T03:19:58Z<p>Kokeefe: /* The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur */</p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-10T22:41:30Z<p>Kokeefe: /* Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-23T04:12:51Z<p>Kokeefe: /* Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail */</p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
==Working Women Write the Jewish Daily Forward==<br />
While this essay was not too long in length I found interesting the early day versions of advice columns in newspapers. Women, specifically Jewish women were able to write about their struggles and stories in search of advice instead of just relying on a diary to record their thoughts. It reminded me of reading American Girl magazine when I was younger and learning about different girls stories and how they expressed any concern with their lives. I found it great that the advice given back to girls, much like today, was for the betterment of women. The advice encouraged women to step forward and have a voice in the workplace and home. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Like Megan, these also just struck as modern-day advice columns. I found it amusing (for me not the girls writing) that the girl wrote so much and they were given very small snippets of a response. Its good to see that there was an outlet/ a way for the girl to get advice without possibly embarrassing herself or worse. - Christine<br />
<br />
The Jewish Daily Forward contained some interesting submissions. The first one written by the teenager who was being sexually harassed struck me because this is something that many women endured (and still endure) during the early part of the 20th century. The advice, though correct, causes me to wonder: would anyone do anything about the foreman? It seems like the circumstances surrounding women, especially immigrant women working in shops/factories at this time were pretty bleak. I wish it weren’t so, but I wonder if any action would have been taken against the foreman at all, she explains that this is a small town so maybe that would have any effect but so many of these cases, if they were even reported, went unresolved. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I liked the essays about''' the Jewish Daily forward and the Chicago Defender both newspapers seemed to be doing as much as they could for the immigrant and black communities. While in some situations they might not have had the power to do anything it seems like they were a comforting presence in both communities.''' The arrival of the Chicago Defender especially seemed to be looked forward to by many families. However like Caryn I also wondered if it was likely that any action would be taken against the foreman who harassed the young worker. What were the chances that a young girl without any money would be able to make a successful case against a male employer? Also this is not really a post but the letter from the girl who had lost her fiance? husband? in the shirtwaist factory fire was really depressing. Especially her ending line of " I think everything can be all right for me only in the grave".....I hope she listened to the editor and remarried!--Emma<br />
<br />
These letters to the editor were interesting to read. One of the letters, the shopgirl who writes to the editor saying, "He [the foreman] often allows himself to "have fun" with some of the working girls. It was my bad luck to be one of the girls that he tried to make advances to. And woe to any girl who doesn't willingly accept them." (P. 63 MAW) It was sad to read that these girls were put into these helpless positions and if they objected, they risked losing their jobs, which would have been even worse. They had to choose between the lesser of two evils, with neither one being desirable. -- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. '''The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity.''' Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These women's lives totally interest me. As plainly as she tells her life story, as pertaining to work, you get a real sense of the pride that she felt in being so industrious and in being so good at what she did. She even mentions the books she read while she used to churn butter. She was constantly occupied and never (except when she taught before she was married, presumably) for a wage. '''But by most measures, she and her husband led very successful lives.''' They provided for their five kids and sent them to school, one even to Cornell. And at 58, it sounds like she even gets to "retire". The values of rural living seem very different than those of urban living. As more and more people moved into urban areas, i wonder how this affected the lifestyles of farm families. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Nothing really stands out in this piece too much, except for how matter-of-factly she tells her story. She lists out her life, her work, everything she's done. She doesn't seem to be boasting or complaining; it's just life to her. I do wonder if she is aware of life outside the farm, if she ever wondered about not being there. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The past couple of class periods we have discussed how women's work on the farm went unaccounted for in census and other data. This really brings that point home. I never truly recognized or grasped the difficulty of women working on the farm. The last paragraph stresses that point: "My husband says, 'You helped earn and save more than I did.' The boys many times say, 'If it had not been for your pushing and helping us to school, we never could have done so well." This encompasses the woman's role on the farm. Not only did she work insanely hard as a farmhand, but a mother still managed to fulfill the role of moral and matriarchal support.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I found this piece fascinating and humbling. '''Maybe it’s because I am the child of a New York City suburb, and yet only two generations back, this woman’s life was my grandmother’s life.''' Not seeing the struggles of farmers anywhere close to me, I could not imagine how much work, strength and faith even it took and takes to lead such a life. Farmers, but especially farm women, are completely under appreciated. However, while I was taken aback by the never ending work load of a farm woman, it was pleasing to see her husband’s and sons’ acknowledgment and gratitude. <br />
On another note, the line “work never kills” (p. 50) jumped out at me immediately and made me ponder the differences between factory workers and farmers at the turn of the century. It is now a well known fact that factory workers toiled in horrendous conditions, like in the NYC Shirtwaist factory fire. However, the introduction reminded me that the hours were longer for a farmer and the conditions more tumultuous. Our nation needed the industry factory workers provided, but even the factory workers needed the sustenance farmers provided. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
I found this article extremely interesting. I understood the fact that rural life was a different form of difficult for women, but I had never thought hard about what types of obstacles they faced and just how tough they had to be. Typical domestic work was not easy, there was a lot that needed to be done-especially if the mistress of the house did not have any domestic help, but rural women were without electricity which meant that everyday tasks that were hard in urban households were significantly more difficult in the country. I can not imagine having to haul water in order to perform everyday tasks-and sometimes that could total 200 gallons! (49) That is insane. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
== Buffalobird Woman's Story ==<br />
After reading this excerpt, I found myself extremely frustrated with the government. Why did the government feel the need to tell the Indians how to do things when the Indians had already succeeded before the government came along to tell them what to do? The Indian women of course were open to the new changes, but they still wondered why they could not cultivate as they had in the past. It was probably a lifestyle change for them, because now, they were to grow what they were told, and it was probably disconcerting to the Indian women and men because they had lost control of a part of their lives. -- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
This is another example of how the U.S. government attempted to assimilate the Native Americans, and in the process took away their land and changed their lifestyles. Buffalobird is a strong personality, and remains that way throughout the excerpt. It is a refreshing piece to read because the spirit of so many Native Americans was crushed. Even though many Native American women lost their independence and sense of strength, she seems to have maintained it.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
'''After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind.''' Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on a lot of the points she made. This piece captured my attention because of the harsh conditions that these women were forced to work in. I found in particularly difficult to not feel bad for the girls because stress they had to endure by working in industrial places like a glove factory. Nestor references how the girls tried to find ways to produce more gloves in an hour and would sometimes even work during their breaks just to get more done. She also revealed how the women were afraid of the machine breaking because it meant they could not make more gloves, which meant they would not get their payment. Nestor shows the effect of industry on the working woman and it's effects. ''' I wonder how women at this time dealt with professions like this without getting extremely frustrated.''' -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
'''As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way.''' Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
'''On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say.''' First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and '''''decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals?''''' - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). ''' Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families.''' Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this article really interesting because '''it exemplifies one of the main problems for women entering the work force in the early 20th century. This problem was that society, as well as individual families, was not ready to let go of common values for women. These values held that women should work inside the home, so when young girls went outside to work during the day, their family still expected them to perform womanly duties at home when they returned, like they had never been gone at all.''' Even though these families needed their daughters to work, they still tried to hang on to the idea that women were meant to be inside the home. In the end, this value put even more pressure on women because they were then forced to work hard outside and then just as hard inside when they returned. I really liked the one example of a mother on page 267 that actually understood how important it was for her daughter to work and then rest when she got home so she could work again the next day. It seems like that mother placed more importance on her daughter's well-being than on the societal pressures around her. --Angie<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
'''This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution?''' Apparently, there were a few causes. '''Poor sanitary conditions in the working world''' affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, '''fast paced modern life''' lead to eroticism, and '''poor pay''' meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but '''the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls'''. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. '''Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women'''. Finally, I have to ask, '''''what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue?''''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. '''The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it.''' It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant '''I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY??''' I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. '''I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!).''' The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. '''This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation?''' -MHimes<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I can't imagine the physical and mental exhaustion these African American woman faced in domestic service jobs. The woman whose story is told was a nurse, among many other things, yet she was still considered "servant class." '''Were white women who worked in the same type of jobs as nurses or household servants considered to be in the "servant class?" She goes on to say, "I am allowed to go home to my own children, the oldest of whom is a girl of 18 years, only one in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon - even then I'm not permitted to stay all night." (P. 54 MAW) Wasn't there some type of law against keeping this lady at her job all the time?''' She was not a slave, so shouldn't she have been allowed to go home after work? Or did the rules of her job make her stay there? In my opinion, this free African American woman's job didn't seem that much different from slavery. -- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
One of the most important questions I think women were most concerned with while trying to obtain suffrage is asked by DuBois on page. 276. '''She claims that women were worried whether or not they could balance their work in the home with that of gaining suffrage.''' It seems many women were concerned that they could not acheive a balance between the two and that there work towards suffrage would take away their focus from the home front. I beleive that this question was not incredibly worrisome and that a balance was possible. Even if they were in the work force, responsibilities on the home front could still be upheld. Even today, women work and I still beleive they are a central figure at home. Granted it was more difficult back then because women were attempting to accomplish more, but a balance was still possible. -afrisk<br />
<br />
'''So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status.''' Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how, on page 273, DuBois talks about how wealthy women first entered the suffragist field in the 1890s because they wanted to make the wealthy class stronger. I previously was under the misconception that women entered into the movement solely on the value that women should have the right to vote, but this was obviously not the case. Wealthy women wanted the vote because they thought they would vote the same way as their wealthy husbands, therefore solidifying the political power of the wealthy. I think this is really important because it shows that '''many women associated themselves more with their class than with the fact that they were women.''' -- Angie<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. '''Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages.''' -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the ''Defender'' was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there. Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South. I'd sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the Chicago Defender really emphasizes the deplorable living situations in the South. The letter from a woman who had previously worked in a rural school and was looking for a job in domestic service really stood out to me. '''The idea that a housekeeping position in the North would pay better then a school teachers pay in the south really shows the desperate situation of black families in the south.''' Some of the people who wrote in to the newspaper claimed to have good references its sad to think that whatever experience they had previously the only job they would most likely be able to find was one as a domestic servant. --Emma<br />
<br />
These letters to the Chicago Defender are quite desperate as Mary Ann and Erin have both mentioned. But I thought that I would approach this from two different directions: one the difference in the letters themselves. Two of the letters are written by teachers whose school is either closing or wages are too low. These particular letters showcase the difference in education from the other letters. I also found it realistic that the teachers were looking for domestic work, though this work was quite hard, I am sure that the prospect of a room and further opportunities in a bustling city were the motivating factors among the poor wages and general conditions in the south. Second, '''the letters seem to note a trust that these women had in the Chicago Defender, implying that these women believed that the Defender would help them find these jobs.''' The reality of this was that thousands upon thousands of black men and women were migrating to Chicago leaving them, as Mary Ann said to compete for positions in domestic service. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
It was almost impossible to keep a straight face while reading this particular article and I had to read a passage to my roomate and he was also laughing hysterically. This is the first intense anti-suffrage argument that I have come accross with this much candor and I found it incredibly interesting. Marie Jenny Howe essentially gives her gender no credit and claims they hardly posses any intellectual capacity and are even incapable of doing something as simple as placing a ballot in a box. She wants to continue with the established order and keep women down in the domestic sphere because "some one must wash the dishes." She continues to take a very conservative approach to women's roles and even mentions the Bible as reason to keep women suppressed. Myself, and others I am sure do not agree with Howe's view of women as an imcompetent gender and beleive women should have never been suppressed like they were. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. '''Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire''', and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. '''Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly.''' When phrased this way,'' '''it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting,''''' but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. '''However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause.''' – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. '''One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse?''' --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
'''''This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement.''''' "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
Just like all the other posts stated, I found this article more comical than persuasive. Howe tries to argue that women do not need the right to vote using by a lot of (in my opinion) ridiculous points. I particularly liked how she stated "I don't care about facts. I ask for proof." I think that suffragists at this time were trying hard to push for rights for women, and that should be Howe's proof. She seems to really embody the idea that women are passive creatures which is almost, in a sense, degrading to women, especially when she states "I am a creature of impulse, instinct and intuition- and I glory in it." -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
'''I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike.''' The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Right of the bat this article caught my attention with the seeming contradiction of the “militant suffragists led by the charismatic Quaker leader Alice Paul” (111) and the harshness of the sentence Paul and her followers received. I cannot help but wonder if these women received such a severe sentence because of their radical behavior and how horribly inappropriate and alarming this behavior was on women. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
==Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic, Florence Luscomb==<br />
<br />
The one sentence that stood out to me in this essay, "We even reveled in dog-fights; for, as our chief remarked while we were enjoying one such experience, 'After all, there is nothing to draw a crowd like a dog-fight,'...(100). My first thought was Michael Vick and how much the media paid attention to his role in dog-fights yet women suffragists were right at home among dogs and thought of them as admirers. How society has changed over the years...-Megan W.<br />
<br />
'''A few moments struck me in this passage. The opening “…an American woman can stand in a hall and address American men with dignity and earnestness on her part ….yet presto, remove the roof and the same women is a ranting fanatic” (98) It made me think about an ideal of keeping women inside even though speaking at an indoor engagement is not the domestic sphere, it is certainly less public than speaking in park, hence the male apprehension towards this.''' Furthermore, it was a radical move that these women were traveling around the country holding these outdoor meetings. It must have rocked the entire foundation of proprietary that had been established during this time. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Though many men and bystanders would see these women as "ranting fanatic[s]" Florence Luscomb still describes as the crusade as a success. That in itself is something to be proud of. The momentum the women's suffrage movement had picked up is reflected in this excerpt. Though they were met with much adversity, they were able to adapt and overcome. Even though men initially viewed their outdoor speeches as too assertive, they were still successful. I was also mildly amused that Luscomb took the time to calculate the averages of all the meetings. It was rather beneficial to her argument.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
==4. The ''New York Times'' Reports on the Tragedy of the Triangle Factory Fire, 1911== <br />
<br />
The death of these 141 women and few men could have been preventable had the owners taken into account that a building cannot be fully "fire-proof" with hundreds of cotton shirts lying around. One fire escape is clearly not enough for 600 employees especially when many were not familiar with the layout of the building. I found it heartbreaking that had it just been a matter of minutes these employees would not of burned nor lept to their death and even more appalling that for hours the bodies were ignored. I understand that firefighters need to do their job and stop the fire but could they not of split the work and tried to move bodies so they could aid workers instead of watching them jump 100 feet to their death? The workers were helpless victims and the fire showed the ignorance of employers to the safety needs of their workers. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Maud Wood Park, "Front Door Lobbying" for Suffrage, 1917==<br />
I found this section to be extremely interesting because it illustrates how organized suffrage lobbyists were. Maud Wood Park's directions for lobbyists were structured, extensive, and specific. Among the instructions for interviewing, Park states it is most important to "take every possible means to prevent a member from committing himself definitely against the federal Amendment" (MAW, 109). She also made a list of "don'ts" that included, "don't threaten...don't nag...[and] don't do anything to close the door to the next advocate of suffrage" (MAW, 109). What I found most interesting in the article was the examples of actual reports taken by the lobbyists. In one report where a Texas man declared that men represent woman and there was no need for women to vote, the lobbyist wrote in her report "When I suggested my being a widow and not having representation, he gallantly offered to represent me" (MAW, 110). This report made me laugh because it seems like this man from Texas was pretty conceited. It also represented the viewpoint of a large majority of men who felt it was their responsibility to vote and not woman's. - David Fitch</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-23T03:33:39Z<p>Kokeefe: /* The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 */</p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
==Working Women Write the Jewish Daily Forward==<br />
While this essay was not too long in length I found interesting the early day versions of advice columns in newspapers. Women, specifically Jewish women were able to write about their struggles and stories in search of advice instead of just relying on a diary to record their thoughts. It reminded me of reading American Girl magazine when I was younger and learning about different girls stories and how they expressed any concern with their lives. I found it great that the advice given back to girls, much like today, was for the betterment of women. The advice encouraged women to step forward and have a voice in the workplace and home. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Like Megan, these also just struck as modern-day advice columns. I found it amusing (for me not the girls writing) that the girl wrote so much and they were given very small snippets of a response. Its good to see that there was an outlet/ a way for the girl to get advice without possibly embarrassing herself or worse. - Christine<br />
<br />
The Jewish Daily Forward contained some interesting submissions. The first one written by the teenager who was being sexually harassed struck me because this is something that many women endured (and still endure) during the early part of the 20th century. The advice, though correct, causes me to wonder: would anyone do anything about the foreman? It seems like the circumstances surrounding women, especially immigrant women working in shops/factories at this time were pretty bleak. I wish it weren’t so, but I wonder if any action would have been taken against the foreman at all, she explains that this is a small town so maybe that would have any effect but so many of these cases, if they were even reported, went unresolved. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I liked the essays about the Jewish Daily forward and the Chicago Defender both newspapers seemed to be doing as much as they could for the immigrant and black communities. While in some situations they might not have had the power to do anything it seems like they were a comforting presence in both communities. The arrival of the Chicago Defender especially seemed to be looked forward to by many families. However like Caryn I also wondered if it was likely that any action would be taken against the foreman who harassed the young worker. What were the chances that a young girl without any money would be able to make a successful case against a male employer? Also this is not really a post but the letter from the girl who had lost her fiance? husband? in the shirtwaist factory fire was really depressing. Especially her ending line of " I think everything can be all right for me only in the grave".....I hope she listened to the editor and remarried!--Emma<br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity. Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These women's lives totally interest me. As plainly as she tells her life story, as pertaining to work, you get a real sense of the pride that she felt in being so industrious and in being so good at what she did. She even mentions the books she read while she used to churn butter. She was constantly occupied and never (except when she taught before she was married, presumably) for a wage. But by most measures, she and her husband led very successful lives. They provided for their five kids and sent them to school, one even to Cornell. And at 58, it sounds like she even gets to "retire". The values of rural living seem very different than those of urban living. As more and more people moved into urban areas, i wonder how this affected the lifestyles of farm families. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Nothing really stands out in this piece too much, except for how matter-of-factly she tells her story. She lists out her life, her work, everything she's done. She doesn't seem to be boasting or complaining; it's just life to her. I do wonder if she is aware of life outside the farm, if she ever wondered about not being there. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The past couple of class periods we have discussed how women's work on the farm went unaccounted for in census and other data. This really brings that point home. I never truly recognized or grasped the difficulty of women working on the farm. The last paragraph stresses that point: "My husband says, 'You helped earn and save more than I did.' The boys many times say, 'If it had not been for your pushing and helping us to school, we never could have done so well." This encompasses the woman's role on the farm. Not only did she work insanely hard as a farmhand, but a mother still managed to fulfill the role of moral and matriarchal support.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I found this piece fascinating and humbling. Maybe it’s because I am the child of a New York City suburb, and yet only two generations back, this woman’s life was my grandmother’s life. Not seeing the struggles of farmers anywhere close to me, I could not imagine how much work, strength and faith even it took and takes to lead such a life. Farmers, but especially farm women, are completely under appreciated. However, while I was taken aback by the never ending work load of a farm woman, it was pleasing to see her husband’s and sons’ acknowledgment and gratitude. <br />
On another note, the line “work never kills” (p. 50) jumped out at me immediately and made me ponder the differences between factory workers and farmers at the turn of the century. It is now a well known fact that factory workers toiled in horrendous conditions, like in the NYC Shirtwaist factory fire. However, the introduction reminded me that the hours were longer for a farmer and the conditions more tumultuous. Our nation needed the industry factory workers provided, but even the factory workers needed the sustenance farmers provided. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Buffalobird Woman's Story ==<br />
After reading this excerpt, I found myself extremely frustrated with the government. Why did the government feel the need to tell the Indians how to do things when the Indians had already succeeded before the government came along to tell them what to do? The Indian women of course were open to the new changes, but they still wondered why they could not cultivate as they had in the past. It was probably a lifestyle change for them, because now, they were to grow what they were told, and it was probably disconcerting to the Indian women and men because they had lost control of a part of their lives. -- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
This is another example of how the U.S. government attempted to assimilate the Native Americans, and in the process took away their land and changed their lifestyles. Buffalobird is a strong personality, and remains that way throughout the excerpt. It is a refreshing piece to read because the spirit of so many Native Americans was crushed. Even though many Native American women lost their independence and sense of strength, she seems to have maintained it.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind. Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on a lot of the points she made. This piece captured my attention because of the harsh conditions that these women were forced to work in. I found in particularly difficult to not feel bad for the girls because stress they had to endure by working in industrial places like a glove factory. Nestor references how the girls tried to find ways to produce more gloves in an hour and would sometimes even work during their breaks just to get more done. She also revealed how the women were afraid of the machine breaking because it meant they could not make more gloves, which meant they would not get their payment. Nestor shows the effect of industry on the working woman and it's effects. I wonder how women at this time dealt with professions like this without getting extremely frustrated. -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY?? I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation? -MHimes<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I can't imagine the physical and mental exhaustion these African American woman faced in domestic service jobs. The woman whose story is told was a nurse, among many other things, yet she was still considered "servant class." Were white women who worked in the same type of jobs as nurses or household servants considered to be in the "servant class?" She goes on to say, "I am allowed to go home to my own children, the oldest of whom is a girl of 18 years, only one in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon - even then I'm not permitted to stay all night." (P. 54 MAW) Wasn't there some type of law against keeping this lady at her job all the time? She was not a slave, so shouldn't she have been allowed to go home after work? Or did the rules of her job make her stay there? In my opinion, this free African American woman's job didn't seem that much different from slavery. -- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
One of the most important questions I think women were most concerned with while trying to obtain suffrage is asked by DuBois on page. 276. She claims that women were worried weather or not they could balance their work in the home with that of gaining suffrage. It seems many women were concerned that they could not acheive a balance between the two and that there work towards suffrage would take away their focus from the home front. I beleive that this question was not incredibly worrisome and that a balance was possible. Even if they were in the work force, responsibilities on the home front could still be upheld. Even today, women work and I still beleive they are a central figure at home. Granted it was more difficult back then because women were attempting to accomplish more, but a balance was still possible. -afrisk<br />
<br />
So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status. Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how, on page 273, DuBois talks about how wealthy women first entered the suffragist field in the 1890s because they wanted to make the wealthy class stronger. I previously was under the misconception that women entered into the movement solely on the value that women should have the right to vote, but this was obviously not the case. Wealthy women wanted the vote because they thought they would vote the same way as their wealthy husbands, therefore solidifying the political power of the wealthy. I think this is really important because it shows that many women associated themselves more with their class than with the fact that they were women. -- Angie<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the ''Defender'' was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there. Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South. I'd sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired. -Erin B.''<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the Chicago Defender really emphasizes the deplorable living situations in the South. The letter from a woman who had previously worked in a rural school and was looking for a job in domestic service really stood out to me. The idea that a housekeeping position in the North would pay better then a school teachers pay in the south really shows the desperate situation of black families in the south. Some of the people who wrote in to the newspaper claimed to have good references its sad to think that whatever experience they had previously the only job they would most likely be able to find was one as a domestic servant. --Emma<br />
<br />
These letters to the Chicago Defender are quite desperate as Mary Ann and Erin have both mentioned. But I thought that I would approach this from two different directions: one the difference in the letters themselves. Two of the letters are written by teachers whose school is either closing or wages are too low. These particular letters showcase the difference in education from the other letters. I also found it realistic that the teachers were looking for domestic work, though this work was quite hard, I am sure that the prospect of a room and further opportunities in a bustling city were the motivating factors among the poor wages and general conditions in the south. Second, the letters seem to note a trust that these women had in the Chicago Defender, implying that these women believed that the Defender would help them find these jobs. The reality of this was that thousands upon thousands of black men and women were migrating to Chicago leaving them, as Mary Ann said to compete for positions in domestic service. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
It was almost impossible to keep a straight face while reading this particular article and I had to read a passage to my roomate and he was also laughing hysterically. This is the first intense anti-suffrage argument that I have come accross with this much candor and I found it incredibly interesting. Marie Jenny Howe essentially gives her gender no credit and claims they hardly posses any intellectual capacity and are even incapable of doing something as simple as placing a ballot in a box. She wants to continue with the established order and keep women down in the domestic sphere because "some one must wash the dishes." She continues to take a very conservative approach to women's roles and even mentions the Bible as reason to keep women suppressed. Myself, and others I am sure do not agree with Howe's view of women as an imcompetent gender and beleive women should have never been suppressed like they were. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire, and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly. When phrased this way, it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting, but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause. – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement. "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
Just like all the other posts stated, I found this article more comical than persuasive. Howe tries to argue that women do not need the right to vote using by a lot of (in my opinion) ridiculous points. I particularly liked how she stated "I don't care about facts. I ask for proof." I think that suffragists at this time were trying hard to push for rights for women, and that should be Howe's proof. She seems to really embody the idea that women are passive creatures which is almost, in a sense, degrading to women, especially when she states "I am a creature of impulse, instinct and intuition- and I glory in it." -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike. The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman <br />
<br />
==Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic, Florence Luscomb==<br />
<br />
The one sentence that stood out to me in this essay, "We even reveled in dog-fights; for, as our chief remarked while we were enjoying one such experience, 'After all, there is nothing to draw a crowd like a dog-fight,'...(100). My first thought was Michael Vick and how much the media paid attention to his role in dog-fights yet women suffragists were right at home among dogs and thought of them as admirers. How society has changed over the years...-Megan W.<br />
<br />
A few moments struck me in this passage. The opening “…an American woman can stand in a hall and address American men with dignity and earnestness on her part ….yet presto, remove the roof and the same women is a ranting fanatic” (98) It made me think about an ideal of keeping women inside even though speaking at an indoor engagement is not the domestic sphere, it is certainly less public than speaking in park, hence the male apprehension towards this. Furthermore, it was a radical move that these women were traveling around the country holding these outdoor meetings. It must have rocked the entire foundation of proprietary that had been established during this time. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Though many men and bystanders would see these women as "ranting fanatic[s]" Florence Luscomb still describes as the crusade as a success. That in itself is something to be proud of. The momentum the women's suffrage movement had picked up is reflected in this excerpt. Though they were met with much adversity, they were able to adapt and overcome. Even though men initially viewed their outdoor speeches as too assertive, they were still successful. I was also mildly amused that Luscomb took the time to calculate the averages of all the meetings. It was rather beneficial to her argument.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
==4. The ''New York Times'' Reports on the Tragedy of the Triangle Factory Fire, 1911== <br />
<br />
The death of these 141 women and few men could have been preventable had the owners taken into account that a building cannot be fully "fire-proof" with hundreds of cotton shirts lying around. One fire escape is clearly not enough for 600 employees especially when many were not familiar with the layout of the building. I found it heartbreaking that had it just been a matter of minutes these employees would not of burned nor lept to their death and even more appalling that for hours the bodies were ignored. I understand that firefighters need to do their job and stop the fire but could they not of split the work and tried to move bodies so they could aid workers instead of watching them jump 100 feet to their death? The workers were helpless victims and the fire showed the ignorance of employers to the safety needs of their workers. -Megan W.</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-02-04T08:24:18Z<p>Kokeefe: /* Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” ==<br />
<br />
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that "Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible" and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word "girls" which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
The welfare activism article notes that a fair amount of the black women involved in welfare were married, and it was more generally acceptable for black women to be involved in public life than white women, which I suppose is partly due to their positions as heads of families during slavery’s heyday and the fact that many black women had to work outside the home due to economic necessity (except these reform women who were pretty well off). However, Anna J. Cooper seemed to believe that black men were not supportive of women outside the home and didn’t recognize their value in politics and reform. What accounts for this disparity? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool how even though black women may not have had the advantages that white women had in the reform movement, they made the best out of it. White women raised money but they also were able to gain support or recognition from people in congress. Black women were not so fortunate but they did not let that stop them; they had bake sales, church dinners, and other such functions to raise money and awareness. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Like Amy, I noticed the differences between how black and white women raised money for their causes. It seems like white women relied far more on their status and privilege to gain access to (mostly white men) policy makers and other influential leaders who could help them. Black women, for the most part, did not have this option. So they turned to their communities for support, in much the same way as they had turned voting and politics into community activities. Black women already had a solid tradition of getting the community to rally around them for a cause, so when the need arose for schools and public health measures and other programs, women again banded to together for the good of the group as a whole. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann's observations on how the different races raised money, awareness, and support. It should be expected that white women primarily relied upon their race and social status because those are integral parts of their society. Black women, however, were all looked down upon, and seen as having the same roots. They were all seen as inferior, and many seen as ex-slaves or children of slaves, solely because of their race. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I found the most intriguing part, and yet a short piece, of Linda Gordon’s article to be on the Lesbianism and homosexual escapades. Different from black women’s dependence on their community and occasionally their husbands, white women greatly relied on one-another rather than their husbands or families. “The great majority of white women were single-34 percent had ever been married, and only 18 percent remained married during their peak political activity,” (pg. 229). To this effect women Gordon gives the fact that “28 percent were in relationships with other women…called Boston marriages,” (pg. 229). I think that we as a generation think that Lesbianism is a new trend/ideal, and yet these women were practicing it in the 18th-19th century. This was probably not seen as a controversial idea to these women, so why is it such a big issue today when is a part of history? ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that rape was ever "justified" by anyone, and it has always been seen as a barbarism, even when it was performed ritualistically by warring states. Just because a society's dialogue doesn't include rape doesn't mean that it was accepted, by any means. Also, to encapsulate human nature as such is not a dismissal, as is evident even in our so-enlightened society when we "dismiss" the actions of men that is at times chauvinistic or derogatory as "boys will be boys"--does that mean that such behavior, speaking in broad terms, justified? I would think no. Also, while it seems as though black women did not have the kind of access to politicized power as white women did, Gordon points out, perhaps in contradiction to some of her conclusions, that half of the African American women who were married (85%) had influential husbands. I don't really see much difference between what the African American women did in comparison to WASP women, despite Gordon's attempts to highlight them. To me, it seems as though the only thing that really differed, notwithstanding the race issue (which I'm not dismissing), was the time that had elapsed between emancipation and what was then contemporary times. Like WASP women's groups, black women's societies were exclusionary, and it seems that if a few more generations had elapsed then the black women would be just as focused on maintaining social hierarchies as white women were. Perhaps they're concentration in the rural South maintained this as immigrants seldom ventured South and therefore black women would not have a class of "others" to perform activism on. But then again the entire African American community was persecuted against so I'm sure it's not as simplistic as that. I found the "white view" as a class issue, which I agree with and that the WASP women who were single and had a great deal of autonomy assumed that this was a class privilege and something that would not be desirable for poorer women. -schang <br />
<br />
While I agree with the comments above noticing the differences between black and white women's approaches to fundraising I found interesting how they worked together as well. According to the article women seemed to be the ringleaders not only for rights for themselves but for equality by working together against race riots, ie. Chicago 1919 p. 224. Even more interesting were women in the South working together, where they suffered racial violence constantly. It was not common to see women of both races working together for a cause but both races had common interests, each was under the domestic sphere and both had to fight for not only themselves but generations to come. I did think the way black women worked together was more effective, even without government support they were able to come together without the support of men and build a bond through sisterhood and charity. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought the information presented in this article regarding the priorities of black women and their focus on education was revealing. On page 225, Gordon points out that “education was the single most important area of activism for black women”. It makes sense that this would be the case, but I would have guessed that issues of equality would have outranked education as the primary concern. –E Fritz<br />
<br />
It seems almost like black and white women were working towards two entirely different goals. White women were working towards recognition and forming different groups such as the YWCA. But they were either excluding these black women, or they were being excluded by society. It is hard to beleive that blacks were even being lynched in the 20th century. The push for women's rights for whites seems to be taking much greater strides than for blacks because of the intense segregation. I feel for the black women more so than white women because they were forced to go through many more difficult hardships for not only civil, but also women's rights.-afrisk<br />
<br />
It is interesting that while all three groups (white women, black women, and Chinese women) influenced the development of both American society as a whole and their own closer knit community, there are not many documents supporting the influences of the minority groups which can be primarily attributed to how these women felt about their roles and what they wanted out of reform more than solely based on educational attainment. The white women were still invested in how middle class women were supposed to act (writing detailed letters or diaries, basically leaving behind traces of their existence and how they lived their lives) and therefore many more documents are available for study. The black women were concerned with getting improved reform for working conditions because their new lives involved becoming economically stable, and they had learned from their mothers and relatives that women were capable and expected to contribute to the household (during slavery they worked just as hard as the men and many times worked alongside them). The Chinese women came to America in the hopes of a new start, unfortunately most of the jobs and lifestyles they found themselves in were in brothels and other forms of prostitution (these are not exactly professions that one writes about to remember fondly and therefore many records are not well kept). –jmarshal <br />
<br />
== Judy Yung, "The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in ''Chung Sai Yat Po'', 1900-1911" ==<br />
<br />
It’s ironic that in the early 20th century China was trying to emulate the Western world, including increasing women’s rights, to get out from under the hand of the West, and Chinese Americans emulated those reforms going on in China and not in their own country because they were so excluded from American life that they felt a closer kinship to China. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it was interesting how the reasons why people decided it was a good idea for women to have an education in America paralleled the decision for Chinese women to become educated. On page 263 Yung writes, "Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China." Even though I don't think this should be a number one reason for a woman to be given an education, at the time I would have been happy that women's education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Chinese Americans were witnessing freedoms in America that were not offered to them as Chinese Americans in America or China. Binding the feet was an example of their oppression to that of their husband. It’s interesting that binding of the feet was compared to binding of an American woman corset. They felt education was the key to stop the oppression. Chinese American lineage was to their home where their families were so they naturally felt the need to change things back at home. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
The CSYP was a very effective source to bringing light to the atrocities that Chinese American faced and the changes that needed to take place. Chinese American women could speak out through these journals in order to reach out to others and make changes. As Judy Yung noted though a lot did not read these articles, the news spread. Women talk and share their thoughts with other woman evoking their spirit and that brings change for them. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
Interesting reading, yes--new information, not really, at least to me. Why is it ironic that China saw the way out of Western domination as its emulation? That mentality has been repeated throughout history, from the Egyptians adopting chariots to overthrow the Hyksos to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents being found with US manuals on unconventional warfare. Also, it would seem only natural that the suppression of entry into the political sphere of an immigrant population would foster the desire to interact with the mother country. An aside--my own use of that term, "mother country" fascinates me in that nations have almost always been characterized as feminine and wonder what that kind of gendered language indicates about the pervasiveness of such gendered dichotomies in everyday life. Other things I found "interesting"--the actions of politicians and probably most likely liberal-minded reformers from the Progressive Era directly contributed to the high rate of prostitution among Chinese women as they barred further immigration in California and other western states. Also found significant the direction that these women's reform actions were aimed at--the revitalization of China as a nation, rather than the individualistic aims of many female reformers in America--kind of reminiscent of the African American women from the previous reading and their focus on universal rights etc. than their white female counterparts. -schang<br />
<br />
The comparison between bound feet and corsets was very important. Westerners are quick to judge bound feet for the horrible physical impact they had on women, but really, corsets were not any better. They bent ribcages, moved organs around, etc. My great grandmother still had to wear a corset long after they were out of fashion because her body was incapable of supporting itself anymore. And in both the case of foot binding and corsets, while it's true that men perpetuated the situation because of their ideas of what a beautiful woman should look like, women themselves were the ones to support the practices and get their daughters to do so as a sign of their femininity. I think the author took too much of a black-and-white stance on the subject of foot binding, which as painful as it was, it was not simply a sign of the oppression of Chinese women by Chinese men. That being said, it was important for Chinese women, both in China and America, to reject that tradition in order to begin to step out of their traditional roles. - Alice W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice that foot binding was as much perpetuated by Chinese women as it was by Chinese men--in the accounts that I've read, it was the mothers and grandmothers, of their own accord and not under orders from a man, who imposed the foot binding on their daughters and granddaughters. The necessity of abolishing this practice to further the emancipation of Chinese (and Chinese American) women was interesting to read--it appeared to be a strong cultural symbol (much like the corset, which was mentioned) that opened doors for larger freedoms. The other interesting idea I got from this article was how nationalistic the Chinese American women were. Although they lived in a different country, they identified less with their rights as women in the new country than they did with the rights of women in their ancestral home. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==<br />
'''Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890'''<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That's not masculine, it's disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
At first reading this article I initially thought, “How did Nellie think that she could actually do this in 1890? Was it even possible then?” Thinking more into it I can see why. She wanted to do something ambitious, that would make for a great story, but also make for a great experience, so why shouldn’t she as a woman be able to travel the world? Like Sarah, I feel bad that Nellie had to travel in one outfit for three months, but as she describes she is able to fit a good amount of clothing into her one hand-satchel, “two traveling caps…a pair of slippers, a dressing gown, tennis blazer…several changes of underwear,” (pg. 7). I would hope that priority number one would be the underwear. At the end of the article, I found that Nellie seems to indicate that she may have some sort of “baggage” in her life and I may be reading too much into it, but the way she speaks of the “the responsibilities and worries I escaped by not having a lot of trunks and boxes to look after,(pg. 7), seems to be a hidden meaning to her own emotional baggage.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
Here is a woman ready to trek around the world, alone, with only the contents of a little bag. She has the gumption to convince her boss that she can make the trip, yet she still falls back on the idea that if she conducts herself 'properly' she will "always find men ready to protect" (pg. 7) her. I don't fault her for wanting this protection, travel always entails a certain degree of danger, but I do wonder at her assumptions as to what constitutes proper behavior. In making the trip, hasn't she already broken several social norms concerning appropriate womanly conduct? And did she believe that men the world over would hold the same ideas about women and their behavior? What of her safety if her conduct was deemed improper? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found this article really interesting because Nellie seems like a very independent and confident woman. That is why it was such a surprise to me that she quit journalism to marry a 72 year old man!! Perhaps she loved him, or maybe she thought that her job couldn't last forever and she needed someone to support her? It did also say that she shed a few years off her age to make herself seem more youthful. Maybe there was a common thought in society that once a woman got too old, she wasn't useful anymore. If that is true, then it must have been quite a strong societal expectation in order to get Nellie to stop what she loved doing. I think its also important to notice that Nellie had to stop her job when she got married. She obviously loved doing because she wanted to go back to it when her husband died, so there must have been some pressure on her to quit and spend her time being a wife. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I was also shocked at ther marriage to the rather old man, thats old today, so I'm sure back then that had to be quite an old guy. I feel that Nellie is a perfect example of this New Woman, out embracing the world without a care or fear in the world, ready to tackle any man's job. Good for her. - Christine L<br />
<br />
Here are the things that I found interesting in this primary document--for such a daring New Woman she seems awfully dependent on the chivalry of men. Example, "I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me." (7) So whether she had the outward trappings of the New Woman, she still thought in the same old traditional way that men are meant to protect women. Geez, we don't see that today at all...outward trappings of independence and the concurrent maintenance of a traditional outlook on the behavior of men...double standard much? -schang<br />
<br />
I wish derring-do was still in use. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
'''Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893'''<br />
<br />
I was actually surprised that Bertha Palmer used her speech at the World Fair to both honor women and criticise men's attitudes towards women. Women had been allowed a space at the Fair to display their own creativity, but it was within a well defined and controlled "sphere" designated by men. With Palmer's speech, we are getting to see a woman recognize the inequality of the separate spheres doctrine and publicly push for the inclusion of women in more than restrictive "spheres" constructed by men. After all, how can a woman truly be free when she is being oppressed by men in all that she does? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
The reasoning behind the creation of the women's pavilion seem more in line with what I imagine to be the goals of feminists (8). Then again, the "acknowledgement" that the women credit men in the passage, that heretofore, men have been the sole contributors to humanity, etc etc seemed to dismiss or perhaps demonstrate ignorance of what women had accomplished throughout history. -schang<br />
<br />
'''Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892'''<br />
<br />
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I found that Cooper's statement concerning what constituted equality--"without violence and without suing or special patronage then and there the whole Negro race enters with me," and whether or not the Civil Rights movement and aftermath, accompanied with violence, court action and affirmative action corresponds with her vision of equality. On that note, what did she mean particularly by the exaggerated "importance of mere political advantage" (12)?<br />
-schang<br />
<br />
'''Ida B. Wells''' – <br />
<br />
"Virtue knows no colorline, and the CHIVALRY which depends upon the complexion of skin and texture of hair can command no honest respect." (17)--what did Wells mean by chivalry? -schang<br />
<br />
I think by using the word CHIVALRY Wells is just stressing the basic respect that should be shown between two humans, rather than just relationships between men and women.-MDvorak<br />
<br />
Wells makes some very good arguments and systematic, logical rebuttals to the ridiculous excuses of the Southern white man for lynching, especially towards the end when she uses their own argument--sensitivity and chivalry to women--against them, pointing out that they "assume a chivalry which they do not possess" (16). By this, she means "respect for the womanhood which circumstances place d in his power" (17). (To schang:) She really means CHIVALRY in this true sense, pointing out that chivalry does not discriminate and that chivalry which does make race distinctions "commands no honest respect." (To MDvorak:) In the larger context of the essay she probably means respect between humans, but here she singles out chivalry towards women to make her point stronger. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
'''Frances Willard'''–<br />
<br />
The irony of a woman/feminist naming her bicycle, a possession, a thing, Gladys should mean something, unless I'm reading too much into her words. But then again, her description of how Gladys was a "mystery" and that she had "mastered" all her kinks and that she put a bridle in her mouth and whipped her in victory...all very masculine language directed towards a female object. Even if that object is an inanimate bicycle, Willard's use of such blatantly gendered language merits some sort of analysis. -schang<br />
<br />
'''Anzia Yezierska''' – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World<br />
<br />
Immigrant women like Anzia and her fictional heroine Sara faced unique challenges at the turn of the century. They were caught between the growing American emphasis on education and more independence for women and their tradition bound fathers and husbands. Men like Sara's father in the reading probably saw their daughters' rebellious streaks as not only a threat to their patriarchal authority but also to the culture and customs they brought from their countries of origin. When immigrant daughters went to school or moved out on their own they joined an 'American' movement that their parents may not have understood or feared for its ability to remove their daughters from an acceptably ethnic upbringing. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
I strongly agree with Mary Ann, I think fathers especially immigrant fathers wanted the "American Dream" and felt that when they arrived it was hard to achieve so held onto the one stable condition they always knew as being heads of the household. Men, like Sara's father used a different tactic to establish authority through the use of religion,"It says in the Torah, only through a man has a woman an existence." (22) contradicting the idea in America where women were normally seen as morally superior. This made me wonder if the influence of new religions and cultures in America helped bring about the women's movement? Did statements such as the one Sara's father made cause women to rebel more and prove they did not need a man nor his religion to survive. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
The story of the Bread Givers by Anzia Yezierska is an example of traditional values and norms crashing headfirst into a changing society. As a man of God in their old country, Sara’s father would have been required to provide spiritual leadership to his community in exchange for food and shelter; but in America that is not the case. Instead, he forces his family to sacrifice so that he can continue to focus completely on his religion. Sara’s ability to break away from her father’s overbearing dominance also forces her to turn her back on her sisters and mother. This conflict between generations was a prominent narrative at the turn of the century. – E Fritz <br />
<br />
Sara's assertion that America is nothing like the old country, and that in America she can do whatever she wants is a very interesting concept, coming from a woman. This was the assumption many immigrants coming to America although the reality of the situation oftentimes clashed violently with the ideal. That an immigrant female author would write in such glowing terms about the possibilities of being a woman in America should mean something, although I don't know how the story ends and it is fiction. -schang<br />
<br />
I was surprised by the fact that Anzia actually left her household. Although we don't know how long she was gone from home, the fact that she left was probably a huge step for her. It seems that her view of family changed from her old country and when she arrived in America. The ideals in America about how women should be on their own were newly introduced into society, yet for Anzia, these ideals gave her the opportunity for another life, another chance to live life the way she wanted to, rather than the way her father wanted. I feel that her situation was one commonly seen in immigrant families. It was probably hard to deal with the cultural change when coming to America, but at the same time, I feel that Americans were also dealing with a cultural and social change, with women becoming more integrated into society. --- Alex M. <br />
<br />
'''Edith Eudora Ammons''' – A Woman Homesteader<br />
<br />
When I have pictured manifest destiny, I have hardly pictured Edith Ammons and her sister, two women, moving in to the West alone to build up new lives together. Of course, I would never think of the West in the 19th century as a place of freedom and new beginnings because I know how rough it was from studying history. Ammons herself admits, "This was not the West as I had dreamed it... It was a desolate, forgotten land, without vegetation save for the dry, crackling grass, without visible tokens of fertility" (p. 26). Yet, the sisters toughed it out, taking on hardship after hardship in exchange for their freedom to live where they wanted and do what they wanted. I think that with our comforts of today, it is often hard to imagine women putting themselves through such trials to achieve the freedom they desired. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==<br />
<br />
'''Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)'''<br />
<br />
One thing I really liked about this story was how Molly talked about how she struggled with her studies. I thought this was important because it shows that girls weren't just sent away to learn how to become good wives, but they were actually taught things. They actually had to learn science and practice experiments. Molly seems like a completely modern college girl in the way she complains about her classes! She also talks about her social life quite openly. Girls were willing to dress up like boys in order to go out and have fun. Its nice to see that all girls of that period weren't prim and proper like we are sometimes led to believe. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I think the first thing that struck me when reading this was the idea of "smashing". Did the intro to the letter say that it was acceptable for young women to fall in love with one another in college during that time period. I find that hard to believe considering the fear of parents that their daughters would not be fit for marriage. I also suppose that there might be some things missing from these letters, I mean I know I don't tell my mom everything that I do at college. - John Rowley<br />
<br />
I was also thrown off by the mention of "smashing" was there also a period of time before the turn of the century where there was some sort of sexual liberation? Or was the idea of "smashing" something that was allowed in college as long as these affairs did not last after graduation. I was also impressed with the frank openness of Molly's letters to her parents, especially when she talked about dressing up as a boy. Was this standard behavior for college girls? -Emma<br />
<br />
'''Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)'''<br />
<br />
In class we spoke some of this issue that the “New Woman” faced about what to do after leaving college. Here I found what Jane Addams and Ellen Starr do very admirable, such as creating the famous Hall House. In today’s world you don’t see many women, especially white, moving into “bad” parts of cities to truly help the people there. But these women I found fearless of being in Chicago such as the incident with them leaving the side door left open and “were much pleased in the morning to find that we possessed a fine illustration of the honesty and kindliness of our new neighbors,” (pg. 36). I would have been so upset that I had risked my home and self, just being in a new place for the first night is nerve-racking, but leaving a door open would make me even more paranoid. These women were actually asked to “wash the newborn babies, and to prepare the dead for burial, to nurse the sick, and to ‘mind the children’,” (pg. 36). Where there no others to do these tasks, such as a mortician, hospital, or baby-sitters? I know to remember that these people were of the poorest of the city, but these women were asked to prepare the dead, really? Ew.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
I feel like the concept of “after college, what?” (Jane Addams, MAW p. 34) is a universal question. Albeit when Addams was speaking, there were not many other higher position opportunities available for women after college, but in today’s society most students face the same dilemma regardless of gender, race and sex. It is difficult to find professional work after graduating college and sometimes it can take years to finally find your own place in the world. From then until now not much has changed in that department. –jmarshal<br />
<br />
This doesn't really count as a comment but I've been to Hull House. It was rather smaller than I expected... I'm kind of amazed that the women of Hull House were able to accomplish so much in such a tiny space and with limited resources! --Sarah Smethurst <br />
<br />
'''Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)'''<br />
<br />
The first piece of this article I saw was that it parallels to the Jane Addams Article in that Alice Hamilton spent time at the Hull House. In her writing Alice actually mentions the Hull House, other than her biography at the beginning stating that she had spent time there and that she truly learned something from her time at the Hull House gives more evidence to the fact of Jane creating something great. “Life at Hull-House had accustomed me to going straight to the homes of people whom I wished to learn something and talking to them in their own surroundings, where they have courage to speak out what is in their minds,” (pg. 39). The Hull House taught Alice how to relate to people and I can see this consideration being very important, essential, to her profession of being a physician. In addition to her being a physician I think that a certain level of arrogance blossomed as well. Alice tends to look down on people at times, but at the same time being understanding; an example being her take on the reason for immigrants to take jobs to support their families after coming to American; “of course they took the first job they could find and if it proved to be one that weakened and crippled them---well, that was their bad luck!” (pg. 39). I found this a bit uncharacteristic of the women who spent time in the Hull House, but that is entirely my take. I’m sure being a women physician is something to be quite proud of, but to look down on immigrants who you are caring for because they are trying to make the best of the life they have been dealt, seems a bit harsh. ---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
I was so surprised with the statistic in the beginning of this article that said "around 1900 as many as one in five doctors were women, although that percentage would not be reached again until the 1970's." When did the switch happen? It seems that during the turn of the century, the opportunities for women experienced a brief moment of expansion before the doors were closed upon them again. I was impressed with the work that Alice Hamilton was able to accomplish, and was also horrified by her accounts of the devastating effects of poisonous materials in the workplace. I understand Morgans point about Hamilton coming off as very arrogant, however I think this type of attitude towards the poor was probably a characteristic of her upbringing most likely as a member of the middle or upper class. Even though Alice Hamilton did work towards finding a cure for diseases that afflicted the poor she may not necessarily feel that much warmth and compassion towards them. --Emma <br />
<br />
'''Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) '''<br />
<br />
This article struck a chord with me, as someone in Mary Washington's education program. One of the sentences about why black women turned to teaching got me thinking in particular about the reason why anyone becomes a teacher. "For black women, the choice of a teaching career often involved an element of racial self-consciousness, because teaching future generations was seen as a concrete way to improve conditions in the black community," (40). Do teachers teach simply to instill their own ideals and perspective on the next generation? -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
'''Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)'''<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)'''<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Mother Jones. Her writing is very strong and passionate, and its hard not to have emotions dredged up while reading about this strike. I found it interesting that she went and stayed with the families working in the mine to witness first-hand the hardships they endure. The conditions seemed to be not too far off of what miners dealt with in more recent times which is saddening. - Christine L<br />
<br />
Why did they call her Mother Jones? What did this say about the continued assumptions concerning the proper role of women in society, albeit a radicalized one? Love her take on women's suffrage as a hobby of aristocratic women. A comment on her most enduring words--to not be ladylike...that implies that there was and will continue to be behavior that is classified as ladylike and unladylike...what does that mean about her own assumptions of where feminism would lead to? Concerning the actual text, I'm concerned about her attitude towards the constitutionality of laws. Her advocacy of violence as a means to correct what she sees as wrong is disconcerting. If more people with different opinions felt and acted the way she wanted, then we would end up without a government fairly soon. Aren't there people who take her words to heart about using violence, but in a manner opposite what she would have wanted? For example, the bombing of abortion clinics? -schang<br />
<br />
'''Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home'''<br />
<br />
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Culinary misadventures aside, I'm curious about what people thought about "Motherhood is not a remote contingency, but the common duty and common glory of womanhood. If women did choose professions unsuitable to maternity, nature would quietly extinguish them by her unvarying process." (80) Ignoring my penchant for finding gendered language and Gilman's reference to nature as a woman (why, because nature provides and women produce children?) but her assertion that motherhood is the duty and glory of womanhood and that there are certain professions inherently not suitable for women, but if women want to do these things, then she can do so, it's just that nature will off her in a hurry. So...in her mind there really is such a thing as jobs that women shouldn't do, but should be able to try anyways? -schang<br />
<br />
'''Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913'''<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman's husband's boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?<br />
-Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I found this article the most interesting out of all of them. Josephine Conger-Koneko takes a very hard line on the position that women should be paid for their housework. I also found it interesting how she equivocated a woman's life in the home doing housework for her husband as the life of a slave. She seems to be a bit radical in her discussion of women being paid for household duties. I also found it striking that Koneko argues that a husband should go to his employer and ask for wages for his wife at home doing the housework and how men getting married is actually benefical more for the employer because then he will have a continuing work force. Did women during this time believe they should be paid for work, and if after reading this, did woman's groups advocate paid labor for women working in the home? -abratchi<br />
<br />
This idea, as the blurb before Conger-Koneko's part noted, is still "squarely on the feminist agenda," (81) although these days it's discussed more in terms of GNP and economic value of wages for housework, raising children, etc. Although the all caps got very annoying and Conger-Koneko's rhetoric and tactless word choice ("ignorance and stupidity" 84) probably alienated more people than it convinced, she presents a good point that deserved and continues to deserve discourse and action. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
Conger-Koneko is one passionate woman, with a very interesting arguement. Interesting in it's truth - with his wife taking care of his every need, a man could work better and more efficiently. However, with a wife, he had another body to feed and clothe and care for, so a pay increase should be in order. However, was it the common practice for men to live at home before getting married or did they strike out on their own? In that case, should a bachelor recieve a lower wage than a man being cared for by his mother? -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
'''Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn't just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I thought the Sanger article was very interesting. I like how Sanger is able to use the story of Mrs. Sachs to show the rising need and importance for birth control. I think it presents birth control as more of a social issue, rather than just an issue of liberating woman's sexuality. She demonstrates that birth control is a necessity because of all the hurt, poverty and death that is occurring due to a lack of birth control. At this time, one had to have enough money for doctors who they could pay to tell them about birth control options/abortion due to the Comstock Laws, and I think this is important for why Sanger decides to advocate birth control, especially to the poorer classes. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I think the novelty of birth control and it's practices were particularly interesting during this time period. It was a process which was becoming more widely popularized because it was directly connected to women's growing independence from men. I agree with the fact that birth control began to empower women because it allowed them to choose weather or not they wanted to get pregnant, whereas previously they were almost forced into sex. I think Sanger was wise in attempting to make birth control a more medical issue , but I also think it has feminist elements because it was able to empower women to make more significant sexual decisions.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
Sanger was an insanely intelligent woman for using the Sachs family as a part of her argument. Rather than allowing for men (and women too) to scrutinize women for their decision to use birth control. She leaves some of the responsibility up to the men, by showing how it is relevant to their lives too.--MDvora<br />
<br />
I never realized the story behind Margaret Sanger's quest to argue on behalf of birth control. She was deeply affected by Mrs. Sachs death, because Sanger had been unable to help her, and had no remedy to keep her from pregnancy. I think part of what made Sanger such a strong supporter of birth control was that she saw situations everyday where families were struggling because they had too many kids and therefore couldn't feed them or care for them adequately; or where women were so desperate for something to give them some sort of relief from always being pregnant. Sanger wanted to give women a way to enjoy life, to bring equality to men and women in one aspect. --- Alex M. <br />
<br />
'''Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911'''<br />
<br />
<br />
I really liked this article because it reflects upon the push made by female activists towards the real freedoms they desired. Emma Goldman criticizes the "superficial goals of the modern woman's movement," and expresses that "True emancipation begins neither at the polls nor in the courts...it begins in woman's soul" (MAW 89). She also expresses that women do have the ability to shape or direct their own destiny. After reading a quote from page 90 where she said, "how much independence is gained if the narrowness and lack of freedom of the home is exchanged for the narrowness and lack of freedom of the factory, sweat-shop, department store, or office?" it reminded me of when slaves first got their freedom. They were free but not at all equal in social or economic status. With women gaining suffrage they gained the opportunities men held but they were still limited by sexual discrimination. -David Fitch</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-02-04T08:13:46Z<p>Kokeefe: /* Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” ==<br />
<br />
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that "Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible" and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word "girls" which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
The welfare activism article notes that a fair amount of the black women involved in welfare were married, and it was more generally acceptable for black women to be involved in public life than white women, which I suppose is partly due to their positions as heads of families during slavery’s heyday and the fact that many black women had to work outside the home due to economic necessity (except these reform women who were pretty well off). However, Anna J. Cooper seemed to believe that black men were not supportive of women outside the home and didn’t recognize their value in politics and reform. What accounts for this disparity? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool how even though black women may not have had the advantages that white women had in the reform movement, they made the best out of it. White women raised money but they also were able to gain support or recognition from people in congress. Black women were not so fortunate but they did not let that stop them; they had bake sales, church dinners, and other such functions to raise money and awareness. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Like Amy, I noticed the differences between how black and white women raised money for their causes. It seems like white women relied far more on their status and privilege to gain access to (mostly white men) policy makers and other influential leaders who could help them. Black women, for the most part, did not have this option. So they turned to their communities for support, in much the same way as they had turned voting and politics into community activities. Black women already had a solid tradition of getting the community to rally around them for a cause, so when the need arose for schools and public health measures and other programs, women again banded to together for the good of the group as a whole. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann's observations on how the different races raised money, awareness, and support. It should be expected that white women primarily relied upon their race and social status because those are integral parts of their society. Black women, however, were all looked down upon, and seen as having the same roots. They were all seen as inferior, and many seen as ex-slaves or children of slaves, solely because of their race. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I found the most intriguing part, and yet a short piece, of Linda Gordon’s article to be on the Lesbianism and homosexual escapades. Different from black women’s dependence on their community and occasionally their husbands, white women greatly relied on one-another rather than their husbands or families. “The great majority of white women were single-34 percent had ever been married, and only 18 percent remained married during their peak political activity,” (pg. 229). To this effect women Gordon gives the fact that “28 percent were in relationships with other women…called Boston marriages,” (pg. 229). I think that we as a generation think that Lesbianism is a new trend/ideal, and yet these women were practicing it in the 18th-19th century. This was probably not seen as a controversial idea to these women, so why is it such a big issue today when is a part of history? ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that rape was ever "justified" by anyone, and it has always been seen as a barbarism, even when it was performed ritualistically by warring states. Just because a society's dialogue doesn't include rape doesn't mean that it was accepted, by any means. Also, to encapsulate human nature as such is not a dismissal, as is evident even in our so-enlightened society when we "dismiss" the actions of men that is at times chauvinistic or derogatory as "boys will be boys"--does that mean that such behavior, speaking in broad terms, justified? I would think no. Also, while it seems as though black women did not have the kind of access to politicized power as white women did, Gordon points out, perhaps in contradiction to some of her conclusions, that half of the African American women who were married (85%) had influential husbands. I don't really see much difference between what the African American women did in comparison to WASP women, despite Gordon's attempts to highlight them. To me, it seems as though the only thing that really differed, notwithstanding the race issue (which I'm not dismissing), was the time that had elapsed between emancipation and what was then contemporary times. Like WASP women's groups, black women's societies were exclusionary, and it seems that if a few more generations had elapsed then the black women would be just as focused on maintaining social hierarchies as white women were. Perhaps they're concentration in the rural South maintained this as immigrants seldom ventured South and therefore black women would not have a class of "others" to perform activism on. But then again the entire African American community was persecuted against so I'm sure it's not as simplistic as that. I found the "white view" as a class issue, which I agree with and that the WASP women who were single and had a great deal of autonomy assumed that this was a class privilege and something that would not be desirable for poorer women. -schang <br />
<br />
While I agree with the comments above noticing the differences between black and white women's approaches to fundraising I found interesting how they worked together as well. According to the article women seemed to be the ringleaders not only for rights for themselves but for equality by working together against race riots, ie. Chicago 1919 p. 224. Even more interesting were women in the South working together, where they suffered racial violence constantly. It was not common to see women of both races working together for a cause but both races had common interests, each was under the domestic sphere and both had to fight for not only themselves but generations to come. I did think the way black women worked together was more effective, even without government support they were able to come together without the support of men and build a bond through sisterhood and charity. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought the information presented in this article regarding the priorities of black women and their focus on education was revealing. On page 225, Gordon points out that “education was the single most important area of activism for black women”. It makes sense that this would be the case, but I would have guessed that issues of equality would have outranked education as the primary concern. –E Fritz<br />
<br />
It seems almost like black and white women were working towards two entirely different goals. White women were working towards recognition and forming different groups such as the YWCA. But they were either excluding these black women, or they were being excluded by society. It is hard to beleive that blacks were even being lynched in the 20th century. The push for women's rights for whites seems to be taking much greater strides than for blacks because of the intense segregation. I feel for the black women more so than white women because they were forced to go through many more difficult hardships for not only civil, but also women's rights.-afrisk<br />
<br />
It is interesting that while all three groups (white women, black women, and Chinese women) influenced the development of both American society as a whole and their own closer knit community, there are not many documents supporting the influences of the minority groups which can be primarily attributed to how these women felt about their roles and what they wanted out of reform more than solely based on educational attainment. The white women were still invested in how middle class women were supposed to act (writing detailed letters or diaries, basically leaving behind traces of their existence and how they lived their lives) and therefore many more documents are available for study. The black women were concerned with getting improved reform for working conditions because their new lives involved becoming economically stable, and they had learned from their mothers and relatives that women were capable and expected to contribute to the household (during slavery they worked just as hard as the men and many times worked alongside them). The Chinese women came to America in the hopes of a new start, unfortunately most of the jobs and lifestyles they found themselves in were in brothels and other forms of prostitution (these are not exactly professions that one writes about to remember fondly and therefore many records are not well kept). –jmarshal <br />
<br />
== Judy Yung, "The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in ''Chung Sai Yat Po'', 1900-1911" ==<br />
<br />
It’s ironic that in the early 20th century China was trying to emulate the Western world, including increasing women’s rights, to get out from under the hand of the West, and Chinese Americans emulated those reforms going on in China and not in their own country because they were so excluded from American life that they felt a closer kinship to China. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it was interesting how the reasons why people decided it was a good idea for women to have an education in America paralleled the decision for Chinese women to become educated. On page 263 Yung writes, "Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China." Even though I don't think this should be a number one reason for a woman to be given an education, at the time I would have been happy that women's education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Chinese Americans were witnessing freedoms in America that were not offered to them as Chinese Americans in America or China. Binding the feet was an example of their oppression to that of their husband. It’s interesting that binding of the feet was compared to binding of an American woman corset. They felt education was the key to stop the oppression. Chinese American lineage was to their home where their families were so they naturally felt the need to change things back at home. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
The CSYP was a very effective source to bringing light to the atrocities that Chinese American faced and the changes that needed to take place. Chinese American women could speak out through these journals in order to reach out to others and make changes. As Judy Yung noted though a lot did not read these articles, the news spread. Women talk and share their thoughts with other woman evoking their spirit and that brings change for them. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
Interesting reading, yes--new information, not really, at least to me. Why is it ironic that China saw the way out of Western domination as its emulation? That mentality has been repeated throughout history, from the Egyptians adopting chariots to overthrow the Hyksos to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents being found with US manuals on unconventional warfare. Also, it would seem only natural that the suppression of entry into the political sphere of an immigrant population would foster the desire to interact with the mother country. An aside--my own use of that term, "mother country" fascinates me in that nations have almost always been characterized as feminine and wonder what that kind of gendered language indicates about the pervasiveness of such gendered dichotomies in everyday life. Other things I found "interesting"--the actions of politicians and probably most likely liberal-minded reformers from the Progressive Era directly contributed to the high rate of prostitution among Chinese women as they barred further immigration in California and other western states. Also found significant the direction that these women's reform actions were aimed at--the revitalization of China as a nation, rather than the individualistic aims of many female reformers in America--kind of reminiscent of the African American women from the previous reading and their focus on universal rights etc. than their white female counterparts. -schang<br />
<br />
The comparison between bound feet and corsets was very important. Westerners are quick to judge bound feet for the horrible physical impact they had on women, but really, corsets were not any better. They bent ribcages, moved organs around, etc. My great grandmother still had to wear a corset long after they were out of fashion because her body was incapable of supporting itself anymore. And in both the case of foot binding and corsets, while it's true that men perpetuated the situation because of their ideas of what a beautiful woman should look like, women themselves were the ones to support the practices and get their daughters to do so as a sign of their femininity. I think the author took too much of a black-and-white stance on the subject of foot binding, which as painful as it was, it was not simply a sign of the oppression of Chinese women by Chinese men. That being said, it was important for Chinese women, both in China and America, to reject that tradition in order to begin to step out of their traditional roles. - Alice W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice that foot binding was as much perpetuated by Chinese women as it was by Chinese men--in the accounts that I've read, it was the mothers and grandmothers, of their own accord and not under orders from a man, who imposed the foot binding on their daughters and granddaughters. The necessity of abolishing this practice to further the emancipation of Chinese (and Chinese American) women was interesting to read--it appeared to be a strong cultural symbol (much like the corset, which was mentioned) that opened doors for larger freedoms. The other interesting idea I got from this article was how nationalistic the Chinese American women were. Although they lived in a different country, they identified less with their rights as women in the new country than they did with the rights of women in their ancestral home. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==<br />
'''Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890'''<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That's not masculine, it's disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
At first reading this article I initially thought, “How did Nellie think that she could actually do this in 1890? Was it even possible then?” Thinking more into it I can see why. She wanted to do something ambitious, that would make for a great story, but also make for a great experience, so why shouldn’t she as a woman be able to travel the world? Like Sarah, I feel bad that Nellie had to travel in one outfit for three months, but as she describes she is able to fit a good amount of clothing into her one hand-satchel, “two traveling caps…a pair of slippers, a dressing gown, tennis blazer…several changes of underwear,” (pg. 7). I would hope that priority number one would be the underwear. At the end of the article, I found that Nellie seems to indicate that she may have some sort of “baggage” in her life and I may be reading too much into it, but the way she speaks of the “the responsibilities and worries I escaped by not having a lot of trunks and boxes to look after,(pg. 7), seems to be a hidden meaning to her own emotional baggage.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
Here is a woman ready to trek around the world, alone, with only the contents of a little bag. She has the gumption to convince her boss that she can make the trip, yet she still falls back on the idea that if she conducts herself 'properly' she will "always find men ready to protect" (pg. 7) her. I don't fault her for wanting this protection, travel always entails a certain degree of danger, but I do wonder at her assumptions as to what constitutes proper behavior. In making the trip, hasn't she already broken several social norms concerning appropriate womanly conduct? And did she believe that men the world over would hold the same ideas about women and their behavior? What of her safety if her conduct was deemed improper? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found this article really interesting because Nellie seems like a very independent and confident woman. That is why it was such a surprise to me that she quit journalism to marry a 72 year old man!! Perhaps she loved him, or maybe she thought that her job couldn't last forever and she needed someone to support her? It did also say that she shed a few years off her age to make herself seem more youthful. Maybe there was a common thought in society that once a woman got too old, she wasn't useful anymore. If that is true, then it must have been quite a strong societal expectation in order to get Nellie to stop what she loved doing. I think its also important to notice that Nellie had to stop her job when she got married. She obviously loved doing because she wanted to go back to it when her husband died, so there must have been some pressure on her to quit and spend her time being a wife. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I was also shocked at ther marriage to the rather old man, thats old today, so I'm sure back then that had to be quite an old guy. I feel that Nellie is a perfect example of this New Woman, out embracing the world without a care or fear in the world, ready to tackle any man's job. Good for her. - Christine L<br />
<br />
Here are the things that I found interesting in this primary document--for such a daring New Woman she seems awfully dependent on the chivalry of men. Example, "I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me." (7) So whether she had the outward trappings of the New Woman, she still thought in the same old traditional way that men are meant to protect women. Geez, we don't see that today at all...outward trappings of independence and the concurrent maintenance of a traditional outlook on the behavior of men...double standard much? -schang<br />
<br />
I wish derring-do was still in use. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
'''Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893'''<br />
<br />
I was actually surprised that Bertha Palmer used her speech at the World Fair to both honor women and criticise men's attitudes towards women. Women had been allowed a space at the Fair to display their own creativity, but it was within a well defined and controlled "sphere" designated by men. With Palmer's speech, we are getting to see a woman recognize the inequality of the separate spheres doctrine and publicly push for the inclusion of women in more than restrictive "spheres" constructed by men. After all, how can a woman truly be free when she is being oppressed by men in all that she does? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
The reasoning behind the creation of the women's pavilion seem more in line with what I imagine to be the goals of feminists (8). Then again, the "acknowledgement" that the women credit men in the passage, that heretofore, men have been the sole contributors to humanity, etc etc seemed to dismiss or perhaps demonstrate ignorance of what women had accomplished throughout history. -schang<br />
<br />
'''Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892'''<br />
<br />
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I found that Cooper's statement concerning what constituted equality--"without violence and without suing or special patronage then and there the whole Negro race enters with me," and whether or not the Civil Rights movement and aftermath, accompanied with violence, court action and affirmative action corresponds with her vision of equality. On that note, what did she mean particularly by the exaggerated "importance of mere political advantage" (12)?<br />
-schang<br />
<br />
'''Ida B. Wells''' – <br />
<br />
"Virtue knows no colorline, and the CHIVALRY which depends upon the complexion of skin and texture of hair can command no honest respect." (17)--what did Wells mean by chivalry? -schang<br />
<br />
I think by using the word CHIVALRY Wells is just stressing the basic respect that should be shown between two humans, rather than just relationships between men and women.-MDvorak<br />
<br />
Wells makes some very good arguments and systematic, logical rebuttals to the ridiculous excuses of the Southern white man for lynching, especially towards the end when she uses their own argument--sensitivity and chivalry to women--against them, pointing out that they "assume a chivalry which they do not possess" (16). By this, she means "respect for the womanhood which circumstances place d in his power" (17). (To schang:) She really means CHIVALRY in this true sense, pointing out that chivalry does not discriminate and that chivalry which does make race distinctions "commands no honest respect." (To MDvorak:) In the larger context of the essay she probably means respect between humans, but here she singles out chivalry towards women to make her point stronger. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
'''Frances Willard'''–<br />
<br />
The irony of a woman/feminist naming her bicycle, a possession, a thing, Gladys should mean something, unless I'm reading too much into her words. But then again, her description of how Gladys was a "mystery" and that she had "mastered" all her kinks and that she put a bridle in her mouth and whipped her in victory...all very masculine language directed towards a female object. Even if that object is an inanimate bicycle, Willard's use of such blatantly gendered language merits some sort of analysis. -schang<br />
<br />
'''Anzia Yezierska''' – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World<br />
<br />
Immigrant women like Anzia and her fictional heroine Sara faced unique challenges at the turn of the century. They were caught between the growing American emphasis on education and more independence for women and their tradition bound fathers and husbands. Men like Sara's father in the reading probably saw their daughters' rebellious streaks as not only a threat to their patriarchal authority but also to the culture and customs they brought from their countries of origin. When immigrant daughters went to school or moved out on their own they joined an 'American' movement that their parents may not have understood or feared for its ability to remove their daughters from an acceptably ethnic upbringing. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
I strongly agree with Mary Ann, I think fathers especially immigrant fathers wanted the "American Dream" and felt that when they arrived it was hard to achieve so held onto the one stable condition they always knew as being heads of the household. Men, like Sara's father used a different tactic to establish authority through the use of religion,"It says in the Torah, only through a man has a woman an existence." (22) contradicting the idea in America where women were normally seen as morally superior. This made me wonder if the influence of new religions and cultures in America helped bring about the women's movement? Did statements such as the one Sara's father made cause women to rebel more and prove they did not need a man nor his religion to survive. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
The story of the Bread Givers by Anzia Yezierska is an example of traditional values and norms crashing headfirst into a changing society. As a man of God in their old country, Sara’s father would have been required to provide spiritual leadership to his community in exchange for food and shelter; but in America that is not the case. Instead, he forces his family to sacrifice so that he can continue to focus completely on his religion. Sara’s ability to break away from her father’s overbearing dominance also forces her to turn her back on her sisters and mother. This conflict between generations was a prominent narrative at the turn of the century. – E Fritz <br />
<br />
Sara's assertion that America is nothing like the old country, and that in America she can do whatever she wants is a very interesting concept, coming from a woman. This was the assumption many immigrants coming to America although the reality of the situation oftentimes clashed violently with the ideal. That an immigrant female author would write in such glowing terms about the possibilities of being a woman in America should mean something, although I don't know how the story ends and it is fiction. -schang<br />
<br />
I was surprised by the fact that Anzia actually left her household. Although we don't know how long she was gone from home, the fact that she left was probably a huge step for her. It seems that her view of family changed from her old country and when she arrived in America. The ideals in America about how women should be on their own were newly introduced into society, yet for Anzia, these ideals gave her the opportunity for another life, another chance to live life the way she wanted to, rather than the way her father wanted. I feel that her situation was one commonly seen in immigrant families. It was probably hard to deal with the cultural change when coming to America, but at the same time, I feel that Americans were also dealing with a cultural and social change, with women becoming more integrated into society. --- Alex M. <br />
<br />
'''Edith Eudora Ammons''' – A Woman Homesteader<br />
<br />
When I have pictured manifest destiny, I have hardly pictured Edith Ammons and her sister, two women, moving in to the West alone to build up new lives together. Of course, I would never think of the West in the 19th century as a place of freedom and new beginnings because I know how rough it was from studying history. Ammons herself admits, "This was not the West as I had dreamed it... It was a desolate, forgotten land, without vegetation save for the dry, crackling grass, without visible tokens of fertility" (p. 26). Yet, the sisters toughed it out, taking on hardship after hardship in exchange for their freedom to live where they wanted and do what they wanted. I think that with our comforts of today, it is often hard to imagine women putting themselves through such trials to achieve the freedom they desired. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==<br />
<br />
'''Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)'''<br />
<br />
One thing I really liked about this story was how Molly talked about how she struggled with her studies. I thought this was important because it shows that girls weren't just sent away to learn how to become good wives, but they were actually taught things. They actually had to learn science and practice experiments. Molly seems like a completely modern college girl in the way she complains about her classes! She also talks about her social life quite openly. Girls were willing to dress up like boys in order to go out and have fun. Its nice to see that all girls of that period weren't prim and proper like we are sometimes led to believe. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I think the first thing that struck me when reading this was the idea of "smashing". Did the intro to the letter say that it was acceptable for young women to fall in love with one another in college during that time period. I find that hard to believe considering the fear of parents that their daughters would not be fit for marriage. I also suppose that there might be some things missing from these letters, I mean I know I don't tell my mom everything that I do at college. - John Rowley<br />
<br />
I was also thrown off by the mention of "smashing" was there also a period of time before the turn of the century where there was some sort of sexual liberation? Or was the idea of "smashing" something that was allowed in college as long as these affairs did not last after graduation. I was also impressed with the frank openness of Molly's letters to her parents, especially when she talked about dressing up as a boy. Was this standard behavior for college girls? -Emma<br />
<br />
'''Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)'''<br />
<br />
In class we spoke some of this issue that the “New Woman” faced about what to do after leaving college. Here I found what Jane Addams and Ellen Starr do very admirable, such as creating the famous Hall House. In today’s world you don’t see many women, especially white, moving into “bad” parts of cities to truly help the people there. But these women I found fearless of being in Chicago such as the incident with them leaving the side door left open and “were much pleased in the morning to find that we possessed a fine illustration of the honesty and kindliness of our new neighbors,” (pg. 36). I would have been so upset that I had risked my home and self, just being in a new place for the first night is nerve-racking, but leaving a door open would make me even more paranoid. These women were actually asked to “wash the newborn babies, and to prepare the dead for burial, to nurse the sick, and to ‘mind the children’,” (pg. 36). Where there no others to do these tasks, such as a mortician, hospital, or baby-sitters? I know to remember that these people were of the poorest of the city, but these women were asked to prepare the dead, really? Ew.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
I feel like the concept of “after college, what?” (Jane Addams, MAW p. 34) is a universal question. Albeit when Addams was speaking, there were not many other higher position opportunities available for women after college, but in today’s society most students face the same dilemma regardless of gender, race and sex. It is difficult to find professional work after graduating college and sometimes it can take years to finally find your own place in the world. From then until now not much has changed in that department. –jmarshal<br />
<br />
This doesn't really count as a comment but I've been to Hull House. It was rather smaller than I expected... I'm kind of amazed that the women of Hull House were able to accomplish so much in such a tiny space and with limited resources! --Sarah Smethurst <br />
<br />
'''Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)'''<br />
<br />
The first piece of this article I saw was that it parallels to the Jane Addams Article in that Alice Hamilton spent time at the Hull House. In her writing Alice actually mentions the Hull House, other than her biography at the beginning stating that she had spent time there and that she truly learned something from her time at the Hull House gives more evidence to the fact of Jane creating something great. “Life at Hull-House had accustomed me to going straight to the homes of people whom I wished to learn something and talking to them in their own surroundings, where they have courage to speak out what is in their minds,” (pg. 39). The Hull House taught Alice how to relate to people and I can see this consideration being very important, essential, to her profession of being a physician. In addition to her being a physician I think that a certain level of arrogance blossomed as well. Alice tends to look down on people at times, but at the same time being understanding; an example being her take on the reason for immigrants to take jobs to support their families after coming to American; “of course they took the first job they could find and if it proved to be one that weakened and crippled them---well, that was their bad luck!” (pg. 39). I found this a bit uncharacteristic of the women who spent time in the Hull House, but that is entirely my take. I’m sure being a women physician is something to be quite proud of, but to look down on immigrants who you are caring for because they are trying to make the best of the life they have been dealt, seems a bit harsh. ---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
I was so surprised with the statistic in the beginning of this article that said "around 1900 as many as one in five doctors were women, although that percentage would not be reached again until the 1970's." When did the switch happen? It seems that during the turn of the century, the opportunities for women experienced a brief moment of expansion before the doors were closed upon them again. I was impressed with the work that Alice Hamilton was able to accomplish, and was also horrified by her accounts of the devastating effects of poisonous materials in the workplace. I understand Morgans point about Hamilton coming off as very arrogant, however I think this type of attitude towards the poor was probably a characteristic of her upbringing most likely as a member of the middle or upper class. Even though Alice Hamilton did work towards finding a cure for diseases that afflicted the poor she may not necessarily feel that much warmth and compassion towards them. --Emma <br />
<br />
'''Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) '''<br />
<br />
This article struck a chord with me, as someone in Mary Washington's education program. One of the sentences about why black women turned to teaching got me thinking in particular about the reason why anyone becomes a teacher. "For black women, the choice of a teaching career often involved an element of racial self-consciousness, because teaching future generations was seen as a concrete way to improve conditions in the black community," (40). Do teachers teach simply to instill their own ideals and perspective on the next generation? -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
'''Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)'''<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)'''<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Mother Jones. Her writing is very strong and passionate, and its hard not to have emotions dredged up while reading about this strike. I found it interesting that she went and stayed with the families working in the mine to witness first-hand the hardships they endure. The conditions seemed to be not too far off of what miners dealt with in more recent times which is saddening. - Christine L<br />
<br />
Why did they call her Mother Jones? What did this say about the continued assumptions concerning the proper role of women in society, albeit a radicalized one? Love her take on women's suffrage as a hobby of aristocratic women. A comment on her most enduring words--to not be ladylike...that implies that there was and will continue to be behavior that is classified as ladylike and unladylike...what does that mean about her own assumptions of where feminism would lead to? Concerning the actual text, I'm concerned about her attitude towards the constitutionality of laws. Her advocacy of violence as a means to correct what she sees as wrong is disconcerting. If more people with different opinions felt and acted the way she wanted, then we would end up without a government fairly soon. Aren't there people who take her words to heart about using violence, but in a manner opposite what she would have wanted? For example, the bombing of abortion clinics? -schang<br />
<br />
'''Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home'''<br />
<br />
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Culinary misadventures aside, I'm curious about what people thought about "Motherhood is not a remote contingency, but the common duty and common glory of womanhood. If women did choose professions unsuitable to maternity, nature would quietly extinguish them by her unvarying process." (80) Ignoring my penchant for finding gendered language and Gilman's reference to nature as a woman (why, because nature provides and women produce children?) but her assertion that motherhood is the duty and glory of womanhood and that there are certain professions inherently not suitable for women, but if women want to do these things, then she can do so, it's just that nature will off her in a hurry. So...in her mind there really is such a thing as jobs that women shouldn't do, but should be able to try anyways? -schang<br />
<br />
'''Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913'''<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman's husband's boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?<br />
-Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I found this article the most interesting out of all of them. Josephine Conger-Koneko takes a very hard line on the position that women should be paid for their housework. I also found it interesting how she equivocated a woman's life in the home doing housework for her husband as the life of a slave. She seems to be a bit radical in her discussion of women being paid for household duties. I also found it striking that Koneko argues that a husband should go to his employer and ask for wages for his wife at home doing the housework and how men getting married is actually benefical more for the employer because then he will have a continuing work force. Did women during this time believe they should be paid for work, and if after reading this, did woman's groups advocate paid labor for women working in the home? -abratchi<br />
<br />
This idea, as the blurb before Conger-Koneko's part noted, is still "squarely on the feminist agenda," (81) although these days it's discussed more in terms of GNP and economic value of wages for housework, raising children, etc. Although the all caps got very annoying and Conger-Koneko's rhetoric and tactless word choice ("ignorance and stupidity" 84) probably alienated more people than it convinced, she presents a good point that deserved and continues to deserve discourse and action. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
'''Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn't just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I thought the Sanger article was very interesting. I like how Sanger is able to use the story of Mrs. Sachs to show the rising need and importance for birth control. I think it presents birth control as more of a social issue, rather than just an issue of liberating woman's sexuality. She demonstrates that birth control is a necessity because of all the hurt, poverty and death that is occurring due to a lack of birth control. At this time, one had to have enough money for doctors who they could pay to tell them about birth control options/abortion due to the Comstock Laws, and I think this is important for why Sanger decides to advocate birth control, especially to the poorer classes. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I think the novelty of birth control and it's practices were particularly interesting during this time period. It was a process which was becoming more widely popularized because it was directly connected to women's growing independence from men. I agree with the fact that birth control began to empower women because it allowed them to choose weather or not they wanted to get pregnant, whereas previously they were almost forced into sex. I think Sanger was wise in attempting to make birth control a more medical issue , but I also think it has feminist elements because it was able to empower women to make more significant sexual decisions.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
Sanger was an insanely intelligent woman for using the Sachs family as a part of her argument. Rather than allowing for men (and women too) to scrutinize women for their decision to use birth control. She leaves some of the responsibility up to the men, by showing how it is relevant to their lives too.--MDvora<br />
<br />
I never realized the story behind Margaret Sanger's quest to argue on behalf of birth control. She was deeply affected by Mrs. Sachs death, because Sanger had been unable to help her, and had no remedy to keep her from pregnancy. I think part of what made Sanger such a strong supporter of birth control was that she saw situations everyday where families were struggling because they had too many kids and therefore couldn't feed them or care for them adequately; or where women were so desperate for something to give them some sort of relief from always being pregnant. Sanger wanted to give women a way to enjoy life, to bring equality to men and women in one aspect. --- Alex M. <br />
<br />
'''Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911'''<br />
<br />
<br />
I really liked this article because it reflects upon the push made by female activists towards the real freedoms they desired. Emma Goldman criticizes the "superficial goals of the modern woman's movement," and expresses that "True emancipation begins neither at the polls nor in the courts...it begins in woman's soul" (MAW 89). She also expresses that women do have the ability to shape or direct their own destiny. After reading a quote from page 90 where she said, "how much independence is gained if the narrowness and lack of freedom of the home is exchanged for the narrowness and lack of freedom of the factory, sweat-shop, department store, or office?" it reminded me of when slaves first got their freedom. They were free but not at all equal in social or economic status. With women gaining suffrage they gained the opportunities men held but they were still limited by sexual discrimination. -David Fitch</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-01-27T20:14:37Z<p>Kokeefe: /* Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==<br />
<br />
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans. In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones. Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.” Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain. I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included. I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society. Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them. The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary. Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division. I don’t think the teachers helped with that either. These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society. These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==<br />
<br />
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could "endure childbirth painlessly" (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199). I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries. The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203). These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the 'savages' to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered "traditional" activities, so wouldn't that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in "traditional culture" and "modern labor?" -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound. I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met. I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, "They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community's values and habits through a single activity, After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall..."(257) Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman. I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart. She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles. I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some women did of what was expected of them. Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money. If she had been a man we would have never heard about her. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn't just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 "To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise" because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the "(White) Protestants" can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I'd be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers<br />
<br />
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists' animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money "eventually helped elevate her moral character" (253). -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==<br />
<br />
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence. And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren't giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn't get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan's question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this account after reading "Too Dark to be Angels." To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It's telling that the little girl compares herself to the "young of a wild creature" (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be "fewer real Dakotas" and "more palefaces" (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn't quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she's also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-01-27T16:54:41Z<p>Kokeefe: /* MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==<br />
<br />
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans. In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones. Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.” Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain. I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included. I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society. Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them. The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary. Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division. I don’t think the teachers helped with that either. These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society. These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==<br />
<br />
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could "endure childbirth painlessly" (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199). I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries. The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203). These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the 'savages' to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound. I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met. I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, "They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community's values and habits through a single activity, After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall..."(257) Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman. I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart. She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles. I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some women did of what was expected of them. Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money. If she had been a man we would have never heard about her. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn't just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 "To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise" because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the "(White) Protestants" can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I'd be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers<br />
<br />
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists' animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money "eventually helped elevate her moral character" (253). -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==<br />
<br />
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence. And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren't giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn't get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this account after reading "Too Dark to be Angels." To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It's telling that the little girl compares herself to the "young of a wild creature" (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be "fewer real Dakotas" and "more palefaces" (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn't quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she's also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-01-21T05:04:39Z<p>Kokeefe: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments/questions comparing the articles ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on a paper I wrote on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, this was a very interesting essay to read. Fahs mentions that the war still follows the "masculanized culture" that was in place at the time and through my research I discovered the same things. '''Much of the standard literature was centered around the fighting and the man's roles on the battlefield, yet women's roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten. It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as "feminist" literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men'''. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting how she discusses the different type of surrering that women endured. Men endured the horrors of war and their suffering was very physical and visual. Women, however, also suffered but they experienced strictly emotional suffering. They were cut deeply by these emotional wounds of not knowing weather their loved-ones were safe on the battlefield and some argued that these wounds cut deeper than those of men. Where men simply died on the battlefield, women had to endure the death of a loved one, while still remaining strong, and now being forced to provide for themselves. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Civil War literature shifted from a focus on the tribulations of northern women to those of southern women. And '''despite a strong emphasis on realistic literature, southern women and antebellum plantation life was highly romanticized. This probably came in part from a desire to both remember a time when the nation was united (which can also be seen in the popularity of stories centered around the Revolution)and to try to create a new identity centered around northern and southern reconciliation and "white" ideals.''' - Alice W<br />
<br />
'''I can't help but think about "Gone With the Wind" whenever they mentioned southern woman's literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)'''<br />
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman's role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today's non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
'''I think it is important to keep in mind that literature is largely written for an audience, and yet, this literature is what shapes the public memory of an event'''. The dominant forms of fiction at the outset of the war were women’s domestic novels. This impacts what type of literature was written during the war. It should come as no surprise that during the war, “the literary marketplace supported an outpouring of popular literature portraying women’s domestic participation in the war.” This domestic participation includes working, sacrifice, and loss, some even argue that the women sacrificed more than the men who were fighting. '''However, there was a shift in literature with the rise of Civil War veterans organizations. This led to a shift in who were the bearers of the war’s memory from women to veterans.''' It is amazing how the Civil War has become, “a white male conflict, rather than a cataclysmic event that rent and remade the fabric of life for all Americans.” – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Throughout the reading on the Feminized Civil War, I kept asking myself where the women had gone; it was as if their memory of the Civil War had disappeared entirely. I was pleased when I came across Mary Livermore who, in 1887, spoke out against where the literature about the civil war was going. She argued that the story of Northern women was missing. Then, in 1889 Edward Bellamy, stated that, “many pictures of battles have been painted, but no true one yet, for the pictures contain only men. The women are unaccountably left out.” Finally, there was Elizabeth Stuart Phelps who actually “undermined stereotypes of veterans” and “challenged the veteran dominated culture of remembrance itself.” I was just happy to see that women were not entirely forgotten in the decades following the Civil War. '''I am curious as to how the majority of women felt when their impacts on the war became largely overlooked, especially after all of the pain and loss that they had experienced.''' –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''It seems as time moved on after the Civil War it increasingly became to be defined as a "Man's War", specifically a "White Man's War".''' All of the domestic issues women faced, such as caring for children, the home, and earning a living, faded with the passage of time. It appears that a romanticized portrait of the war was painted in which much of the heart-ache and problems women faced on an everyday basis were pushed to the wayside in favor of remembering the great battles and generals of the day. This is yet another example of how women were forgotten in the shadow of their men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I along with the many agree that the Civil War was a white man's war fought for white man issues but I feel like the Civil War is taught in grade school as the War for emancipation. I think it's important not to forget the reasons in which our country was pushed into a civil war, with slavery being just one of the many issues. I also think one of the main reasons there was not much literature written about women was because they were not a part of politics and the economy of the time. -David Fitch<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna Holman's approach that the Civil War had largely (and unfortunately) came to be defined as a "Man's War." I also found it interesting that they begin to recognize the importance of the woman in everyday life, thought the focus was only on the mother initially. '''On page 133, Fahs points out that, "women especially mothers, personalized the nation, that they link the private and public realms."''' Not only does Fahs point out that women were in a sense the backbone of the nation, but they were also able to tie together the separate spheres. --MDvorak <br />
<br />
I agree with both Anna and MDvorak here. I found it interesting how the reading referred to the war as a "Man's War". Fahs focused a lot of attention on the emotional side of women during the war, but the connection of their emotions to the men in their lives and the country, I think, is most important. I believe it showed that the suffering aspect a of war produced a personal connection to the war for women, especially when they were not directly involved (on the battlefield, for instance). Also, I found the shift away from women after the war in publications was extremely important in understanding how people at this time, particularly men, viewed the war. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I also agree with the above three statements. I find it interesting that women were seen as the emotional backbone of the nation which would seem to imply that they were seen as an important aspect of the war-if the sons were not properly "sent off" or supported by the mother who they looked to for emotional strength then it would be hard to determine how they would have been able to survive the horrors of war even remotely emotionally intact. However, it seems as if this important contribution was greatly overshadowed by the carnage of war. It makes everyday strength and courage appear as a lesser virtue than uncommon courage in the face of sudden and inescapable danger. WHere did these men learn that strength? From the readings it would be the mother who taught this trait and yet the mother gets virtually no credit. -jmarshal<br />
I also completely agree with Erin Sanderson's statement in which she discusses how after men returned from the war, the literature market increasingly became dominated by men's war stories. The interests of women were again pushed away for those of men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find out that the Civil War was so feminized during the war and directly following it. The war has definitely become masculine in the public memory, and it makes me want to take a look at how the public images of other wars have changed. '''Why was there a focus on the Northern women’s war in Civil War literature in the first place? Was it because they were the only ones around that had the opportunity to read it? Many Northern men would have been fighting, and in the South, both men and women would have had larger concerns than publishing and reading literature. How come when the war once again entered popular memory in the 1880s, it became focused on the masculine aspects of the war? The article mentions a shift away from Victorian feminine literature towards realist literature. Was there some sort of demographic change in readership?''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It seems as though the media played a larger role during and after the civil war. From the material read, it seemed to have expressed sadness, pride, and Patriotism of people’s experiences of the War. Women's writing was more prominent because the men were away in war. But when the men came home their stories needed to be told. I think this symbolizes men returning to the public sphere. I think the type of stories told says something about men and women's roles. In these stories about women you see the emotional side and in men's stories they were more about glory and valor. The change from fiction to more non-fiction stories is interesting. Could this have been because people had just dealt with real emotions, those including pain and sorrow, were ready for something real? Was it something they could better relate to? --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I too was initially a little surprised to find that stories about women dominated much of the media at the time, but it really makes sense considering women were the ones remaining home and actually buying and reading the publications of the day. These women understandably wanted stories that they could relate to and that emphasized the importance of their own contributions to the war effort. '''''It also may have been a not so subtle nudge on behalf of the powers-that-be to encourage women, for purely practical reasons, to continue to support the men at war. After all, soldiers who had the support of their families, even if the women believed in the war effort for romanticized reasons, were less likely to desert or to not enlist at all. After the war was over, the pressing need to maintain that support base fell off, and so did the feminized literature.''''' -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann makes a great point here. I think the emphasis on women's literature during the war was in part because men at the time were involved directly in the war. I think that in order to retain a captive audience, publications had to market to their demographic, primarily women with men away in war. I think the romanticized stories gave women something to relate on, especially those with husbands or sons away in war. I believe it would have instilled a sense of comforting, almost, to know that I was not the only woman at the time facing the same emotions. -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''I really liked the Tony Horwitz quote that Fahs included (and not just because he might be one of my favorite authors). She said that in the late nineteenth century Americans "reclaimed a past of their own creation." It's so important for us to remember that collective memory is constantly changing.''' Perceptions of the Civil War changed with the changing attitudes about war and women of the time. It makes some sense that, postwar, women's stories might be pushed to the side in favor of more masculine stories about the front. '''Returning veterans were a very visible part of post-war life; women's suffering, while obviously still with them, was no longer front and center.''' So, perceptions shifted, and they continued to change with the country, eventually colliding with the force-to-be-reckoned-with that was Gone with the Wind. I think it's safe to say that many Americans hold certain ideas about the Civil War based on that novel alone, as well as ideas from all of the other Civil War books and movies produced over the past few decades. Not all of these memories are accurate, maybe most are not, but they represent something very real to the society that holds them as well as an interesting challenge to historians fighting to keep a semblance of reality, as experienced by women and men, both Northern and Southern, in the conversation. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed finally reading something about how women's work and contributions were acknowledged and became part of a major event in US history. The essay said frequently that women's role in the war effort was vital and influential. The literature at the time included feminized literature that "involved a distinctive, sentimentalized patriotism." A good bit of the literature also centered on the woman's responsibility to "sacrifice their men for their country." The stories and articles seemed to focus on either persuading women to act patriotic to support their country or describe the emotions, struggles, and experiences of women or the "woman's war." It was sad to see that once the men came back from war the focus shifted more towards the masculinized war. Maybe it was to showcase the men for their bravery and patriotism for their country. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
'''Before reading this, I had never thought about how much late 19th century Civil War literature focuses on Southern women, and not Northern women. Of course, this is probably mainly due to the fact that I had no idea just how important of a role Northern Women had played during the War.''' I can understand why their role was overshadowed after the war. After all, the war came to be redefined by the war stories of men and honoring great officers and soldiers. As for literature on Southern Women, I think it was appealing because it was greatly idealized, versus the more realistic literature from the North. However, I think that it is amazing that Historians have also been fooled in to this misconception in their analysis of the both the Civil War and the literature of the time. ''' We are not living in the 19th century, so we should have an objective point of view, right?''' -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with CBrau I myself was very suprised at the lack of literature we typically see for Northern women throughout the Civil War. '''I have only paid attention to literature from Southern women, due to the amount of fighting in the South and how their lives were completely destroyed, but women's lives in the North were strongly affected as well. The literature and quotes from Northern mothers hit home to me as I have watched my mom proudly tell family members and friends that her son will serve the United States.''' As stated by New York Times, a mother after shopping with her son for his military equipment said, " This, my son, is all that I can do. I have given you up to serve your country, and may God go with you! It is all a mother can do." I know this was stated by a Northern woman but I wondered if mothers felt this way all over the country and this unified them in their efforts to support not only the "woman's" war but the Civil War as well? ie. through sending supplies, flying flags in faces of opposing generals, etc. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I find it super interesting how quickly the important contributions of women were forgotten. During the actual war it was fine for the media to have such a high percentage of feminized literature because the contributions that women were making were right there in front of them and not easily ignored. This might have also been because women probably dominated the audience, since they were the ones at home and able to get a magazine or paper. It seems that as the years passed after the end of the war, the emotions of the war were forgotten and men wanted to read about their battles and their leaders as opposed to the private and emotional battles that women fought, even if they were just as difficult and important. Fahs talks about how idealized southern white women's literature was more popular, and this was probably because people did not want to face the reality of what really happened in the war. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I found this article very interesting, seeing as how I wasn't aware of how literature about the Civil War evolved. As someone else mentioned, it does make sense that during the war much of the literature produced was on and aimed at women, a main reason probably due to the fact that men were just not a viable market - they were off fighting. After the war, women, as often happens, are pushed to the back burner to focus on the "real" wartime victims - those in battle. This essay reemphasizes the idea that wartime memories change with the time period. Each study into a past war is dictated by what that generation is going through. - Christine L<br />
<br />
The changing narratives following the war was not something that I was aware of. The literature during and just following the war focused a great deal on women's issues, yet changed in the 1880's and 1890's to a more masculinized story. '''I wonder why the Southern women's narrative has remained as the most compelling story of the Civil War to this day'''.-efritz<br />
<br />
'''The author posits that women's suffering was equal to or greater than that of men fighting in the war. Although women suffered great emotional trauma with the loss of their spouses or children, I don't think that you can compare this emotional suffering to what the men were exposed to in battle. They all suffered in their individual way, but the emotional and physical toll the men faced daily cannot be compared to that of women's suffering back home.'''-efritz<br />
<br />
While reading I found it interesting that women’s literature disappeared and “a newly masculinized literary marketplace” took place AFTER the Civil War. The literature in stories, essays, novels, poems, songs, newspapers, and magazines switched from primarily focused on the personalities, suffering, and trials of women to focus on the “real” or “actual” experience of the people during the War; that which men had during the battles, who the people where, (specifically generals), and the deaths /problems during the war. In addition to this we must remember who the media of the period are appealing to; the women during the Civil War were the only ones left at home to receive and read these magazines, so they would appeal to them first and foremost and then to the men once they came back from war. When the men came back from war, they came back into their dominating role of society. In response to this fact, the media began to print articles about what they thought would be appealing to the men that came home, “The Century magazine, begun in 1881, published its famous battles and Leaders of the Civil War series from November 1884 until November 1887.” These were stories of their battles and the trials they, the men, had faced. I don’t think that when the men came home they wanted to hear about how much the women in their lives had suffered, but what they had suffered to bring freedom to their country and the women in it; the feel heroic and that they had survived. <br />
<br />
I also found the argument between the portrait of women encouraging the men to enlist and the effect of suffering because of sacrificing their men. Samuel Osgood explains his figure of women as “the good mother seated at the window from which floats the household flag, and watching intently the passing regiment and waving her handkerchief to some friend of kinsman…the nation seems to live in the person of this queen.” These women, especially mothers, appropriate roles are to sacrifice their sons and husbands for the good of the nation and, in this depiction, revel in their position in the military. “The patriotic mother and her daughter became a way of imagining personal obligation to the state.” In contrast, the picture of women suffering for their men is a truer reality than that of being happy during the war. Louise Chandler Moulton’s 1863 “One of Many” wrote “Is it not true that every bullet shoots double, and the shot which flies farthest makes the sorest wound?” In this sense a women is “wounded for far longer and far worse that the pain that the solider felt as he died and left her. I feel that Fanny Fern summed it up best in writing that she “who is giving her husband to her country, has given everything.” ---Morgan<br />
<br />
This article made me think a little more about the relationship between literature and history. I have never read "The Red Badge of Courage", but it my high school it was not taught in history classes, only english classes. If it is considered "real literature of the Civil War" as Hemingway put it, is it because it beautifully portrayed the war or the nation's notions of what the war meant. Or maybe it just made for a better story. Though I do have a strong interest in women's history, I can't help but find a battlefield more appealing than a northern home for a piece of fiction. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
One of the comments that struck me in the article was John Westbrook arguing that during World War II "the figure of the pinup girl personified 'what men were fighting for.'" This is surprising to me because a male is giving a woman masculine characteristics, somewhat of a rarity at this time. During the late 19th century, women are not supposed to possess masculine characteristics in any way, and typically outside of encouraging males to enlist or be patriotic, they are not typically involved outside of the domestic sphere. Secondly this is surprising because a male is giving these characteristics to a female.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
"The idea of the war as a whites-only brotherhood masculinized the memory of the war in popular literature." Growing up, I always learned about the Civil War in such a context. So as I read, I was taken aback and impressed at how much attention was intially paid to the suffering of women during the war. I know it quickly wanned and was forgotten, but the fact that some authors conceded that the women at home may have suffered more than the soldiers dying on the battlefields was a real surprise to my 21st century mind.-- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” ==<br />
<br />
'''I beleive this is the most important question asked in this essay:''' After the war, should the enfranchisement of black women, or of all women take place? This question is central to many of the political struggles in the late 19th century. Black women almost seperated themselves into a community to bond, which made overall suffrage more difficult.<br />
-Afrisk<br />
<br />
Going along with the previous point I'm not sure if the black female community had worked less towards creating a homogenous community that they would have had an easier time gaining suffrage. It seemed however that it was a necessity for these womens to create these communities in order to survive the difficulties of post slavery life in the Reconstruction Era.---Emma<br />
<br />
Going with the question of the enfranchisement of women... I really was encouraged by the fact that although the book explicitly states that Black men also felt that women were inferior to men in their social positions it was later stated that "serious discussion" regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman's suffrage movement. -SSellers<br />
<br />
'''I thought chapter 10 brought up a good question, which was how the transition from slavery to freedom was expected to function'''. If I remember correctly the majority of white Americans still viewed African Americans as inferior and it was mainly a small percentage of Northern Radicals that were trying to achieve equality for them in their meaning of freedom. As history shows it would still take a long time for freedom to mean anything for freed slaves. So my question is after the Civil War ended what kind of life could African Americans find without having any rights? ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
I like David Fitch's point, but also think that it was because African Americans had no real rights that the battle for suffrage was so important.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
'''African American women saw the vote as a collective possession between men and women based on the belief within the African American community of collective responsibility'''. Republican black males supported this belief. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but the impression I got was that it wasn’t necessarily because they believed in any kind of “autonomy as one” thing but because the women could help keep black men from voting as Democrats, which helped keep the Republicans in power. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
-Taylor, would the men have voted Democratic if their wives hadn't insisted on Republican? I'm not sure, but I feel like many would have continued to vote Republican because of the party's strong ties to Lincoln. Perhaps the issue would have been whether they voted at all if their wives had not forced them to get to the polls. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The idea of collective responsibility is very interesting. That it takes a whole family sometimes including fictive kin to survive. The idea that when one makes a decision it effects the whole family especially including political decisions. '''Did the importance of community and family stem from the fact that they had been divided in slavery?''' --Mhimes<br />
<br />
Family stemmed from two things, in my opinion. Firstly, a large portion of family unity came from being divided in slavery. Secondly, after slavery, African Americans had no one to turn to, no one to gain sympathy from, and no one to support them in their actions or their decisions. The family was a unique place where African Americans could be united and create stronger, unbreakable bonds.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I found it really striking that African American women worked so hard to ensure that the men in their lives voted, and voted Republican. And that it was a family vote, not a man's vote on behalf of his family says a lot about the system of community many seemed to operate under. In answer to Mhimes, I would say that yes, a lot of the importance of family probably stemmed from generations of families being torn apart. Now that these individuals could house their families under one roof a strong desire to do everything they could to protect that family meant weighing every decision, including of course the political ones, carefully. '''And slaves, out of necessity, had long built families out of unrelated community members so I imagine that the same sense of self-preservation felt for blood relatives carried over for the community as a whole.''' The women did not want to see hard won freedom taken away by a lack of awareness and participation. And, as the author points out, some of the women's involvement was even to ensure the physical safety of the voting men. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''I thought it was interesting when the essay talked about how even though black men had finally gained rights to vote they still were not completely supportive of women having the right to vote. Maybe it is a stupid assumption but I would think that since they knew how it felt to have less rights than others they would show more sympathy towards women.''' They didn't think it was as absurd as white men did but why wouldn't they fight for them harder, especially if that meant all African American people would finally have their rights and freedoms? Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think, perhaps, one reason that black men did not totally support a woman's right to vote is that they were as submerged in the time period as their white contemporaries. They saw how the white men saw "masculinity" and the gender roles that men and women had in the white society. Black men were most importantl men and they were recognized (finally and rightfully so) as men and not property which gave them the rights of men (obviously some white areas objected more to this in action and in law than others) and with that came the dominance and head of household ideaology that white men held onto. Also since this freedom was new, and the black men had been given the right to vote, it is possible that they feared that if they took to protesting for the right for women to vote all the progress they had just experienced may be taken away more than what it was in some places. -jmarshal<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see African American women's roles in voting before women's suffrage. Before college, we are taught that women were not able to vote, therefore they did not. However, Brown clearly contradicts this in her article. African American women in Richmond were publicly participating in politics, even voting at the community/local level, while others took it upon themselves to view their husband's right to vote as a collective, rather than individual, vote. These women were going to vote, whether or not they were legally able to do so. And yet, historians tend to look at this part of history as black and white; African American women were either able to physically vote in the polling booths, or they were not. Clearly, we need to look at the entire issue differently to understand the importance of African American women in 19th century politics. -- CBrau <br />
<br />
In response to CBrau, not only were Black women voting before they were allowed to, white women were also doing that as well. In some nothern cities, women went to the polls and were allowed to vote (while others ended up getting arrested), all before the strict enforcement of not allowing females to vote. - christine l<br />
<br />
I strongly agree with Amy's point, black men had suffered right alongside women the harsh reality of being a lower citizen in society and yet once they were allowed to vote they did not think it was the right place for a woman. Only men could be responsible for serious and political matters. Is this a reason why black women formed such close knit bonds with others? Were women more capable of supporting one another even if it only involved giving someone a roof over their head? I would have thought black men would of understood women's struggles but that appeared to be a difficult concept once men were able to make a mark. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan W.'s point, but also find it interesting that some black women thought that their husband's vote was their vote as well. This puts an interesting spin on a typically male dominated issue. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I also think its really interesting that black women worked hard for their right to vote right after the war ended and also worked behind the scenes. Brown talks about how black women created their own organized groups such as the Rising Daughters of Liberty that played important roles in the political campaigns at the time. They also sent women from their communities to speak on their behalf at political meetings. These women were also willing to literally fight for their rights. Brown says that they took up weapons during political meetings so that their preferred delegates would not be intimidated. I think all of this shows that black women were among the first suffragettes and should be recognized as such. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I found the idea of collective responsibility interesting, also. I agree with the point raised by Amy about black men and their role in supporting or not supporting black women's rights to vote. I found it interesting how the article tied in black women's impact on their husbands, especially in regards to voting Republican or Democrat. Would this had been the case if men had originally fully supported black women's right to vote, or was it because of their resistance that women tried to establish a sense of control over their husbands voting decisions? -abratchi<br />
<br />
I liked how such emphasis was placed on the community of newly freed slaves. They were all in the same boat together and recognized this fact. They banded together to achieve their common goals and knew that they would not be able to make it into mainstream American culture if they only functioned in respect to themselves. The community was such an important supporting factor for the freedmen that it should not be ignored by the history texts.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Like what Anna said, I was also struck by and admired the sense of community. "Their fates were initimately tied together; individual freedom could only be achieved through collective autonomy." However, I think community as family had always been a part of African-American society. As slaves, they had to work together and look out for each other. After emancipation, in the face of an exciting but uncertain future, freed men and women continued the tradition of a strong community. It was beautiful to read how everyone banded together, especially in the case of Ann Lipscomb. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
Many comments reflect the surprise that some black men were opposed to their female counterparts; however, i do not find it all that shocking. '''After the whole race spending their entire lives (and all the generations before) being so enslaved and emasculated, I can see some wanting to have some sort of dominance in their lives'''. - christine l<br />
<br />
I think Christine makes an interesting point about the possibility that black men would embrace the idea of being dominant over something in their lives. It seems that since Slavery was so emasculating and degrading that the opportunity to be able to assert their role as a male figurehead over women would be difficult to resist. I think often we assume that because as a community they endured such hardships together they would band together in the struggle for equality. It reminds me of how in the womens suffrage movement often white and black women could not agree to work together for a common goal.---Emma<br />
<br />
While reading I came to fully enjoy the idea of the African-American people, especially the women attending every Republican state convention and making a scene of it all. These people saw themselves as active participants and assumed as equal a right to be present and participate as the delegates themselves, even if they were not actually invited to be or wanted there, “disgusted at the scene, as well as unable to find seat, the conservative white Republican delegates removed to the Capitol Square to convene an outdoor session.” <br />
<br />
When the discussion of a women’s right to vote did come up, South Carolina’s officials favored women’s suffrage and were open to the idea. I found it interesting that Thomas Bayne, a Virginian delegate, stated that “In Speaking of the right to women to vote, I thought it an inherent right, and that women were wrongfully deprived of it,” and yet then says “While I do not say that this is my opinion…I would simply say in answer that women’s right is a right to stay home.” Why even say that he approves a women’s right to vote and yet day it is more of a women’s right to stay home? Elsa Brown later says that “by stating domestic roles as “rights” he perhaps implies that his quarrel was not with those who supported women suffrage but those who would deny black women the right to domestic duties.” I see this as reasonable justification, but then why mention women’s suffrage at all? <br />
<br />
The last point I thought worth noting of is the fact that African-American women, who could not vote, still took political events and issues to heart as if they themselves had any kind of a say to make their political ideals known. Through the men in their lives these women were able to make their political sentiments know though, by viewing “African-American men’s vote as equally theirs…as a collective possession.” In this sense African-American women took extreme measures to ensure that “their” vote voted “right” for the Republican Party. “Women reportedly initiated sanctions against men who voted Democratic. Some women left their Democratic husbands.” I found the notion of actually leaving and avoiding men who voted Democratic rather harsh. I understand that they wanted to vote Republican, for Lincoln’s party, because that is who gave them their “freedom” but actually chastising men for voting “wrong” is a bit extreme, I feel.--Morgan</div>Kokeefehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-01-13T17:16:30Z<p>Kokeefe: </p>
<hr />
<div>I think the reading was great! -- mdvorak<br />
<br />
<br />
Yeah, me too!<br />
<br />
So apparently I'm the first to comment, yay. In "Defining "American Women's History" I really liked the concept on page 6 that "if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on." I found it interesting to think about Women's history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an "inferior" race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers<br />
<br />
Kind of going along with the first statement, it was interesting to see that some historians balk at including race, class, etc., in women's history because they seem to feel that it will ultimately remove the gender aspect from the discipline in favor of a focus on race or another variable. Yet if you're going to study women, don't you have to study real women's lives, as complex or as multifaceted as they may be? To claim that all women can be put into the same category risks losing the richness of understanding that comes with exploring the differences as well as the similarities among groups or individuals, as Leslie M. Alexander points out. And it would also turn many people away from studying the subject, just as women can feel excluded by traditional, male-focused history. -MMackey<br />
<br />
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women's history separate from "men's" history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women's history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men's history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers<br />
<br />
In response to SSellers, I think it is important to remember that up until recently, history has been dominated by men because men were the ones who were literate. Therefore, history came from the male's perspective. I am not sure if that makes women's history inferior, just harder because it takes deeper analysis to find where women fit into history and how they felt. I mean, men and women share the same history. Their roles within it, however, were different and it takes a women's studies course to discover where women fit into the world during any given time. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
The debate between "equality" and "difference" in terms of women in Gisela Bock's article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey<br />
<br />
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, shows how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I found the changing dynamics of women's history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only "notable women" were written about. Even being characterized as a "notable woman" was defined by male terms in a male dominated society. However, there was a great shift in the study of women from these notable women to the everyday woman. Even so, this study of the everyday woman was still dominated by male terms, as Gisela Bock notes. All of women's activities were judged by the male standard, which was deemed valuable. The spheres that the study of women were divided into, suck as Public vs. Private, were still male dominated. It seems that males have dominated almost every aspect of women's history. Males are the standard upon which women are judged, they decide which women are important enough to be studied, and they define all spheres of the women's lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Anna Holman's comment above. It was fascinating to read about the evolution of women's history and made me wonder how it will continue to evolve in the future. Hopefully as we move forward, women's history will be able to be studied without male domination and we can define ourselves. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
Adding onto Erin Sanderson's statement, I found it interesting how Kate Haulman stated that gender was created and fluid. It is fascinating to understand how people identify with the term "woman", and how it intersects the other aspects of their identity, such as their unique race and ethnicity. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As I was reading, I was intrigued by Kate Haulman's statement about the definition of "American." It did seem like the term would be uncomplicated, simply refering to residents of the United States. The fact that "American" could refer (maybe, should refer) to anyone in the Americas was something I had never considered before. --Kokeefe</div>Kokeefe 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