McClurken Wiki

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php</b> on line <b>195</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>571</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>585</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>578</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>603</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>553</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>186</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>203</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>196</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>212</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>175</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php</b> on line <b>135</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php</b> on line <b>234</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php</b> on line <b>292</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php</b> on line <b>755</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php</b> on line <b>907</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php</b> on line <b>908</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>627</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>629</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>630</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>631</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>633</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>634</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php</b> on line <b>402</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Ksorb2yv</id>
		<title>McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Ksorb2yv"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Ksorb2yv"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T22:25:33Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-23T00:39:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Change over Time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Change over Time ==&lt;br /&gt;
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century?  What distinguishes each decade?  How does this work with our notions of &amp;quot;what the ideal family is?&amp;quot;  How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, this question demands a long answer but I&amp;#039;m going to briefly write that gender roles have constantly changed throughout the century, and the economy has affected these family roles. From the &amp;quot;Companionate Family,&amp;quot; where husband and wives became friends and lovers and children became friends, to the influx of women entering the workforce and some men becoming &amp;quot;mr. mom,&amp;quot; the roles have constantly changed in this one century. The economy always played a role in the family too, whether it was the Depression causing a decline in divorces, marriages and birthrates, or the Fifties creating the &amp;quot;ideal&amp;quot; family, the increase of birthrates, and the suburb family, the changes have been numerous and constant. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changing gender roles, have the most impact on the different definitions of family.  Each decade has had a slightly new gender ideal that shaped the way the family unit evolved.  As one gender had more &amp;quot;power&amp;quot; in the relationship the other adapted slightly to allow for the influx in control.  One thing that we did notice was the overwhelming majority of male dominated society; however, I was very impressed with the amount of power and control that women had a various times.  A family&amp;#039;s economic status is also key, because if it is financially necessary both husband and wife share dominance.  It also seemed that in many cases dominance has some relation to work, and it seems work outside the home. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today? ==&lt;br /&gt;
How is today&amp;#039;s American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==&lt;br /&gt;
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal &amp;quot;of family function and behavior, which remains with us today.&amp;quot;  However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together.  So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&amp;amp;K reading.  I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, &amp;quot;shirking duties&amp;quot; and the decline in the birth rate.  It was a little frightening how much M&amp;amp;K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting.  I am curious about the 1890 &amp;quot;watershed&amp;quot; that was described on page 112.  M&amp;amp;K didn&amp;#039;t do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been.  I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals.  Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies.  It&amp;#039;s a wonder people from that era turned out at all!  When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today.  It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&amp;amp;K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times.  In the later periods discussed, I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the short marriages that took place during WWII.  It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs.  Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end.  During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&amp;amp;Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family.  It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump.  As M&amp;amp;K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars.  Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today.  It&amp;#039;s really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was really amazed with the change from the beginning to the end of Mintz &amp;amp; Kellogg.  While the beginning seemed to focuses on the stereotypical family, like we remember from older TV shows.  Yet toward the end they shifted to a more equal partner ship among husband and wife.  I liked how M&amp;amp;K looked at the impact the changing family had on children in the 60s and 70s. As well as how divorce rates have led to new ways of raising children. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stacey Article ==&lt;br /&gt;
The author&amp;#039;s opinions certainly do show in this article.  It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on.  Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&amp;amp;K.  Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had some problems with Stacey&amp;#039;s article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it.  However, I liked how in the end she decided that, &amp;quot;[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all.&amp;quot; (pg 398-9)  Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don&amp;#039;t know.  However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 384, Stacey is talking about how legal gay marriage would impact the homosexual community, and one point jumped out at me as really strange. Stacey says that:  &amp;quot;conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the &amp;#039;whitebread&amp;#039; gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America.&amp;quot; This sentence really surprised me. &amp;quot;Whitebread&amp;quot; gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between &amp;quot;whitebread&amp;quot; gays and &amp;quot;counter-cultural&amp;quot; gays? I think being gay in our society is pretty counter-cultural in and of itself. I am pretty skeptical of this idea that gay couples would be accepted in Middle America just because they were married. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Domestic Partnerships ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company&amp;#039;s insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey&amp;#039;s article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well.  -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners must:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized&lt;br /&gt;
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
OR&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be least 18 years of age,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have the legal capacity to contract,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be&lt;br /&gt;
of lasting duration,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be financially interdependent,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws&lt;br /&gt;
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic&lt;br /&gt;
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar&lt;br /&gt;
relationship within the past 6 months.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint title on motor vehicle&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or&lt;br /&gt;
retirement benefits&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as&lt;br /&gt;
executor or primary beneficiary&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the&lt;br /&gt;
authority to make health care decisions&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-23T00:32:46Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Change over Time ==&lt;br /&gt;
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century?  What distinguishes each decade?  How does this work with our notions of &amp;quot;what the ideal family is?&amp;quot;  How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, this question demands a long answer but I&amp;#039;m going to briefly write that gender roles have constantly changed throughout the century, and the economy has affected these family roles. From the &amp;quot;Companionate Family,&amp;quot; where husband and wives became friends and lovers and children became friends, to the influx of women entering the workforce and some men becoming &amp;quot;mr. mom,&amp;quot; the roles have constantly changed in this one century. The economy always played a role in the family too, whether it was the Depression causing a decline in divorces, marriages and birthrates, or the Fifties creating the &amp;quot;ideal&amp;quot; family, the increase of birthrates, and the suburb family, the changes have been numerous and constant. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today? ==&lt;br /&gt;
How is today&amp;#039;s American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==&lt;br /&gt;
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal &amp;quot;of family function and behavior, which remains with us today.&amp;quot;  However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together.  So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&amp;amp;K reading.  I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, &amp;quot;shirking duties&amp;quot; and the decline in the birth rate.  It was a little frightening how much M&amp;amp;K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting.  I am curious about the 1890 &amp;quot;watershed&amp;quot; that was described on page 112.  M&amp;amp;K didn&amp;#039;t do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been.  I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals.  Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies.  It&amp;#039;s a wonder people from that era turned out at all!  When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today.  It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&amp;amp;K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times.  In the later periods discussed, I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the short marriages that took place during WWII.  It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs.  Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end.  During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&amp;amp;Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family.  It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump.  As M&amp;amp;K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars.  Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today.  It&amp;#039;s really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was really amazed with the change from the beginning to the end of Mintz &amp;amp; Kellogg.  While the beginning seemed to focuses on the stereotypical family, like we remember from older TV shows.  Yet toward the end they shifted to a more equal partner ship among husband and wife.  I liked how M&amp;amp;K looked at the impact the changing family had on children in the 60s and 70s. As well as how divorce rates have led to new ways of raising children. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stacey Article ==&lt;br /&gt;
The author&amp;#039;s opinions certainly do show in this article.  It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on.  Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&amp;amp;K.  Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had some problems with Stacey&amp;#039;s article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it.  However, I liked how in the end she decided that, &amp;quot;[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all.&amp;quot; (pg 398-9)  Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don&amp;#039;t know.  However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 384, Stacey is talking about how legal gay marriage would impact the homosexual community, and one point jumped out at me as really strange. Stacey says that:  &amp;quot;conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the &amp;#039;whitebread&amp;#039; gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America.&amp;quot; This sentence really surprised me. &amp;quot;Whitebread&amp;quot; gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between &amp;quot;whitebread&amp;quot; gays and &amp;quot;counter-cultural&amp;quot; gays? I think being gay in our society is pretty counter-cultural in and of itself. I am pretty skeptical of this idea that gay couples would be accepted in Middle America just because they were married. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Domestic Partnerships ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company&amp;#039;s insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey&amp;#039;s article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well.  -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners must:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized&lt;br /&gt;
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
OR&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be least 18 years of age,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have the legal capacity to contract,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be&lt;br /&gt;
of lasting duration,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be financially interdependent,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws&lt;br /&gt;
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic&lt;br /&gt;
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar&lt;br /&gt;
relationship within the past 6 months.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint title on motor vehicle&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or&lt;br /&gt;
retirement benefits&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as&lt;br /&gt;
executor or primary beneficiary&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the&lt;br /&gt;
authority to make health care decisions&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-23T00:29:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Change over Time ==&lt;br /&gt;
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century?  What distinguishes each decade?  How does this work with our notions of &amp;quot;what the ideal family is?&amp;quot;  How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, this question demands a long answer but I&amp;#039;m going to briefly write that gender roles have constantly changed throughout the century, and the economy has affected these family roles. From the &amp;quot;Companionate Family,&amp;quot; where husband and wives became friends and lovers and children became friends, to the influx of women entering the workforce and some men becoming &amp;quot;mr. mom,&amp;quot; the roles have constantly changed in this one century. The economy always played a role in the family too, whether it was the Depression causing a decline in divorces, marriages and birthrates, or the Fifties creating the &amp;quot;ideal&amp;quot; family, the increase of birthrates, and the suburb family, the changes have been numerous and constant. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today? ==&lt;br /&gt;
How is today&amp;#039;s American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==&lt;br /&gt;
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal &amp;quot;of family function and behavior, which remains with us today.&amp;quot;  However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together.  So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&amp;amp;K reading.  I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, &amp;quot;shirking duties&amp;quot; and the decline in the birth rate.  It was a little frightening how much M&amp;amp;K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting.  I am curious about the 1890 &amp;quot;watershed&amp;quot; that was described on page 112.  M&amp;amp;K didn&amp;#039;t do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been.  I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals.  Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies.  It&amp;#039;s a wonder people from that era turned out at all!  When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today.  It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&amp;amp;K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times.  In the later periods discussed, I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the short marriages that took place during WWII.  It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs.  Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end.  During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&amp;amp;Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family.  It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump.  As M&amp;amp;K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars.  Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today.  It&amp;#039;s really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was really amazed with the change from the beginning to the end of Mintz &amp;amp; Kellogg.  While the beginning seemed to focuses on the stereotypical family, like we remember from older TV shows.  Yet toward the end they shifted to a more equal partner ship among husband and wife.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stacey Article ==&lt;br /&gt;
The author&amp;#039;s opinions certainly do show in this article.  It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on.  Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&amp;amp;K.  Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had some problems with Stacey&amp;#039;s article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it.  However, I liked how in the end she decided that, &amp;quot;[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all.&amp;quot; (pg 398-9)  Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don&amp;#039;t know.  However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 384, Stacey is talking about how legal gay marriage would impact the homosexual community, and one point jumped out at me as really strange. Stacey says that:  &amp;quot;conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the &amp;#039;whitebread&amp;#039; gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America.&amp;quot; This sentence really surprised me. &amp;quot;Whitebread&amp;quot; gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between &amp;quot;whitebread&amp;quot; gays and &amp;quot;counter-cultural&amp;quot; gays? I think being gay in our society is pretty counter-cultural in and of itself. I am pretty skeptical of this idea that gay couples would be accepted in Middle America just because they were married. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Domestic Partnerships ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company&amp;#039;s insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey&amp;#039;s article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well.  -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners must:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized&lt;br /&gt;
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
OR&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be least 18 years of age,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have the legal capacity to contract,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be&lt;br /&gt;
of lasting duration,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be financially interdependent,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws&lt;br /&gt;
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic&lt;br /&gt;
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar&lt;br /&gt;
relationship within the past 6 months.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint title on motor vehicle&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or&lt;br /&gt;
retirement benefits&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as&lt;br /&gt;
executor or primary beneficiary&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the&lt;br /&gt;
authority to make health care decisions&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-15T23:27:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Irish American Family */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Irish American Family ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how women waited until they were much older to marry than the other groups we have read about.  Were there any other groups who waited as long as the Irish or was it just them? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Diner mentioned other ethnic groups and made it seem like it was only the Irish who waited.  I found her discussion of marriage of Irish Americans interesting.  Young women were so eager to rush into jobs when they were single, but when they were no longer economic burdens on their families and married, they were eager to stop working and become mothers.  I think she painted a pretty bleak picture of their marriages: that at best, the relationships were characterized by irritability and separate spheres.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find the Irish tradition of late or non marriage impressive.  It surprises me that of all traditions that were maintained when coming to America this one stayed.  Most women in American were expected to marry young, and the fact that the Irish weren&amp;#039;t was very different.  While it economically made sense, socially it had to cause problems - Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Working Class Families ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve always thought this was interesting, that even though the family needs the money and needs things to get done, they still have strict gender divisions.  As quoted on page 103 of Stephanie Coontz article, &amp;quot;World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity.&amp;quot;  However, I also liked that she included (even if a lot later in the article) that when the housewife was sick, the husband or males or children had to take on the &amp;#039;women&amp;#039;s work&amp;#039; because there were no servants or anyone else to do it.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how Coontz made parallels between ethnicities and also classes.  Still it seems that ethnic divisions were very prominent even during the labor movement.  The working class family ties in with our recent discussions of childlessness and the importance of children in families.  The working class families knew that child wage earners were critical and they must have circumvented child labor laws.  I was also surprised to read about the conditions of the women: that immigrants were still hauling water in many cases.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own &amp;quot;middle class&amp;quot; and in some rare cases they would occasionally work their way up to be comparable to what Coontz called the native-born middle class. Those immigrants that managed to do this did so thought manipulation.  I found it interesting that once these families became middle class they changed to mirror their neighbors. While it does not surprise me that they wanted to fit in, I just found it surprising that while they maintained cultural identity up until this point they quickly dropped it.- Kellye S&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-15T23:23:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Irish American Family ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how women waited until they were much older to marry than the other groups we have read about.  Were there any other groups who waited as long as the Irish or was it just them? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Diner mentioned other ethnic groups and made it seem like it was only the Irish who waited.  I found her discussion of marriage of Irish Americans interesting.  Young women were so eager to rush into jobs when they were single, but when they were no longer economic burdens on their families and married, they were eager to stop working and become mothers.  I think she painted a pretty bleak picture of their marriages: that at best, the relationships were characterized by irritability and separate spheres.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Working Class Families ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve always thought this was interesting, that even though the family needs the money and needs things to get done, they still have strict gender divisions.  As quoted on page 103 of Stephanie Coontz article, &amp;quot;World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity.&amp;quot;  However, I also liked that she included (even if a lot later in the article) that when the housewife was sick, the husband or males or children had to take on the &amp;#039;women&amp;#039;s work&amp;#039; because there were no servants or anyone else to do it.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how Coontz made parallels between ethnicities and also classes.  Still it seems that ethnic divisions were very prominent even during the labor movement.  The working class family ties in with our recent discussions of childlessness and the importance of children in families.  The working class families knew that child wage earners were critical and they must have circumvented child labor laws.  I was also surprised to read about the conditions of the women: that immigrants were still hauling water in many cases.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own &amp;quot;middle class&amp;quot; and in some rare cases they would occasionally work their way up to be comparable to what Coontz called the native-born middle class. Those immigrants that managed to do this did so thought manipulation.  I found it interesting that once these families became middle class they changed to mirror their neighbors. While it does not surprise me that they wanted to fit in, I just found it surprising that while they maintained cultural identity up until this point they quickly dropped it.- Kellye S&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-15T23:22:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Irish American Family ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how women waited until they were much older to marry than the other groups we have read about.  Were there any other groups who waited as long as the Irish or was it just them? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Diner mentioned other ethnic groups and made it seem like it was only the Irish who waited.  I found her discussion of marriage of Irish Americans interesting.  Young women were so eager to rush into jobs when they were single, but when they were no longer economic burdens on their families and married, they were eager to stop working and become mothers.  I think she painted a pretty bleak picture of their marriages: that at best, the relationships were characterized by irritability and separate spheres.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Working Class Families ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve always thought this was interesting, that even though the family needs the money and needs things to get done, they still have strict gender divisions.  As quoted on page 103 of Stephanie Coontz article, &amp;quot;World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity.&amp;quot;  However, I also liked that she included (even if a lot later in the article) that when the housewife was sick, the husband or males or children had to take on the &amp;#039;women&amp;#039;s work&amp;#039; because there were no servants or anyone else to do it.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how Coontz made parallels between ethnicities and also classes.  Still it seems that ethnic divisions were very prominent even during the labor movement.  The working class family ties in with our recent discussions of childlessness and the importance of children in families.  The working class families knew that child wage earners were critical and they must have circumvented child labor laws.  I was also surprised to read about the conditions of the women: that immigrants were still hauling water in many cases.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own &amp;quot;middle class&amp;quot; and in some rare cases they would occasionally work their way up to be comparable to what Coontz called the native-born middle class. Those immigrants that managed to do this did so thought manipulation.  I found it interesting that once these families became middle class they changed to mirror their neighbors. While it does not surprise me that they wanted to fit in, I just found it surprising that while they maintained cultural identity up until this point they quickly dropped it.- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-15T23:22:35Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Working Class Families */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Irish American Family ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how women waited until they were much older to marry than the other groups we have read about.  Were there any other groups who waited as long as the Irish or was it just them? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Diner mentioned other ethnic groups and made it seem like it was only the Irish who waited.  I found her discussion of marriage of Irish Americans interesting.  Young women were so eager to rush into jobs when they were single, but when they were no longer economic burdens on their families and married, they were eager to stop working and become mothers.  I think she painted a pretty bleak picture of their marriages: that at best, the relationships were characterized by irritability and separate spheres.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Working Class Families ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve always thought this was interesting, that even though the family needs the money and needs things to get done, they still have strict gender divisions.  As quoted on page 103 of Stephanie Coontz article, &amp;quot;World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity.&amp;quot;  However, I also liked that she included (even if a lot later in the article) that when the housewife was sick, the husband or males or children had to take on the &amp;#039;women&amp;#039;s work&amp;#039; because there were no servants or anyone else to do it.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how Coontz made parallels between ethnicities and also classes.  Still it seems that ethnic divisions were very prominent even during the labor movement.  The working class family ties in with our recent discussions of childlessness and the importance of children in families.  The working class families knew that child wage earners were critical and they must have circumvented child labor laws.  I was also surprised to read about the conditions of the women: that immigrants were still hauling water in many cases.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own &amp;quot;middle class&amp;quot; and in some rare cases they would occasionally work their way up to be comparable to what Coontz called the native-born middle class. Those immigrants that managed to do this did so thought manipulation.  I found it interesting that once these families became middle class they changed to mirror their neighbors. While it does not surprise me that they wanted to fit in, I just found it surprising that while they maintained cultural identity up until this point they quickly dropped it. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Potluck_Sign-up</id>
		<title>Potluck Sign-up</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Potluck_Sign-up"/>
				<updated>2009-04-14T15:29:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;If only we had some sort of handy tool that we could use to coordinate our potluck lunch... hmmm&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rebecca -- Pita Bread and Hummus&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye S -- Chocolate Chip Cookies&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Potluck_Sign-up</id>
		<title>Potluck Sign-up</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Potluck_Sign-up"/>
				<updated>2009-04-14T15:29:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;If only we had some sort of handy tool that we could use to coordinate our potluck lunch... hmmm&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rebecca -- Pita Bread and Hummus&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye S -- Chocolate Chip Cookies&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-09T01:40:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Sterilization */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Preface&amp;amp; Intro. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Barren to Infertile ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While it is not the first time that I have heard it, it still surprises me how women who gave birth to stillborn or who couldn&amp;#039;t get pregnant were blamed. It was always the woman&amp;#039;s fault if there were problems with childbirth.  One thing that did surprise me was the link between infertility and witchcraft.  Women that could not get pregnant were often assumed to be practicing witchcraft and &amp;quot;misdirected powers of fertility.&amp;quot; (28) Other causes were often attributed to indiscretions. --Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eugenics ==&lt;br /&gt;
I did not know about the prevalence of abortion in the early 1900s.  The reasons and ways eugenicists tried to convince to people, or not to (depending on their race/class) was interesting.  I was surprised to read that movies and Hollywood helped to create the childless movement.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sterilization ==&lt;br /&gt;
This always amazes me.  Every time I read it I&amp;#039;m still amazed and mad.  Doctors sterilized people without their knowledge or permission!  It disgusts me!  And I know they thought they were doing the right thing, but its still retarded! --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of involuntary sterilization upsets me.  I guess I can sort of understand how people would not want the mentally disabled to have children, especially those that were poor.  It seems that people didn&amp;#039;t want to have to pay for the poor and if there were even more poor, especially children whose parents couldn&amp;#039;t even take care of themselves let alone a child.  Mentally disabled poor caused problems for society and I can see how a portion could want to prevent these people from having children. At the same time a doctor sterilizing someone without their permission is really wrong. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reaction to the Reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Readings such as these usually make me mad.  Mostly because all I think of is that men were selfish pigs who understood nothing.  If a woman doesn&amp;#039;t want to have children with you that says something about the current relationship!  Make it better before you try to bring children into the scene. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-09T01:34:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Barren to Infertile */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Preface&amp;amp; Intro. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Barren to Infertile ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While it is not the first time that I have heard it, it still surprises me how women who gave birth to stillborn or who couldn&amp;#039;t get pregnant were blamed. It was always the woman&amp;#039;s fault if there were problems with childbirth.  One thing that did surprise me was the link between infertility and witchcraft.  Women that could not get pregnant were often assumed to be practicing witchcraft and &amp;quot;misdirected powers of fertility.&amp;quot; (28) Other causes were often attributed to indiscretions. --Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eugenics ==&lt;br /&gt;
I did not know about the prevalence of abortion in the early 1900s.  The reasons and ways eugenicists tried to convince to people, or not to (depending on their race/class) was interesting.  I was surprised to read that movies and Hollywood helped to create the childless movement.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sterilization ==&lt;br /&gt;
This always amazes me.  Every time I read it I&amp;#039;m still amazed and mad.  Doctors sterilized people without their knowledge or permission!  It disgusts me!  And I know they thought they were doing the right thing, but its still retarded! --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reaction to the Reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Readings such as these usually make me mad.  Mostly because all I think of is that men were selfish pigs who understood nothing.  If a woman doesn&amp;#039;t want to have children with you that says something about the current relationship!  Make it better before you try to bring children into the scene. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2009-04-09T01:27:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Nye addresses a lot of interesting points in this week&amp;#039;s readings, but I want to focus on one of the topics from today&amp;#039;s lecture on the adoption of &amp;quot;labor saving&amp;quot; technological devices like the washing machine and the explosion of small house hold appliances.  According to Nye, 3 studies conducted during the 1920s showed that women spent between 51-64 hrs a week doing housework.  Studies conducted two generations later show the same data or sometimes an increase in the time that women spend doing house work (Nye 272).  While new technological devices like the washing machine drastically reduced that amount of time that it took to complete said tasks, social expectations (i.e. cleaning the house more regularly and spending more time with your kids) coupled with additional technological innovations (having more than two sets of clothing, the invention of other appliances to &amp;quot;shorten&amp;quot; the time one spends cleaning) really only reinforced the time-consuming nature of keeping a home.  Work became more gendered as men working in factories were freed from household chores.  New technology even allowed women to work in factories because they could still have the time to clean their homes and take care of their children thanks to technological innovation (Nye 272).  Yet later on in the chapter, Nye makes that point that since families no longer gathered around the hearth as a source of light and heat, they somewhat lost the closeness of a tight-knit family that relied upon one another in a production-based (now a consumer-based) home (Nye 282).  Now technological innovation by no means directly led to the downfall of family values, but it still rings true today that technology does isolate people from one another.  Someone can listen to their I-Pod and end up in their own little world totally removed from their surroundings.  Since people are relational beings, is technology the Devil? (joking here, but still) -Bryan Lees&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
wow, how do you go after that one, is technology the devil? I&amp;#039;d say no, because there is a degree of choice in the isolation that comes with the use of the technology, you wouldn&amp;#039;t put on your headphones and then expect to have a deep conversation with someone. Also, technology can help provide for social relations as well. Personally, I would feel more disconnected from the world without access to my cell, internet, or lap top. -Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, (this relates to part of what Bryan was saying, but may be less extreme) one thing I thought was interesting in this reading was that it showed how electricity affected the family dynamics and how members of the family interacted with each other differently with the introduction of new technologies and appliances. For example, before electricity, it was more common for households to be more open and families tended to gather around a single heat source. However, after light and heat were able to be more easily accessed throughout the household, the family begins to be less centralized. Each member has their own room and their own space, which starts to resemble more how we interact with our own families today. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My question in a previous posting about the Newport mansions being wired for both gas and electricity was answered in this reading (yay!).On page 242, Nye explains that many of the elite in the 1880&amp;#039;s used electricity as a form of conspicuous consumption (no surprise there) and kept old lighting technology as the main light supplier. The new technology was unreliable and expensive.- Kirsten Walleck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it really interesting how much the increased demand for privacy shaped technology and culture. This can be seen in homes when they were once public space with many people in one room, they shifted into individual rooms for each person. Eventually heaters could heat an entire house, and families no longer had to gather around the stove in the kitchen for heat. Another example of this is seen as early as the early 1800’s with the doorbell, which was created as a new form of social distance and communication. Then after the 1900s corporations latched on to the idea of privacy and you can see the push for privacy promoting appliances. Examples of this are an electric massage vibrator, a water heater for shaving cream, and an electric sewing machine. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the discussion of technology isolating the household was interesting (p 257). Nye makes the point that a host of trades vanished: fruit and vegetable dealers, knife sharpeners, traveling milk and ice salespeople. All these disappearing traveling jobs, according to Nye, meant a more isolated household. I&amp;#039;m not really sure that&amp;#039;s true. Jessica makes the point that later technologies (i.e., the internet) increased connectivity. Even before that, though, people still had to go to the store to buy the new technologies. Outside of that, the phone increased connections between people. -- Matt Struth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the discussion of advertising as well (p 264-5). It&amp;#039;s always interesting to find out how people sold these products. Nye points out two main forms of ads: new mass-circulated magazines as well as door-to-door sales- and ad-people. I like this first because it dovetails well with my previous post, proving that even if some traveling jobs were lost, others were gained because of technology. Second, it&amp;#039;s interesting to look at how things were sold and promoted. Utility companies would go door-to-door to current customers advertising new products. It&amp;#039;s a weird experience to think about, I missed the age of door-to-door salespeople. With the internet and email it must not be a cost-effective approach anymore. -- Matt Struth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Matt about how interesting it is to view how things were primarily sold and promoted. What Nye discusses is the fact that companies then went door to door to sell their merchandise. This is so much different from our time today because now companies give us the responsibility and rely on us to go out to the stores and buy their merchandise. One of the reasons that changed the salesmen practice Mike addressed. The fact that the internet makes it so much easier for companies to adversities their products makes the salesmen obsolete. But another technology that also plays a big role in advertisement is television. The reason why companies have stopped going door to door is because this is not cost effective; it is much easier to make an ad and air it on television where it will reach millions of people. It is technology that has changed the way we advertise and I am glad that we can get information out so quickly; but again like Matt I do miss the Door-to-Door Salesmen era. – Jimmy Conroy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its amazing how something like technology can shape privacy but yet also shape social relations.  Having to keep up with the newest technology help bring people together, by allow families and individuals to almost compete in social standing.  At the same time new time saving machines isolated women.  While housework seemed easier there was now more work.  Housework became more and more isolated. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-31T02:01:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I thought the ethnic differences in courting were incredible.  Spanish courtships was not unlike that pursued by Anglos, with more strictures.  The Native American courting rituals where the man sits at the foot of the woman&amp;#039;s bed with her grandmother as a chaperone was kind of creepy and seemed really archaic.  What would you be thinking if your grandmother woke you up in the middle of the night with a guy sitting there watching you?  The creep-factor aside, I thought it and other NA methods of courtship were really interesting. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Lacey on the creep factor.  Heh, that would disturb me greatly... more so with my mom&amp;#039;s mom than dad&amp;#039;s mom... but the thought gives me shivers.  I do have to say I liked how Riley incorporated so many different groups into the book, it gave a lot of easy C/C on the spot.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also would have to agree with both of you on the Native American courtship methods. But I think its also important to remember that the purpose of the book was to introduce the diversity of western marriage and families, and how they are associated today with the highest divorce rates in the nation.  I think the courtship chapter makes it clear that the limited contact between male and females of most cultures limited the options for whom they could marry and thus forced relationships.  Of course there were other factors as well. I was very intrigued by the common portrayal of women in these cultures. Would a rise in individualism among women in the west result because of strict familial patterns?  Or is it their portrayal in the journals, newspapers, forms of media of the day. Example: the woman who put herself as an add in the Waterloo, Iowa paper for courtship and then being compared to a piece of household furniture by an editor in an editorial. --Joe C.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first half of this book is interesting.  I like Riley&amp;#039;s use of the term &amp;quot;cultural layering.&amp;quot;  I also noticed that she used the phrase &amp;quot;women of color&amp;quot; like the authors from last week.  The practices of courtship and marriage certainly varied a lot between groups.  Some practices were shocking to me, like the picture brides marrying someone based on correspondence!  I had a small problem with Riley&amp;#039;s discussion however.  I know that she was trying to show the dichotomy with the groups in the West, but I feel like Native Americans need their own assessment.  Their traditions may seem weird to us, but that is heightened when you take groups out of their context.  I don&amp;#039;t feel it&amp;#039;s right to lump them together like you can perhaps get away with (like her use of Anglo or Chicana) but the Chippewa can&amp;#039;t be examined with tribes of the Southwest.  Also, their experience was different because unlike the other groups, they did not emigrate from another country.  I like her thesis though, that the interaction among and within families caused conflict.--Amanda &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think you could say that about a number of the groups. I agree that I thought the same thing about her depiction of Native American rituals and practices, that even her descriptions of the different tribes contrasted each other. But look at the other groups, too. The &amp;quot;Anglos&amp;quot; included English, French, Irish, etc. The practices and rituals of each of these ethnic groups are as varied. Compare them to the Slavs and Jews and we&amp;#039;re all over the place. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Riley starts chapter one with an argument that high divorce rates in the West are probably a sign that courtship methods were flawed. She backs this up by saying that it is reasonable to assume that poorly matched spouses are more likely to divorce. I don&amp;#039;t agree with Riley&amp;#039;s assumption. I can see her logic, but I think that divorce rates are more closely tied to expectations about marriage (emotional fulfillment, compatibility, etc) and the acceptability of divorce than to methods of courtship. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this book has been quite fascinating so far. It&amp;#039;s just more proof that we can&amp;#039;t divide America into the North, South, East, and West and say &amp;#039;this is how it was.&amp;#039; We bring up movies and books alot in class (ok, I bring up movies and books alot) but the part in Chapter 1 where men looked for women who would be able to work along side them and provide good domestic help reminded me of the movie &amp;quot;Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.&amp;quot; Also, the section about mail order brides and the men and women who advertised for spouses and wrote to each other reminded me of an obscure Judy Garland film called &amp;quot;Harvey Girls&amp;quot; where she goes out west to marry a man she had been writing to, only to be disapointed when she arrives. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Native American courting rituals were crazy.  I don&amp;#039;t even understand where some of them came from.  Courting and marriage practices seemed to vary drastically amongst the different ethnic groups.  I find the difference between the different groups interesting. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pictures ==&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the pictures provided on pages 33-41.  They provided the idealized woman stereotype and what women actually did and wore.  The pictures also allowed a glimpse at what people wore to weddings, including the traditional garb and adopted American garb as shown in picture number 12. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with you as well Ashley.  But the pictures section also reminded me of how men and women sent pictures of each other through letters as a way of courting.  Would these be the type of pictures that women would send to men in the west? A few of them seem to show that women&amp;#039;s domestic duties included work outside the home, especially pictures taken of the Native American women. --Joe C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-26T00:42:28Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Porfiriato */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Porfiriato ==&lt;br /&gt;
Just in case people were wondering... Porfiriato was the name for the period of rule by Porfirio Diaz in Mexico.  He basicall controlled Mexico for the last 1/3 of the 19th century.  He planned to bring Mexico into the modern world by imposing order &amp;#039;&amp;#039;at any cost&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Long story severely shortened, he did bring lots of modern stuff to Mexico (telephones, railroads, etc...), but for the majority of the population life in Mexico did not get better.  Porfirio even used the army to violently put down strikes.  Eventually enough people start to rise up against him that he basically goes &amp;quot;I&amp;#039;m done&amp;quot; and hops on a boat in May of 1911 and heads to Europe.  His reign was a reign of terror, he killed those opposed to him and used the army to do his bidding.   I&amp;#039;d love to take credit for actually remembering all of this, but it came from my notes from Dr. Poska&amp;#039;s class this semester of Latin American History. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things I noticed and was impressed with is how Mexican families were flexible and easily adapted to change. They did a lot of moving due to economic reasons while trying to maintain traditional values. while moving the men would often die and women would take over as heads of the household, because of this they did not a strict gender role system.  -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bonnie Thornton Dill ==&lt;br /&gt;
I actually really liked this piece because it made lots of different family life experiences in the United States connect.  Although, its weird to see the phrase &amp;#039;women of color&amp;#039; and it mean more than just African American women.  I understand it completely... but, and please don&amp;#039;t see me as racist for saying this, I&amp;#039;ve always hated that phrase because I know it means not-white skinned people... but our creamish/peachy color is a color too... I&amp;#039;ve never really liked the phrase.... however, I really liked the article none-the-less, and how it put into light what family members of each race had to do in order to survive.  Although, I&amp;#039;d like to point out that, at least with poor white families, many of them did similar things, but they were not trying to resist culture change and and keep their own traditions like the African-Americans, the Chinese, and Mexicans.      Just a little side-note question, was there only Mexicans immigrating to the United States? or were there other Latin Americans immigrating here as well? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2009-03-26T00:27:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I thought it was interesting to read the memoir by Charles Sorensen and then to have that followed by Charles Madison’s description of his service to the Ford assembly line. The first memoir talked about the assembly line in terms of its great achievement in the field of manufacturing and production and proclaims at the end “Under this system man is not a slave to the machine, he is slave without it.” And after reading about Charles Madison’s experience, I’m sure he would stand to disagree. After moving from job to job in search of better pay and a better working experience, he finally decided to rid himself of the deceptive promises that Ford made to its workers and commit to the Dodge factory. It shows a real contrast between the two perspectives. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States,” explored how people adapted to technology in terms how they saw it to be most useful. The car began to be used for a lot more uses than transportation from place to place. So much so, that it became indistinguishable from other pieces of farming technology in rural areas. I was somewhat surprised that the automobile wasn’t readily adapted in the rural areas, especially since the conception is that rural farms are the most isolated and distanced from the expansions in the cities, including technology and access to consumer goods and department stores. On a side note (addressing some of the legislation aimed at preventing the use cars), the image of cars driving behind people waving red flags in Vermont is slightly entertaining. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw the reading on &amp;quot;The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States&amp;quot; quite interesting because it really outlined how the car was viewed in terms of usefulness. I would have figured that the rural areas would have accepted and adapted the car not as something fun but a means to connect them to more people to be social and improve their way of life by being able to have some of those things that can only be found in a city. Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
From the selection of readings about technological acculturation, I liked the prizewinning essay. I never would have guessed that it was written by a 15 year old. It is suppose to portray what the effects of electricity were on the family in the early 20th century. However, it more shows how the electric company wanted people to think about the effects of electricity. Since it was a contest, people were writing in and describing images of electricity in the home in ways that they thought would be positive for the company (it’s one of those, tell them what you think they want to hear, even if you disagree). Given the prompt was to write about how it “adds to the happiness of the family” obviously people are going to take it a certain direction. I would only wonder how the essays were published in the original sources, was it explained as an essay aimed to address this particular prompt? Or was it used as more of an advertising tool? To suggest something like “see, even the children see a more positive family dynamic, so if you’re not going to do it for yourself, do it for your children…” –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nye 133-137 Nye&amp;#039;s article describes the growing gap between the social classes during the 1920s. &amp;quot;[T]he automobile had created a gap between those who drove and those who rode.&amp;quot; (133) I find that more and more, new technologies are for the privileged not for all Americans. Thinking about it today - who has the new I-phone? The people who can afford it. Basically new technology does intensify the awareness of who can afford what new gadget (for today, and apparently in the 1920s as well). --Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nye&amp;#039;s article was a good one because he does illustrate the growing gap of the social classes during the 1920&amp;#039;s. Not for nothing I can see the gap between the social classes in the 21st century with all sorts of technology.It shows a gap in financial gaps, as well as social classes, and geographic areas are seperated, so the car as well as many others seperate and have a huge impact of life. Aislyn  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My Life and Work, 1929 - Henry Ford The way that Ford describes the Model T is somewhat disturbing to me. Simplicity being the key - I didn&amp;#039;t realize a car could run with only 4 main parts - he may be oversimplifying for us (undoubtedly), but the intentions of car producers and marketers has definitely shifted. Imagine if this statement were still true today - &amp;quot;The parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buyy new ones than to have old ones repaired...&amp;quot; (315) Maybe I am just a little bitter about some recent car problems, but wouldn&amp;#039;t it be nice if people could still use the words &amp;quot;cheap&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;new car parts&amp;quot; in the same sentence? The assembly line came up several times too and all I could think about was the dis-assembly line (euw). -- Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was really impress by how the new technologies made the car parts as well as the cars cheaper so that more American could afford them.  This really seemed like the one way that new technology was available to most. Yet there were some places and groups that were excluded from being able to purchase the cars. Today it seems that the new technologies are only available to the select few. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Full Social History of American Technology - There is definitely a trend that new technology tends to deskill the laborers involved with the old process. For example - the sphygmomanometer vs. the finger - some felt that by adding this new technology, it was taking away from the importance of fine-tuning skills learned to be a doctor. While this is true (in my opinion) it also makes the profession more technical and standardized - which helps everyone in the long run. --Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The short Nye reading was really interesting to me because it showed the political sociological, and economic reasons for the rise of the automobile. One reason that stuck out for me was the fact that riders did not accept the &amp;quot;zone system of payment,&amp;quot; which Europeans used (134). Why Europeans like it but not Americans. Anyway, the reading described more about why one piece of technology is chosen over another and specifically discussed the automobile. Just another reason to not believe technological determinism. --Kirsten Walleck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social Reconstruction- The &amp;quot;anti-auto crusade&amp;quot; discussed in the beginning of the article is very entertaining. The laws, such as the one from Vermont that &amp;quot;required a person to carry a red flag and walk ahead of the car,&amp;quot; and the personal attacks on motorists in states all over the country surprised me and made me think about all of the opposition new technology takes (i.e.electricity). I also found it interesting that one law addressed scaring carriage horses. My horse absolutely hates cars and almost kicked his foot through a driver&amp;#039;s side window when someone sped past us, so I can only imagine what those horses thought of the weird machinery. Funny how opposition can be seen in politics, social settings, and the environment.--Kirsten Walleck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;My Life and Work, 1929&amp;quot;. In it, Ford describes the process of developing the ideas behind the Model T, as well as the execution of its production. Throughout its development, you can clearly see the ideas of previous American inventors embedded in the creation of the Model T. Eli Whitney and John Hall&amp;#039;s systems of interchangeable parts, the American System of Manufacturing, and Taylor&amp;#039;s Scientific Management are all ideas utilized by Ford to create the Model T. - Lon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading about Henry Ford&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;My Life and Work&amp;quot; was good because through out the reading I saw how he improved on the ideas of others, which is a good thing. I am not at all a fan of Henry Ford because what I have learned in another class. As a person he was not so good, but what he accomplished for industry was wonderful. Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
The 15 year old girl&amp;#039;s essay &amp;quot;How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family&amp;quot; is a clear demonstration of how electricity and electrical appliances effectively changed American&amp;#039;s day to day lives. It is also an example of how people saw electricity not only as a technological development, but progress for society overall. Fern Van Bramer asserts that through electricity, Americans can now enjoy both happier, and efficient lives. For Van Bramer, the past is literally seen in the dark, while the future is flooded with light and warmth. - Lon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The encyclopedia article from 1926 about mass production seems to be informative, but perhaps skeptical? The article first explains what mass production is, “the focusing upon a manufacturing project of the principles of power accuracy, economy, system, continuity and speed”. Next, the article lists the effects of mass production on society:&lt;br /&gt;
1. Increase in industrial control, as distinguished from financial control&lt;br /&gt;
2. Highest standard of quality ever attained in output of great quantities. &lt;br /&gt;
3. Wide variety of single-purpose machines.&lt;br /&gt;
4. The physical load is lifted off men and placed on machines. &lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the article makes an interesting ending argument about the need for skilled labor. It seems almost out of place! The article states, “the need for skilled and creative genius is greater under mass production than without it,” then goes on to say, “it has been debated whether there is less or more skills as a consequence of mass production. The present writer’s opinion is that there is more”. Based off of this, I get the feeling that the encyclopedia was almost trying to cover their butt. As we have discussed in class, the rise of mass production meant the decline in skilled workers. It seems as though the author of this article knew this too, but was reluctant to say it. Rather, the argument was justified by a generalization/opinion that in modern times, every field of work requires knowledge and responsibility. Does this suggest that there is no longer a distinction between skilled and unskilled workers? Everyone is just a worker?  And what does that mean for the worker?   -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the essay, How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family, to be hilarious! The argument of this prizewinning essay states, “if more wives and mothers would only understand that money spent in beautifying their homes is the truest form of economy, fewer fathers and sons would be paying for the bright lights in unwholesome places”. The argument is that light from electricity would motivate men to come home rather than go to “unwholesome places” which allure them solely based off of their bright lights! Rather, Women should embrace electricity so the men can come home to them where they can have a home cooked meal waiting! Very indicative of the time, did people really buy into this!? – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we learn about Henry Ford and his development of the assembly line and how it brought a lot of progress to American manufacturing it is easy to forget the common people working in the factories. In &amp;quot;Detroit Motors&amp;quot; by Edmund Wilson, a man named Bert describes his experiences working for Ford. The workers are forced to work very long hours, have very short lunch breaks and are kept in a constant fear of loosing their jobs. It seems that in an effort to maximize production not much attention was given to those doing the actual work. This shouldn&amp;#039;t be a very big surprise however, since employee rights wasn&amp;#039;t considered even a possibility at that point. -Lauren Milner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Charles Madison&amp;#039;s Seven Years of Automotive Servitude also helps to bring to light how Ford&amp;#039;s advertisers got the best of many seeking work in his factories. When Charles tried to get a job under the $5-$7/day system he was surprised to learn that it came with fine print. Its kind of a shame that he didn&amp;#039;t stay in the drafting room as he could have worked his way up but just like my brother he quit and later came crawling back. The juxtaposition of the harsh &amp;quot;hell&amp;quot; like conditions of Ford and the nicer, slower Dodge are interesting. Ford, being a way more popular company in terms of sales, shows how one can&amp;#039;t be nice and slow to get ahead in any industry. -Lauren Milner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-23T23:37:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Deutsch */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Marriage ==&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the two chapters on marriage, mostly in New Mexico, by Ramon Gutierrez I noticed some parallels that still exist in today&amp;#039;s American families.  Often, children still rely on their parents to agree on a proposed marriage (this is starting to die and in some cases is completely ignored), also people still tend to marry within their race (also dieing down as more people marry whoever they wish regardless of race, ethnicity, etc...), people still tend to marry within their own class, and churches still have a lot of say so, but not absolute anymore.  With the church bit, many of them still go through rigourous &amp;#039;are you right for each other&amp;#039; process and &amp;#039;should we marry you&amp;#039; process.  However, people can now get &amp;#039;married&amp;#039; in the courthouse where they sign a paper stating they aren&amp;#039;t related but by so much (hey, first cousins can marry in VA... so it depends on the state)and/org submit a blood test to show if there are any diseases.  I just thought it interesting how some of the traditions still persist today.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the juxtaposition of Hispanic families against the Anglo Family ideal, from Sarah Deutsch&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;No Separate Refuge&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was very interesting. Women were at the center of marriage and the village.  Particularly interesting were inheritance rights were women had even over their children.  This struck me as particularly unusual as compared to rules of primogeniture followed by most Anglos. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
-=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Gutierrez&amp;#039;s article was very interesting.  Marriage in colonial New Mexico was very different than it is today.  I had no idea about all of the formalities, ceremonies and traditions that existed in this part of America while the colonies were fighting for their independence.  It&amp;#039;s interesting that patrimony was part of the marriage procedure in addition to dowries.  The chapters show the importance of childbirth and virginity to a woman&amp;#039;s promise for her future and as an asset to her family.  Women&amp;#039;s roles were very restricted however.  I had no idea that a daughter was passed off from a father to her husband (like ownership over an animal).  I also found a contradiction between the control of the Catholic church and the discussion of young men scaling walls to sneak into a woman&amp;#039;s room.  Though the Catholic church ran the community and had to approve marriages, it seems that even this society had its share of scarlet letters.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the two chapters from Gutierrez&amp;#039;s book were very interesting. One of concepts which struck me was how much importance was placed upon the consent of those getting married. I know that in reality it was not also carried out or properly enforced as there was also the consideration of obeying ones parents, but it still surprised me that it was given as much attention as it was. Like Ashely, I also noted several parallels and similarities to today&amp;#039;s marriage beliefs and practices. For instance, we still exchange rings, still have witnesses at our weddings to make them valid, make comments about carrying a bride over the threshold, and still have large receptions after weddings. I also know that the Catholic Church still requires engaged couples to provide proof that they are marrying of their own free will and not because of outside pressures. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Deutsch ==&lt;br /&gt;
These chapters were very different from the other reading.  Deutsch provided the context and background for Southwest and how the culture was harder to capture than just the land.  From this reading I got that women had more rights than what Gutierrez explained.  I also liked this article because it showed the class differences and extended to a the late 1800s.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda, it did seem like women had more rights. I especially liked how daughters were able to inherit land just like sons, also that they were allowed to continue to hold any property they had upon entering into any marriage. This definitely has an impact of family relations because the mother/wife has more power and therefore more impossibilities.  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
I actually enjoyed reading chapter 2 of Sarah Deutsch&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;No Separate Refuge&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Mainly because I admit that I very much believed a lot of the stereotypes, I had no idea that what women did was valued so much and that they had as much do in the community as they did.  Although, if I&amp;#039;d thought more about what I learned before with Angelo&amp;#039;s moving out West, most of this I would have figured out.  What really stuck out at me was the part that they did a lot of plastering for the community, which I would have put at more of men&amp;#039;s work or women&amp;#039;s work. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-19T02:04:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* The American Father */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn&amp;#039;s article on Chinese-American families before reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; cold really set me off kilter, but I think I would have been better prepared for it if we had read the article first.  It gives some background into this group of people as a whole which you don&amp;#039;t really get in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Lacey on this.  I felt like I understood &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; more after reading the article, but on the other hand I had to think more about the reading this way I guess.  Still, some background about Chinese-Americans would have made this book better to understand overall. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was definately seeing parallels between the two and Glenn&amp;#039;s article answered alot of questions I had. It kind of connected the dots in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. The big issue, I think, in the two readings is the importance of family, as Glenn writes,&amp;quot;filial piety, respect for elders and reverence for tradion&amp;quot; which are the principle teachings of Confucius. I agree with Lacey, I wish we had read this before the other - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree as well, if I hadn&amp;#039;t read another Kingston book in HS, I would have had a lot more questions going into the reading.  The article gave a lot more background information that might have been helpful in reading China Men. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The American Father ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the first few pages were confusing at first, it was nice to see the narrator go back to the story about the father who got cheated out of the laundry business and took his wife to California.  I did enjoy getting to read more up on that part of the family, but it was still made confusing with the tid bit about the father being born in America after telling us earlier he immigrated to America and that he was in America when he married his wife, only I thought he was in China earlier when he married his wife... @.@  The narrator should stick to one story or simply say I don&amp;#039;t know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we&amp;#039;re not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this story I truly feel bad for the Father and his family. Losing a laundry business by being cheated by your partners, moving across the country to lose another job and two houses must have been truly frustrating. I thought it was interesting how when the father gave-up the mother took on the dual role of caregiver and nagger. She both pampered him and yelled at him to try and get him to find another job. I was happy to see that in the end he was able to start a new business and raise his family in a more comfortable manner. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really got into this first chapter. It felt like I was reading a novel because I got so involved in this family and their situation. I felt really bad for the parents working for that owner and his crazy wife. No wonder Maxine and her family tried to escape them. One part that I found interesting was when the author was talking to the other children and she felt left out because her parents didn&amp;#039;t spank her or kiss her good night. Does anyone know if this was just a family thing or was it common in the Chinese culture to have family relationships like that, you know, kind of withheld.- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, this chapter really read like a novel. It seemed so hard and sad to come to America only to fail. This story seemed especially sad since the men went in as partners and one cheated the other.  I do not think that many Chinese families had the close personal relationships that many American families have. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Glenn, &amp;quot;Split Household...&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is interesting how the Chinese found ways to circumvent the laws and regulations placed on them by white Americans.  It is both fascinating and deplorable how they could pull the wool over the eyes of these officals who saw them mashed them all together and weren&amp;#039;t willing to learn enough about them to be able to tell them apart.  Then there is also the fact that so many of these men were willing to separate themselves from their families for so long in order to be able to give them an opportunity at a life better than what they could have in China. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also felt that the Chinese were very good about working around laws meant to restrict their immigration. Notably, I thought that the idea of &amp;quot;paper sons&amp;quot; was rather clever and shows how they used the laws to their advantage. It was not quite clear to me how they were able to report so many false births in China, it must have been fairly easy to do so. I wonder how many men came over under a false identity to start a new life in America and if their descendants were told who they truly were. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Brother in Vietnam ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am really confused.  We got a good impression of the Chinese impression of the Japanese here, but I thought the chapter would be really different based on the title.  I feel, in this chapter more than others, that Kingston&amp;#039;s writing is convoluted.  I have a hard time understanding her points.  Like we discussed before, there are clearly personal influences in her writing that make this not exactly a scholarly source.  I don&amp;#039;t know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this was a very interesting section. I was surprised by the number of ways men created to try and evade the draft. I also thought that the brothers reaction to being in Taiwan was informative. The idea that by stepping back on his ancestors lands made &amp;quot;their whole lives suddenly make sense,&amp;quot; indicates that Chinese Americans did maintain a sense of connection with China, even if they had never been there before (291). However, it took him until he was an adult to understand what China really meant to him. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-19T02:00:25Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Bridging Tues. and Thurs. */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn&amp;#039;s article on Chinese-American families before reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; cold really set me off kilter, but I think I would have been better prepared for it if we had read the article first.  It gives some background into this group of people as a whole which you don&amp;#039;t really get in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Lacey on this.  I felt like I understood &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; more after reading the article, but on the other hand I had to think more about the reading this way I guess.  Still, some background about Chinese-Americans would have made this book better to understand overall. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was definately seeing parallels between the two and Glenn&amp;#039;s article answered alot of questions I had. It kind of connected the dots in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. The big issue, I think, in the two readings is the importance of family, as Glenn writes,&amp;quot;filial piety, respect for elders and reverence for tradion&amp;quot; which are the principle teachings of Confucius. I agree with Lacey, I wish we had read this before the other - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree as well, if I hadn&amp;#039;t read another Kingston book in HS, I would have had a lot more questions going into the reading.  The article gave a lot more background information that might have been helpful in reading China Men. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The American Father ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the first few pages were confusing at first, it was nice to see the narrator go back to the story about the father who got cheated out of the laundry business and took his wife to California.  I did enjoy getting to read more up on that part of the family, but it was still made confusing with the tid bit about the father being born in America after telling us earlier he immigrated to America and that he was in America when he married his wife, only I thought he was in China earlier when he married his wife... @.@  The narrator should stick to one story or simply say I don&amp;#039;t know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we&amp;#039;re not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this story I truly feel bad for the Father and his family. Losing a laundry business by being cheated by your partners, moving across the country to lose another job and two houses must have been truly frustrating. I thought it was interesting how when the father gave-up the mother took on the dual role of caregiver and nagger. She both pampered him and yelled at him to try and get him to find another job. I was happy to see that in the end he was able to start a new business and raise his family in a more comfortable manner. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really got into this first chapter. It felt like I was reading a novel because I got so involved in this family and their situation. I felt really bad for the parents working for that owner and his crazy wife. No wonder Maxine and her family tried to escape them. One part that I found interesting was when the author was talking to the other children and she felt left out because her parents didn&amp;#039;t spank her or kiss her good night. Does anyone know if this was just a family thing or was it common in the Chinese culture to have family relationships like that, you know, kind of withheld.- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Glenn, &amp;quot;Split Household...&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is interesting how the Chinese found ways to circumvent the laws and regulations placed on them by white Americans.  It is both fascinating and deplorable how they could pull the wool over the eyes of these officals who saw them mashed them all together and weren&amp;#039;t willing to learn enough about them to be able to tell them apart.  Then there is also the fact that so many of these men were willing to separate themselves from their families for so long in order to be able to give them an opportunity at a life better than what they could have in China. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also felt that the Chinese were very good about working around laws meant to restrict their immigration. Notably, I thought that the idea of &amp;quot;paper sons&amp;quot; was rather clever and shows how they used the laws to their advantage. It was not quite clear to me how they were able to report so many false births in China, it must have been fairly easy to do so. I wonder how many men came over under a false identity to start a new life in America and if their descendants were told who they truly were. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Brother in Vietnam ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am really confused.  We got a good impression of the Chinese impression of the Japanese here, but I thought the chapter would be really different based on the title.  I feel, in this chapter more than others, that Kingston&amp;#039;s writing is convoluted.  I have a hard time understanding her points.  Like we discussed before, there are clearly personal influences in her writing that make this not exactly a scholarly source.  I don&amp;#039;t know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this was a very interesting section. I was surprised by the number of ways men created to try and evade the draft. I also thought that the brothers reaction to being in Taiwan was informative. The idea that by stepping back on his ancestors lands made &amp;quot;their whole lives suddenly make sense,&amp;quot; indicates that Chinese Americans did maintain a sense of connection with China, even if they had never been there before (291). However, it took him until he was an adult to understand what China really meant to him. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-17T00:21:41Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* On Discovery &amp;amp; On Fathers */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== On Discovery &amp;amp; On Fathers ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought these two vingettes were a very weird and unusual way to start off a book.  The first is a myth which strips masculinity and the second a sort of memory of fathers.  I have a hard time seeing how this fits in with the topic of the class, though it does deal with family ties and how masculinity is created.  There is also no bibliography or any kind of sources mentioned, which makes me think that this is a fictionalization of reality, which is also just weird. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read Kingston&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woman Warrior&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in high school, and I took most of what is in this book to be written in a similar way to Woman Warrior, in that they are all stories that Kingston was told as a young child.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woman Warrior&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was a collection of stories that Kingston remembered from childhood, several with her own experiences mixed in as part of the collection.  This is what I believe is the reason for not having source material. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Father from China ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the part about the two fathers making the trip to America very interesting. I am not sure which one had it easier, both the legal and illegal father seem to have endured a hard trip. The illegal father, had to smuggle into a small box to be transported as freight on a cargo ship, while is trip may have been harder once he arrived he was free to go as he pleased. The legal father, however, came as an immigrant, and therefore had to pass through the Immigrant Station on Angel Island and be detained for an indefinite amount of time. While it might be a harder journey, being smuggled on board a ship, it would be nice to be able to go as you please. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-16T22:23:46Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== The Father from China ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the part about the two fathers making the trip to America very interesting. I am not sure which one had it easier, both the legal and illegal father seem to have endured a hard trip. The illegal father, had to smuggle into a small box to be transported as freight on a cargo ship, while is trip may have been harder once he arrived he was free to go as he pleased. The legal father, however, came as an immigrant, and therefore had to pass through the Immigrant Station on Angel Island and be detained for an indefinite amount of time. While it might be a harder journey, being smuggled on board a ship, it would be nice to be able to go as you please. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-16T22:23:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: New page: I found the part about the two fathers making the trip to America very interesting. I am not sure which one had it easier, both the legal and illegal father seem to have endured a hard tri...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I found the part about the two fathers making the trip to America very interesting. I am not sure which one had it easier, both the legal and illegal father seem to have endured a hard trip. The illegal father, had to smuggle into a small box to be transported as freight on a cargo ship, while is trip may have been harder once he arrived he was free to go as he pleased. The legal father, however, came as an immigrant, and therefore had to pass through the Immigrant Station on Angel Island and be detained for an indefinite amount of time. While it might be a harder journey, being smuggled on board a ship, it would be nice to be able to go as you please. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2009-03-12T01:50:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Venus Green, Personal Service in the Bell System */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Women&amp;#039;s roles in telephone industry ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Katherine M. Schmitt&amp;#039;s, &amp;quot;Memoir of a Telephone Operator, 1930,&amp;quot; very interesting because it traces the development of the telephone as a piece of technology into an industry from the perspective of one of its earliest operators. Schmitt addresses the courtesy protocols that the New York Telephone Company enforced for its operators. I found this particularly interesting because it seems that courtesy and kindness were crucial for the adoption of the telephone over the telegram as the mainstream system of communication. Clients and operators developed personal relationships that made the technology more &amp;quot;user friendly&amp;quot; and this personal touch undoubtedly facilitated the adoption of the telephone. -Bryan Lees&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan about the &amp;quot;Memoir of a Telephone Operator, 1930&amp;quot; in many ways was it interesting. This almost seems like the beginning of customer service. The special way the operator had to behave and speak was interesting, makes me think when you call a credit card company or something they all sound similar in tone, etc. Also it does seem that this was a birds eye view of how the telephone moved through its paces. The last part that was interesting and almost refreshing is that here is a job for women. Men were not the first choice and proved to be not a good fit as an operator. Showed women having a little pride being the ones needed to fill a particular role, and not just seen as an extra pair of hands for hard labor. The hours were long and sometimes you got a break, but it was like women being a major part of something new and exciting.-Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, it really does seem like the beginning of customer service. Women were really the only good choice for the position of telephone operators. I think that in most cases, people, especially men, would prefer to talk to a female while trying to make a call.  A female voice is softer, making it easier to hear repeatedly (over many calls) for many men.  The telephone was definitely an exciting new development for women because it allowed them to enter an entirely new job market that was designed for them. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Memoir of a Telephone Operator,&amp;quot; one thing that stood out to me was when she was discussing the concept of the telephone in early stages and how it seemed like a toy to most people. “Those first years no one could afford a telephone except prosperous business men, who used it overtime to get their money’s worth, for it was an expensive toy,” (237). Now a days, it seems like the same comparison could be made but for the opposite reason. It’s now so common that everyone has phones in their homes and in their pocket and people buy new ones because they’re more fun and can do more. I also thought it was interesting how the telephone directory could be used as this elite listing of those people who could afford this new technology of the time and wonder if more wealthy people would subscribe not because they actually needed the technology but so that their name could be on this list to show that they can. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When talking about the efficiency of the phone operators, I found it surprising that there was only a margin of “irregularities” of 15%. Especially when such irregularities occur simply by forgetting to say please or by not staying 100% with what was scripted for the operators. And Sherwood compares the speed with which the telephone operators have to work as being put in the middle of a street with busy traffic and trying to avoid being run over. Given this, I would think there would be more mistakes, or at least the number of mistakes would increase as the rate of speed or efficiency increased. But, it also doesn’t give you any idea of how they measure these things, so we don’t really have a sense of where the numbers come from, just that these are the standard rates. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Virginia Penny’s “A New Employment for Women” is comparable to Virginia Penny’s previous article about watch making. Now, women are being employed as operators. It was said that women are better for the job because women have “reliable habits”, “an ability to abstract and concentrate thought upon their engagements”, and “greater patience and industry”. These reasons are comparable to the reasons that were given for women being better at watch making. Women seem to be given jobs that require patience, I guess men lack patience. - Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article “Mrs. Rayne Visits Western Union” explains how being an operator is a social position for women because they are not compromised, they are able to sit, and they don’t get dirty. However, the inequality in wages is incredible between the genders. The average salary for women is $500 per year while the average salary for a male is $70 per month. It is argued that this inequality is justified based on the fact that males have greater endurance and can be called upon at night. It is also stated that women can’t handle the difficult work. They give the example of the Annual President’s Message, women are not allowed to perform this task because it takes nerve. However, the article does not ask the opinion of women and how they feel about these accusations and justifications. When I went on to read Katherine Schmitt’s “Memoir of a Telephone Operator” I still didn’t get a real opinion about wage, perhaps it didn’t occur to the women to question the inequity, perhaps it was expected. - Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really stood out to me and also was enjoyable to read was &amp;quot;Memoir of a Telephone Operator&amp;quot;. What I really enjoyed from this reading was the fact that when telephones were first invented that were sold at high prices which only allowed for the richest to buy them. But what I never thought about was if only a few could buy a telephone, what was the point in having this technology. Did they all call each other and talk about how great it was to have such a wealthy staple of technology, since not many others had a phone? :D -- Jimmy Conroy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Memoir of a Telephone Operator&amp;quot; I also noticed that the telephone was seen as an toy when it was first invented; this is basically due to the fact that no one could afford the invention. Those people do not know how much the telephone is not only used in our lives, but how much it has changed our day to day lives, if they did I am guessing it would be seen as a toy to them. But what makes me think is how the telephone has changed, especially over the past ten years. If one thinks about it, telephones have gone from a toy to a necessity, back to being a toy. With the Apple iPhone, gadgets and games that comes with a phone these days, it is hard to find a phone that is just a phone. Did we get bored with the technology or are these improvements which can make our lives easier? Time will have to tell...--Jimmy Conroy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting that in 1893 Mrs. Rayne describes that men in the telegraph business were paid more because they had greater endurance, had better transcribing skills, and had more “nerve” than women. Yet, Katherine Schmitt, when describing her early years in the 1880s as an operator, says that men didn’t last long working in the telephone operating business because they were rowdy and rude, leading to them being “abolished.” What made men supposedly better than women at telegraph operating, but not telephone operating? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s interesting to see the telephone’s early growth into a security system, particularly how women would leave the phone off the hook while they were alone at home so an operator could hear if something happened. Or more so, how some women actually left their children at home alone with the phone as a babysitter that could contact mothers if the children started crying. Paranoid? A little bit. Irresponsible? Very much so. But I think it certainly shows a growing trust in communication technology. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ronell on Thomas Watson ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Venus Green, Personal Service in the Bell System ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Venus Green&amp;#039;s explanation of why women were chosen as telephone switchboard operators and why they continued to run said switchboards long after it became technologically possible to move to automated service to be very interesting. Green states that women are more patient than men and can better multitask. More than anything, it appears that the Bell Telephone Company desired to retain the intimacy and personal touch of its telephone communication through live, friendly operators long after its competitors switched to automated connection options. Bell&amp;#039;s training manual and managers heavily emphasized the importance of courtesy at all times. In response, customers gave their telephone switchboard operators personal gifts in the same vein that people leave personal gifts or tips for newspaper boys. Bell&amp;#039;s commitment to the personal relationship between its company and its clients is remarkable considering that it would have probably been much cheaper to switch over to automated service. Today voicemail and automatic recordings are a normal part of our world. We still find it considerate when businesses employ people to answer their phones or when a businessman answers his own phone. It just goes to show that society&amp;#039;s desires in this regard have remained the same as the technology continues to skyrocket. -Bryan Lees&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going with what I was saying about women being the chosen people to be involved in the telephone. It was very neat that even when the phone technology was advancing the personal touch was still a vital part in the success. I know I would rather talk to a live person than an atuomated recording, because I feel like my questions/problems are being taken care of right and you also have proof (name of person) is something went wrong. It was interesting that in a time of making money and cornering the market, Bell kept with the live people over switching to an automated system. To me that showed a respect for the workers and the customers.-Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Aislyn, I like the personal touch.  Even today I hate getting a machine when I am trying to make a call to a company for one reason or another.  I do find it amazing the advancement in technology today; the personal touch has been replaced by an automated machine that can understand the voice and transfer the call when needed. To call the computer company or the train station a computer voice asks you several question and based on your response (voice response) transfers your call. I do find it interesting that the automated voice is still female. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bruno Latour, Ma Bell’s Road Trip ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2009-03-12T01:46:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Women&amp;#039;s roles in telephone industry */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Women&amp;#039;s roles in telephone industry ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Katherine M. Schmitt&amp;#039;s, &amp;quot;Memoir of a Telephone Operator, 1930,&amp;quot; very interesting because it traces the development of the telephone as a piece of technology into an industry from the perspective of one of its earliest operators. Schmitt addresses the courtesy protocols that the New York Telephone Company enforced for its operators. I found this particularly interesting because it seems that courtesy and kindness were crucial for the adoption of the telephone over the telegram as the mainstream system of communication. Clients and operators developed personal relationships that made the technology more &amp;quot;user friendly&amp;quot; and this personal touch undoubtedly facilitated the adoption of the telephone. -Bryan Lees&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan about the &amp;quot;Memoir of a Telephone Operator, 1930&amp;quot; in many ways was it interesting. This almost seems like the beginning of customer service. The special way the operator had to behave and speak was interesting, makes me think when you call a credit card company or something they all sound similar in tone, etc. Also it does seem that this was a birds eye view of how the telephone moved through its paces. The last part that was interesting and almost refreshing is that here is a job for women. Men were not the first choice and proved to be not a good fit as an operator. Showed women having a little pride being the ones needed to fill a particular role, and not just seen as an extra pair of hands for hard labor. The hours were long and sometimes you got a break, but it was like women being a major part of something new and exciting.-Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, it really does seem like the beginning of customer service. Women were really the only good choice for the position of telephone operators. I think that in most cases, people, especially men, would prefer to talk to a female while trying to make a call.  A female voice is softer, making it easier to hear repeatedly (over many calls) for many men.  The telephone was definitely an exciting new development for women because it allowed them to enter an entirely new job market that was designed for them. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Memoir of a Telephone Operator,&amp;quot; one thing that stood out to me was when she was discussing the concept of the telephone in early stages and how it seemed like a toy to most people. “Those first years no one could afford a telephone except prosperous business men, who used it overtime to get their money’s worth, for it was an expensive toy,” (237). Now a days, it seems like the same comparison could be made but for the opposite reason. It’s now so common that everyone has phones in their homes and in their pocket and people buy new ones because they’re more fun and can do more. I also thought it was interesting how the telephone directory could be used as this elite listing of those people who could afford this new technology of the time and wonder if more wealthy people would subscribe not because they actually needed the technology but so that their name could be on this list to show that they can. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When talking about the efficiency of the phone operators, I found it surprising that there was only a margin of “irregularities” of 15%. Especially when such irregularities occur simply by forgetting to say please or by not staying 100% with what was scripted for the operators. And Sherwood compares the speed with which the telephone operators have to work as being put in the middle of a street with busy traffic and trying to avoid being run over. Given this, I would think there would be more mistakes, or at least the number of mistakes would increase as the rate of speed or efficiency increased. But, it also doesn’t give you any idea of how they measure these things, so we don’t really have a sense of where the numbers come from, just that these are the standard rates. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Virginia Penny’s “A New Employment for Women” is comparable to Virginia Penny’s previous article about watch making. Now, women are being employed as operators. It was said that women are better for the job because women have “reliable habits”, “an ability to abstract and concentrate thought upon their engagements”, and “greater patience and industry”. These reasons are comparable to the reasons that were given for women being better at watch making. Women seem to be given jobs that require patience, I guess men lack patience. - Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article “Mrs. Rayne Visits Western Union” explains how being an operator is a social position for women because they are not compromised, they are able to sit, and they don’t get dirty. However, the inequality in wages is incredible between the genders. The average salary for women is $500 per year while the average salary for a male is $70 per month. It is argued that this inequality is justified based on the fact that males have greater endurance and can be called upon at night. It is also stated that women can’t handle the difficult work. They give the example of the Annual President’s Message, women are not allowed to perform this task because it takes nerve. However, the article does not ask the opinion of women and how they feel about these accusations and justifications. When I went on to read Katherine Schmitt’s “Memoir of a Telephone Operator” I still didn’t get a real opinion about wage, perhaps it didn’t occur to the women to question the inequity, perhaps it was expected. - Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really stood out to me and also was enjoyable to read was &amp;quot;Memoir of a Telephone Operator&amp;quot;. What I really enjoyed from this reading was the fact that when telephones were first invented that were sold at high prices which only allowed for the richest to buy them. But what I never thought about was if only a few could buy a telephone, what was the point in having this technology. Did they all call each other and talk about how great it was to have such a wealthy staple of technology, since not many others had a phone? :D -- Jimmy Conroy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Memoir of a Telephone Operator&amp;quot; I also noticed that the telephone was seen as an toy when it was first invented; this is basically due to the fact that no one could afford the invention. Those people do not know how much the telephone is not only used in our lives, but how much it has changed our day to day lives, if they did I am guessing it would be seen as a toy to them. But what makes me think is how the telephone has changed, especially over the past ten years. If one thinks about it, telephones have gone from a toy to a necessity, back to being a toy. With the Apple iPhone, gadgets and games that comes with a phone these days, it is hard to find a phone that is just a phone. Did we get bored with the technology or are these improvements which can make our lives easier? Time will have to tell...--Jimmy Conroy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting that in 1893 Mrs. Rayne describes that men in the telegraph business were paid more because they had greater endurance, had better transcribing skills, and had more “nerve” than women. Yet, Katherine Schmitt, when describing her early years in the 1880s as an operator, says that men didn’t last long working in the telephone operating business because they were rowdy and rude, leading to them being “abolished.” What made men supposedly better than women at telegraph operating, but not telephone operating? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s interesting to see the telephone’s early growth into a security system, particularly how women would leave the phone off the hook while they were alone at home so an operator could hear if something happened. Or more so, how some women actually left their children at home alone with the phone as a babysitter that could contact mothers if the children started crying. Paranoid? A little bit. Irresponsible? Very much so. But I think it certainly shows a growing trust in communication technology. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ronell on Thomas Watson ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Venus Green, Personal Service in the Bell System ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Venus Green&amp;#039;s explanation of why women were chosen as telephone switchboard operators and why they continued to run said switchboards long after it became technologically possible to move to automated service to be very interesting. Green states that women are more patient than men and can better multitask. More than anything, it appears that the Bell Telephone Company desired to retain the intimacy and personal touch of its telephone communication through live, friendly operators long after its competitors switched to automated connection options. Bell&amp;#039;s training manual and managers heavily emphasized the importance of courtesy at all times. In response, customers gave their telephone switchboard operators personal gifts in the same vein that people leave personal gifts or tips for newspaper boys. Bell&amp;#039;s commitment to the personal relationship between its company and its clients is remarkable considering that it would have probably been much cheaper to switch over to automated service. Today voicemail and automatic recordings are a normal part of our world. We still find it considerate when businesses employ people to answer their phones or when a businessman answers his own phone. It just goes to show that society&amp;#039;s desires in this regard have remained the same as the technology continues to skyrocket. -Bryan Lees&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going with what I was saying about women being the chosen people to be involved in the telephone. It was very neat that even when the phone technology was advancing the personal touch was still a vital part in the success. I know I would rather talk to a live person than an atuomated recording, because I feel like my questions/problems are being taken care of right and you also have proof (name of person) is something went wrong. It was interesting that in a time of making money and cornering the market, Bell kept with the live people over switching to an automated system. To me that showed a respect for the workers and the customers.-Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bruno Latour, Ma Bell’s Road Trip ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-11T23:43:59Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== A bit from Tuesday ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, I was thinking in class on Tuesday with the small discussion bit on horror films.  A thought occurred to me and I thought it better to place it in the wiki.  Until recently in horror films, everyone who had sex in the film died.  Most of the sexual relationships between partners were unmarried teenage couples.  In a sense, sex outside of marriage still is viewed as sinful and wrong, and led to death.  I thought it was interesting because only now are movies getting away from that stereotype. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Welcome Child ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Cowan&amp;#039;s comment on how a marriage is not complete nor is a life without having a child. He says, &amp;quot;A married life without children is an unlovable and unsatisfactory life.&amp;quot; Men and women have to rear a child to have any self worth in the world. While I don&amp;#039;t necessarily agree with his comment, I do feel that raising a child is a noteworthy and important task. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Perfecting The Race ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting how while many Victorian writers felt that sex was something that shouldn&amp;#039;t be talked about and was not something to overly participate in, it was also a good thing. Control over sex was a way to make sure that the worthy humans could reproduce while those considered unworthy could not.  Based upon the previous readings I was somewhat surprised to see that Kellogg was part of the eugenics movement. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rotundo: Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know this is from a book titled &amp;#039;&amp;#039;American Manhood&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, so I do understand that it is supposed to be about males.  However, this irks me from earlier centuries and still irks me today.  There is a sexual double standard that exists that pisses me off.  Males get encouraged and praised for having sexual relations with multiple women, it gets it encouraged and they don&amp;#039;t get derogatory names for doing so.  They get called player and man-whore is a phrase that I&amp;#039;ve seen guys only take with pride and usually given to them with pride.  However, women can&amp;#039;t have sexual relations like men do.  If women have sex with lots of guys she gets called whore, slut, hoe, prostitute, etc...  The double standard is so annoying!  I&amp;#039;m not saying men and women should go around and have sex with everything that walks and everything be all hunky dorey, I&amp;#039;m just annoyed with the double standards that have been in place for centuries and are still in place today.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section just confused me, maybe I read it wrong, but the books seemed to rant on about sex, masturbation, and birth control and then BAM! women&amp;#039;s rights in the epilogue.  Shouldn&amp;#039;t there have been some mention of that elsewhere in the book?  This is a very confusing and annoying book.... --Ashley Wilkins&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-26T02:26:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Chapter 6 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this chapter, we once again see the role of religion in the South after the Civil War. While, it appears to be less pronounced than in other points of this class, it is still an important factor in these Southern men and women’s lives. In my Religion in America class we just finished discussing the role of religion during the Civil War. My professor emphasized that both sides still viewed the outcomes as the will of God, which we can see in this chapter. Confederates were forced to submit to the will of God and re-evaluate their faithfulness to God, thus crediting their loss not as God being against them, but as a reflection of their lack of submission and faithfulness. We see in the case of the Thomas family, the struggle Southern families faced when trying to understand religion in the context of such great losses. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I still cannot see the role of religion in Whites&amp;#039;s book to play that big of a role.  Honestly, most of the talk about religion came from quotes from diaries, speeches, etc... that would have been common forms of speech and thought then.  I didn&amp;#039;t notice Whites particularly playing off on the religion aspect.  What I did notice was Whites discussing the hardships ex-Confederate men went through after they returned defeated and the attempts and ways they tried to overcome their humiliation and reinstate their masculinity in society. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I don&amp;#039;t think religion plays a large role but it is there to some extent. I think that religion was used to help these women remain submissive to their men while they were trying to figure out a new way of living. The war changed so much for these men, and I think that religion helped to keep some semblance of their old life. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Beth, and as we talked about on Tuesday, I believe that religion is highlighted as a theme in this book.  Going off of what Mary Beth said, I think that religion could have been used as a rationalization for defeat.  A means to shift the blame from themselves, ie the confederacy, to God.  If everything was divinely inspired, then it could not have been the soldiers’ fault for losing the war.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter is the best example yet of how the Civil War changed gender roles and family structures.  Men who did return to their families strove at least to resume their position as protector, but the manliness of labor was somewhat undermined by the presence of women in the workforce during the war.  Also, the new position of free blacks changed the role of men and women.  I felt little sympathy for the wives of men like Charles Jones (p. 151), except that she had to adjust to the &amp;quot;decline in their class position.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
Religion, I thought, was a theme in the chapter and book that Whites uses too much.  I understand both MB and Ashley&amp;#039;s position.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Some&amp;#039;&amp;#039; families used religion as rationale for defeat, like Andrew said.  But like we discussed on Tuesday, religion was much more accepted and mainstreamed at the time, so religious references were not uncommon.  I also thought it was interesting to see the role of the Augusta newspaper played.  It sounded like they stressed the importance of moving on after Appomattox, though some people were not able or willing to comply.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the begining of the chapter as importnat in setting up the consideration of the roles and questions Confederate wives had for their defeaten husbands.  How did this gender conflict affect the end of the war era?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this chapter, we see another form of “social mothering.” Women were able to appropriately and publicly participate in the memorials of Confederate soldiers. We see women tending to the graves and creating associations specifically responsible for the creation and upkeep of memorials to confederate soldiers. I found it particularly interesting the point Whites made that it was easier for women to homogenize deceased soldiers than the actual soldiers they cared for. We see again the extension of “social mothering” with the example of the woman who placed a wreath on the grave of a boy whose mother could not visit, giving the impression that women felt this need and this desire to care for all the deceased soldiers because they knew these men were someone’s father, brother, son, or uncle. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that by caring for the graves of these soldiers, southern women were able to become more publicly active.  Overall, social mothering gave women the chance to step out into a more public role. The different aid societies also gave women this chance but many still wanted to support the cause, even if it had failed.  By caring for the graves, these women were making sure that southern history did not die, and was protected. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 7 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I learned something new from this chapter!  I actually didn&amp;#039;t know that such organizations, like the Confederate Survivors&amp;#039; Association, were created.  I also (not that this is specifically chapter 7...) liked how Whites included the memorials and the different thoughts, debates, etc. that went into the memorials.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the speech given by Cummings at the end of the chapter to be really interesting.  He explains the concepts of the &amp;quot;Golden Age&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;Iron Age&amp;quot; and how they were polar opposites.  The Golden Age was all about peace love and happiness while the Iron Age was hardship.  These elite, white men are such hypocrites.  They talk about peace and love in a time when they were enslaving people to do work for them and as soon as they have to work for themselves its hard.  I bet the African American slaves didn&amp;#039;t think the Golden Age was so golden. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the considerations from previous chapters certainly play a role in the degree of diffrence between the Golden and Iron ages.  I also think its important to not look at these tags as practical reality but rather as idealistic designs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Freed Women&amp;quot; Article==&lt;br /&gt;
Before reading this article I did not realize how many choices and responsibilities black women had to their families during and after the civil war.  I never took into account that families were often broken up by sales and death.  It was all too common to see single black mothers taking care of their children.  I was particularly touched by the story of the black women with two children under her arms, another child on her back, a live chicken, a pig and a goat.  These women often had to do everything by themselves.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how people, especially white women, perceived African American women.  White women were seen as pious and pure ladies while black women were seen as lazy, loud and vulgar.  This was especially true once the black women stopped working out in the fields and taking care of his families.  This was just another way that white women could assert themselves over black women, even though the black women were doing the same thing the white women were, if not more. --Kari W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-26T02:22:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Chapter 5 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this chapter, we once again see the role of religion in the South after the Civil War. While, it appears to be less pronounced than in other points of this class, it is still an important factor in these Southern men and women’s lives. In my Religion in America class we just finished discussing the role of religion during the Civil War. My professor emphasized that both sides still viewed the outcomes as the will of God, which we can see in this chapter. Confederates were forced to submit to the will of God and re-evaluate their faithfulness to God, thus crediting their loss not as God being against them, but as a reflection of their lack of submission and faithfulness. We see in the case of the Thomas family, the struggle Southern families faced when trying to understand religion in the context of such great losses. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I still cannot see the role of religion in Whites&amp;#039;s book to play that big of a role.  Honestly, most of the talk about religion came from quotes from diaries, speeches, etc... that would have been common forms of speech and thought then.  I didn&amp;#039;t notice Whites particularly playing off on the religion aspect.  What I did notice was Whites discussing the hardships ex-Confederate men went through after they returned defeated and the attempts and ways they tried to overcome their humiliation and reinstate their masculinity in society. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I don&amp;#039;t think religion plays a large role but it is there to some extent. I think that religion was used to help these women remain submissive to their men while they were trying to figure out a new way of living. The war changed so much for these men, and I think that religion helped to keep some semblance of their old life. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Beth, and as we talked about on Tuesday, I believe that religion is highlighted as a theme in this book.  Going off of what Mary Beth said, I think that religion could have been used as a rationalization for defeat.  A means to shift the blame from themselves, ie the confederacy, to God.  If everything was divinely inspired, then it could not have been the soldiers’ fault for losing the war.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter is the best example yet of how the Civil War changed gender roles and family structures.  Men who did return to their families strove at least to resume their position as protector, but the manliness of labor was somewhat undermined by the presence of women in the workforce during the war.  Also, the new position of free blacks changed the role of men and women.  I felt little sympathy for the wives of men like Charles Jones (p. 151), except that she had to adjust to the &amp;quot;decline in their class position.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
Religion, I thought, was a theme in the chapter and book that Whites uses too much.  I understand both MB and Ashley&amp;#039;s position.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Some&amp;#039;&amp;#039; families used religion as rationale for defeat, like Andrew said.  But like we discussed on Tuesday, religion was much more accepted and mainstreamed at the time, so religious references were not uncommon.  I also thought it was interesting to see the role of the Augusta newspaper played.  It sounded like they stressed the importance of moving on after Appomattox, though some people were not able or willing to comply.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the begining of the chapter as importnat in setting up the consideration of the roles and questions Confederate wives had for their defeaten husbands.  How did this gender conflict affect the end of the war era?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this chapter, we see another form of “social mothering.” Women were able to appropriately and publicly participate in the memorials of Confederate soldiers. We see women tending to the graves and creating associations specifically responsible for the creation and upkeep of memorials to confederate soldiers. I found it particularly interesting the point Whites made that it was easier for women to homogenize deceased soldiers than the actual soldiers they cared for. We see again the extension of “social mothering” with the example of the woman who placed a wreath on the grave of a boy whose mother could not visit, giving the impression that women felt this need and this desire to care for all the deceased soldiers because they knew these men were someone’s father, brother, son, or uncle. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 7 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I learned something new from this chapter!  I actually didn&amp;#039;t know that such organizations, like the Confederate Survivors&amp;#039; Association, were created.  I also (not that this is specifically chapter 7...) liked how Whites included the memorials and the different thoughts, debates, etc. that went into the memorials.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the speech given by Cummings at the end of the chapter to be really interesting.  He explains the concepts of the &amp;quot;Golden Age&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;Iron Age&amp;quot; and how they were polar opposites.  The Golden Age was all about peace love and happiness while the Iron Age was hardship.  These elite, white men are such hypocrites.  They talk about peace and love in a time when they were enslaving people to do work for them and as soon as they have to work for themselves its hard.  I bet the African American slaves didn&amp;#039;t think the Golden Age was so golden. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the considerations from previous chapters certainly play a role in the degree of diffrence between the Golden and Iron ages.  I also think its important to not look at these tags as practical reality but rather as idealistic designs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Freed Women&amp;quot; Article==&lt;br /&gt;
Before reading this article I did not realize how many choices and responsibilities black women had to their families during and after the civil war.  I never took into account that families were often broken up by sales and death.  It was all too common to see single black mothers taking care of their children.  I was particularly touched by the story of the black women with two children under her arms, another child on her back, a live chicken, a pig and a goat.  These women often had to do everything by themselves.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how people, especially white women, perceived African American women.  White women were seen as pious and pure ladies while black women were seen as lazy, loud and vulgar.  This was especially true once the black women stopped working out in the fields and taking care of his families.  This was just another way that white women could assert themselves over black women, even though the black women were doing the same thing the white women were, if not more. --Kari W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-24T01:03:11Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Chapter 3 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== The Book in General ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do.  However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work.  So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive.  I feel like I&amp;#039;m reading the same thing over and over.  I guess that&amp;#039;s the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there.  And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas&amp;#039;s journal thoughts in the Whites&amp;#039;s work.  I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work.  It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas&amp;#039;s journal that I had read in a previous class.  I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion.  The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it.  Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing.  It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction.  Whites line about the &amp;quot;great southern slaveholding planters&amp;quot; really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history.  In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant.  All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders.  Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 1==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands.  I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to.  These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves.  And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence.  They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man&amp;#039;s perogative.  There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree it is amazing, I don&amp;#039;t think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 2== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 3== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men.  It was almost like they couldn&amp;#039;t imagine living any other way.  While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or &amp;quot;town fathers&amp;quot;, for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why change the only life you know? It was very difficult for these women to change their way of thinking and take over as head of the household. It was almost easier to just remain subordinate. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 4==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-24T00:57:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Chapter 1 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== The Book in General ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do.  However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work.  So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive.  I feel like I&amp;#039;m reading the same thing over and over.  I guess that&amp;#039;s the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there.  And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas&amp;#039;s journal thoughts in the Whites&amp;#039;s work.  I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work.  It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas&amp;#039;s journal that I had read in a previous class.  I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion.  The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it.  Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing.  It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction.  Whites line about the &amp;quot;great southern slaveholding planters&amp;quot; really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history.  In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant.  All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders.  Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 1==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands.  I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to.  These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves.  And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence.  They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man&amp;#039;s perogative.  There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree it is amazing, I don&amp;#039;t think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 2== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 3== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men.  It was almost like they couldn&amp;#039;t imagine living any other way.  While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or &amp;quot;town fathers&amp;quot;, for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 4==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2009-02-19T03:33:59Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I’ll just start off by saying: I don’t think I’ve ever actually spent that much time thinking about light. When I first starting reading, I thought the whole book was going to be about light. In that regard, I think it would have been helpful to have read the introduction or the first chapter to get a better feel for the book (which I ended up skimming anyways). But with that said, at first I found it surprising that the discussion of light didn’t really mention the practicality of it at all, in terms of its impact on individual households and daily life, but rather a phenomenon that changed the way cities attracted populations and drew attention to itself through the lighting of streets, buildings, and advertisements. It also discussed how it altered the landscape of cities in general and how this was reflected in the paintings and photos of the cities during the night. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the same topic of practicality - I didn&amp;#039;t even think about the entertainment aspect of light. When the first reading started off with talking about special lighting effects in theater I felt surprised that that would be one of the first international uses for it. Then, as the first long reading continued I was interested by the fact that electricity was really first promoted and advertised at world fairs. This plays to the business aspect of electricity but also the reading indicated that there was a certain expectation for every year&amp;#039;s fair to be more spectacular and awe-inspiring than the last. Another non-practical use that seemed to be a main focus for the early years of electricity. – Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author did get in to how electricity affected daily life, but it wasn’t until it reached the rural areas in the 1930’s that the discussion takes this turn. It allowed for appliances in households and ended up increasing the length of the day because people weren’t depending as much on the natural day and night hours mandated by the sun rise and set. But I wasn’t really surprised that the rural areas were of the last affected by electricity. And the author brought up an interesting point when he described the opposition of electricity in rural areas because of how much it would interfere with the natural order of the farms, in terms of how the daily life of the farm could be managed, and how it could lead to a whole new character of farm life. I guess I just never really thought of electricity with a negative connotation as something that would be considered an “interruption.” –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have always known that electricity was important to our everyday lives, but I honestly never realized to what extent it affected and impacted the daily lives of people in late 1800s and early 1900s.  The political impact of electricity at this time seemed really significant because it would decide how centralized and unified electric systems would become.  Who would control the new system; and where would it be located, public or private lands, were both major concerns of Americans.  Most importantly was that electricity helped to define progress, something that the majority of Americans wanted. It really amazed me all the considerations that were part of bringing electricity to America.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I thought the reading was great, because to me it showed that America was not first to use &amp;quot;lighting&amp;quot; for things (unless I read it wrong)and it seemed much of our ideas came from Europe. Light was a luxury for such a long time I always wondered when it became a &amp;quot;necessity&amp;quot; rather than something for a small group of people. I was also found it interesting how farmers were being looked at differently.-Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found reading about how there was much debate on private and government controlled generator plants. Also the ideas over water power/dams was interesting. My favorite part was reading about how advertising for specific people, and how much of a manipulation it was and of course still is these days. The impact light had on workers, industry, arts, etc is just amazing to me. Electric in general or electric light is something we take for granted now, what would we do if we did not have it anymore? Would we be able to adapt to it? I am not sure if we really could manage.--Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commenting on the same article that Aislyn did above (pg 182-184), I realized I don&amp;#039;t even think about where my electricity comes from. Now-a-days our electricity is very consolidated, each region gets it from a certain place and there are much less small electricity businesses than mentioned in this section of Nye&amp;#039;s book. I think the fact that the government was uncertain as to how to treat electricity is a good indication that this was a new and confusing technology that had to be integrated more gradually than some people wished. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the reading between pp.182-184, I thought it was funny how worries over privatization of electricity and other utilities were around even back then. Anyone who lives off campus around here has had to deal with the monthly utility bills and the seemingly arbitrary way the rates fluctuate. Throughout this small reading, I just kept being reminded of how dreadful Dominion is in regards to billing. At least it&amp;#039;s not a new thing. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a random note - I didn&amp;#039;t think about how important the idea of putting multiple telegraph messages on the same wire was until I read the first portion of the reading. The mention of hundreds of entangled wires on electrical poles throughout the city is ridiculous - and so unappealing to the eye - no wonder some people weren&amp;#039;t supportive of this new technology. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the rest of the class that this was the most reading on light that I&amp;#039;ve ever done, and that we often neglect the socio-historical impact of an artifact of technology like electricity. I found the portion about lighting up urban areas particularly interesting because of the variety in lighting choices made available to the owners of different organizations and companies. It&amp;#039;s very understandable that some people would object to ruining the more &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot; atmosphere of the cities, and especially natural attractions like Niagara Falls, while it was aesthetically pleasing to many. As lighting became more common-place, it was natural for companies to try and outdo one another in order to attract more attention to their products. We&amp;#039;re still trying to &amp;quot;one up&amp;quot; and outdo one another today which speaks a great deal to our human condition for choosing what may be aesthetically pleasing despite not being the best technological advancement in the long run. As we&amp;#039;ve said in class, technological advancement shouldn&amp;#039;t equate to civilization. -Bryan Lees&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the development of the amusement park to be very interesting. As early as the late 19th and early 20th centuries people were attracted to fairs for entertainment purposes. Trolley cars provided transportation to trolley parks at a reasonably cheap price. Nye suggests that the cool breeze from these open window cars attracted large numbers of customers to take rural, scenic tours into the countryside where one could have a picnic, hear a band, got boating, or see the park&amp;#039;s various attractions (123). The invention of electricity and an efficient, effective electrical system was crucial to the development of these early theme parks. While it is rather apparent that one might need electricity to reach these country parks before cars became the dominant mode of transportation, I had never considered the far reaching implications of electricity prior to this reading. -Bryan Lees&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Elle put it nicely when she said that electricity was a &amp;quot;new and confusing technology&amp;quot; and the government didn&amp;#039;t know how to treat it. Nye talks about the different speeds and motives of foreign governements to provide electricity to the citizenry and how the priorities in specific countries effected electrification in that country. In South Africa, electricity was used to improve gold, coal, and diamond mining, but not the homes of black workers. In Russia, Lenin pursued full electrification because he thought full socialism could not be attained without it. Electrification seems to have been illustrative of a country&amp;#039;s political climate at the time. -Karen Siegmund&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love the section explaining William Dean Howells&amp;#039; &amp;quot;A Traveler from Altruria.&amp;quot; He thought because of electricity people could live off the land and travel into cities which were art centers and have the best of both worlds. Its a bit like Ebenezer Howard&amp;#039;s City-Garden idea where the town and country model has an urban center but smaller streetcar suburbs along the outside. I know it was probably naive for these men to think it could happen but I like how they viewed electricity as opening up all these possibilities for rural areas almost like they had in Europe. Obviously since industry was on the rise, cities would take more advantage of electricity. Also in this section about rural electricity (or lack there of) it was interesting how people, even Roosevelt, viewed electricity on farms as something undesirable or cheating the system of natural cycles. In many cases, whether to use electricity or not was viewed as a moral question. -Lauren Milner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ads promoting electricity are interesting. It is odd now to think about having to convince people of how good electricity is but this was what the ads aimed for. The big message is that, basically, electricity will make your life happier and easier. You can go to baseball games at night and go out on the town or stay in and listen to the radio. They are very area specific as well. The ad for the more urban areas talk about lighting classrooms and office buildings while the rural ad focuses on farm equipment and kitchen wares that have probably already been widely used in the cities. -Lauren Milner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nye does a good job explaining the impact of the lighting system on American culture. Nye explains how American’s used these new lighting systems in abstract ways for example, lighting up the statue of liberty and world’s fairs.  World’s fairs were used to show people of upper middle class and upper class where the American culture was going. These people found prestige in electrification and considered it a turning point in American culture; to them it showed evolution and progress. I know that we try to stay away from the word progress when it comes to technology, but I am curious if we have had any revolutionary technology that has had such an impact on life since electrification. The only think that comes to mind are computers, which can definitely be considered a revolutionary system, but I am not sure if it has had the quite the same impact as electrification, I am just curious of anyone else’s thoughts. -Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the electrification of farms and agricultural regions was a very interesting topic of debate. While the upper classes of individuals found advancement and prestige in electrification, farmers were reluctant. There were definitely mixed emotions about electricity in rural areas. Nye states that in 1920 90% of farmers could not get distributions to their homes and farms (far greater a percentage than European nations who had a majority of their farmers with electricity). Roosevelt found the farmer as the backbone of the nation, and he looked to Jefferson who saw the farmer as “the model for political virtue” (291), based of these ideals, he was hesitant to electrify rural areas. Farmers themselves were not sure about electrification. I found it funny that an Iowa newspaper wrote a piece about how cows would be unable to sleep at night. Other farmers thought that electricity would promote growth, and experimented with electricity and plant life. Edison himself stated that electricity would end frost, drought, and could even melt icebergs! I think this shows a lot about people at the time, and goes along with the idea of controlling nature. -Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oftentimes, the fact that many people did not initially accept a technology is overlooked. It is assumed that everyone embraced the new way of doing things with open arms. Some of the concerns people had with technology seem comical to us now. For example, Nye mentions an article in which the author is worried by the thought that cows would not be able to sleep in an electrified town. Technological determinism makes it harder to see the different possible outcomes and the initial hesitation towards a technology. - Karen Siegmund&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One random part of the first reading I found interesting was the section talking about the American world&amp;#039;s fairs. I feel like I have read &amp;quot;The (insert some technology or idea) was first introduced at (some city&amp;#039;s) world fair,&amp;quot; but I have never asked any details about the fair. Reading that section gave me a whole new incite on the importance of the fair itself and the atmosphere surrounding all of the great inventions.-Kirsten Walleck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it funny how both the urban and rural markets viewed electricity as a way to make the urban areas more urban and give the rural areas a chance to &amp;quot;move back to the land.&amp;quot; Even funnier was that an area based mostly on an agrarian lifestyle would embrace the glitz and modernity of electricity as a way to enhance the farming lifestyle. Maybe it&amp;#039;s the fact that I haven&amp;#039;t lived in a farming town for almost thirteen years now, but I guess I just don&amp;#039;t really associate farming with electricity anymore. (Perspective: My hometown just got wi-fi in its public library like two years ago. It took another two years to explain to most of the Valparaisoans what wi-fi even is.) -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The adverse reaction to the New York skyline described starting on page 74 made me think of how people see it today. Seeing the New York skyline from the Brooklyn Bridge for the first time is often a optical experience for anyone. It still can be seen as a powerful, beautiful city with a new world of opportunities and confidence. Also, the author talks about tourists coming to &amp;quot;witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness.&amp;quot;(69)The fact that people are interested in eye-catching scenes, good or bad, and technological changes has always been known and capitalized upon. It is the same reason people enjoy watching horror films or looking at the Grand Canyon. Anyway, it was interesting to read about how electricity changed the New York City landscape and how it still captivates people.- Kirsten Walleck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s interesting to see how technologies can be both democratizing forces and centers of class conflict. For instance, the electric car created specialized sections in cities. The wealthier people were able to move out to suburbs on the city’s edge, but the working class who couldn’t afford the trolley fair remained in the city center. Yet, at the same time, the electric car helped bring about department stores, which “democratized” luxury with their affordable products. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think most of us consider the way the U.S. government is split up into three levels to be a generally good way of diffusing power, so it’s interesting to see how our decentralized political system actually hurt creating a national energy policy. It was left up to private companies to electrify American because the government was caught up in jurisdictional boundaries. Private companies were, of course, quick to advertise but slow to electrify homes (except for the ones belonging to rich people). It wasn’t until the government got involved in the 1930s that rural areas received electricity. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How reliable was the electricity? I do not think the author addressed that in the reading. I know that the Breakers mansion (owned by the Vanderbilts) in Newport, RI and all of the other Newport mansions were wired for both gas and electricity because of the unreliable nature in the Gilded Age. To what extent was that true? Newport is also on an island and could be considered kind of rural, but not used for farming at this point. That might have contributed to this.- Kirsten Walleck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think the electricity could have been completely reliable. Even today if we get a bad storm, we can lose power for some time. What could cause power to go out, other than the causes we face today? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-18T19:41:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Chapter 6 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading last week&amp;#039;s monograph and this week&amp;#039;s monograph, I have a curiosity question.  In my Latin America studies class, there were court cases where white men tried to seduce and have sex with black male slaves.  Is there any evidence that white men tried/did have sex with black men (free or slave)? And, is there any evidence for the white female and black female (free or slave)?  I&amp;#039;m not trying to be gross, I&amp;#039;m just wondering if it also happened in America.  I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is something people would have brought to court in America because not only would it be sex across the color line, but also homosexual which was just as bad if not worse. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During Tuesday&amp;#039;s class, we discussed what we thought white women might do if their husbands had extramarital sex (fancy word for cheating if you ask me...).  Well, on page 134, Rothman discussed this, if ever so briefly, and I quote, &amp;quot;White women responded to the extramarital affairs of their spouses with a combination of resignation, denial, and displaced hostility and vidictiveness toward their slaves.&amp;quot;  I figured since we talked about it, I&amp;#039;d go ahead and put it up on the wiki.  Also, later on in the reading it discussed how some women filed for divorced based on their husbands &amp;#039;extramarital sex,&amp;#039; but they had to also prove that the reason their husband was having these affairs was not because she was not pious, submissive, etc..  I just thought that was interesting in its own way. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I found interesting was the reason behind sexual violence. &amp;quot;Interracial sexual abuse reminded enslaved black women that their bodies were never their own. It placed black men on notice that their families were insignificant and their pretenses to protecting their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters from harm ultimately futile.&amp;quot; (134) White men raped their slave women to prove their power.  In response to Ashley, their wives wanted to prove their power over their slaves, and that it didn&amp;#039;t matter what their husbands were doing. These women wanted to make sure their slaves did not look at them differently just because of their husband&amp;#039;s indiscretions. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed that there was 61 different ways to describe the skin tone of blacks. I also found it sad that even if someone was legally white as well as looked white, the community did not always accept the fact that they were white.  The most important the community viewed after physical and legal conditions was who the person associated with. Community standing was probably the most significant factor when determining a persons whiteness. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-18T19:35:46Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Chapter 4 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading last week&amp;#039;s monograph and this week&amp;#039;s monograph, I have a curiosity question.  In my Latin America studies class, there were court cases where white men tried to seduce and have sex with black male slaves.  Is there any evidence that white men tried/did have sex with black men (free or slave)? And, is there any evidence for the white female and black female (free or slave)?  I&amp;#039;m not trying to be gross, I&amp;#039;m just wondering if it also happened in America.  I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is something people would have brought to court in America because not only would it be sex across the color line, but also homosexual which was just as bad if not worse. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During Tuesday&amp;#039;s class, we discussed what we thought white women might do if their husbands had extramarital sex (fancy word for cheating if you ask me...).  Well, on page 134, Rothman discussed this, if ever so briefly, and I quote, &amp;quot;White women responded to the extramarital affairs of their spouses with a combination of resignation, denial, and displaced hostility and vidictiveness toward their slaves.&amp;quot;  I figured since we talked about it, I&amp;#039;d go ahead and put it up on the wiki.  Also, later on in the reading it discussed how some women filed for divorced based on their husbands &amp;#039;extramarital sex,&amp;#039; but they had to also prove that the reason their husband was having these affairs was not because she was not pious, submissive, etc..  I just thought that was interesting in its own way. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I found interesting was the reason behind sexual violence. &amp;quot;Interracial sexual abuse reminded enslaved black women that their bodies were never their own. It placed black men on notice that their families were insignificant and their pretenses to protecting their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters from harm ultimately futile.&amp;quot; (134) White men raped their slave women to prove their power.  In response to Ashley, their wives wanted to prove their power over their slaves, and that it didn&amp;#039;t matter what their husbands were doing. These women wanted to make sure their slaves did not look at them differently just because of their husband&amp;#039;s indiscretions. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2009-02-18T19:22:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I’ll just start off by saying: I don’t think I’ve ever actually spent that much time thinking about light. When I first starting reading, I thought the whole book was going to be about light. In that regard, I think it would have been helpful to have read the introduction or the first chapter to get a better feel for the book (which I ended up skimming anyways). But with that said, at first I found it surprising that the discussion of light didn’t really mention the practicality of it at all, in terms of its impact on individual households and daily life, but rather a phenomenon that changed the way cities attracted populations and drew attention to itself through the lighting of streets, buildings, and advertisements. It also discussed how it altered the landscape of cities in general and how this was reflected in the paintings and photos of the cities during the night. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The author did get in to how electricity affected daily life, but it wasn’t until it reached the rural areas in the 1930’s that the discussion takes this turn. It allowed for appliances in households and ended up increasing the length of the day because people weren’t depending as much on the natural day and night hours mandated by the sun rise and set. But I wasn’t really surprised that the rural areas were of the last affected by electricity. And the author brought up an interesting point when he described the opposition of electricity in rural areas because of how much it would interfere with the natural order of the farms, in terms of how the daily life of the farm could be managed, and how it could lead to a whole new character of farm life. I guess I just never really thought of electricity with a negative connotation as something that would be considered an “interruption.” –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have always known that electricity was important to our everyday lives, but I honestly never realized to what extent it affected and impacted the daily lives of people in late 1800s and early 1900s.  The political impact of electricity at this time seemed really significant because it would decide how centralized and unified electric systems would become.  Who would control the new system; and where would it be located, public or private lands, were both major concerns of Americans.  Most importantly was that electricity helped to define progress, something that the majority of Americans wanted. It really amazed me all the considerations that were part of bringing electricity to America.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-17T00:31:03Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Overarching Topics */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book.  I&amp;#039;m not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me.  I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a &amp;quot;oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world.&amp;quot;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole &amp;quot;Those two people can&amp;#039;t be together and have a family because of the color of their skin.&amp;quot;  So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed.  I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn&amp;#039;t people just leave others alone?  If you don&amp;#039;t like what 2 other people are doing, don&amp;#039;t look at them.  If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don&amp;#039;t pay attention to them.  Let them live their lives and ignore them.  If they want to have a kid, who cares.  The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex &amp;#039;across the color line,&amp;#039; but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free?   Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia.  I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south.  When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships?  -Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was very surprised. I have grown up in VA and have almost always felt that it was an overarching view that interracial relationships were frowned upon, especially in southern VA. At the same time, I think that in many parts of VA you would be able to get away with an interracial marriage if there was enough else going on that people were mainly only concerned about themselves. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most.  I guess this was just my naive &amp;quot;The Founding Fathers are Gods&amp;quot; education but I didn&amp;#039;t realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was.  I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side.  Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly.  However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I totally agree with you. I felt much of the same way. It seems to me that a lot of people do what Jefferson did, that is cast someone aside that is no longer of value to them.  Callender was really there just to meet Jefferson&amp;#039;s needs. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have read so many accounts and so many interpretations of the Thomas Jefferson / Sally Hemings saga that I could barely make it through chapter 1.  One thing, however, did stick out to me.  I felt as if Rothman was discounting the fact that Jefferson was a racist slave owner.  I felt as if Rothman gave Jefferson too much credit, as if… “yea he owns slaves, but, he was a founding father, so it is OK.”  -Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-17T00:27:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book.  I&amp;#039;m not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me.  I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a &amp;quot;oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world.&amp;quot;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole &amp;quot;Those two people can&amp;#039;t be together and have a family because of the color of their skin.&amp;quot;  So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed.  I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn&amp;#039;t people just leave others alone?  If you don&amp;#039;t like what 2 other people are doing, don&amp;#039;t look at them.  If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don&amp;#039;t pay attention to them.  Let them live their lives and ignore them.  If they want to have a kid, who cares.  The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex &amp;#039;across the color line,&amp;#039; but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free?   Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia.  I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south.  When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships?  -Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most.  I guess this was just my naive &amp;quot;The Founding Fathers are Gods&amp;quot; education but I didn&amp;#039;t realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was.  I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side.  Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly.  However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I totally agree with you. I felt much of the same way. It seems to me that a lot of people do what Jefferson did, that is cast someone aside that is no longer of value to them.  Callender was really there just to meet Jefferson&amp;#039;s needs. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-09T23:47:24Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Preface ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having read the first part of Stevenson&amp;#039;s work, do you agree with her statement in the preface that Loudoun County was &amp;quot;a practical research site for this kind of study&amp;quot;? She states that the area is both &amp;quot;exceptional and typical&amp;quot; of the Upper South, do you agree with her, based on your reading thus far? (xi) Do you think the prevalence of prominent families in Loudoun impacts her interpretations of southern life or is it a fair representation of most communities? --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Henrietta ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t remember where I had read Henrietta&amp;#039;s story before Chapter 4&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Parenting&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but just like the first time I cringed at the story because of how horrifying it really is.  I know parents taught their young to think of themselves as the superior race at that was the point of the example was to show some of the ways parents did this... however, I also cringe and feel a little sad for poor Henrietta. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== NewlyWeds ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn&amp;#039;t changed all that much today either.  When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can&amp;#039;t always afford a separate residence from parents all that easily.  Its seen more today I guess, where people can afford something, but not all the time, like family helps them get into a new place, or the parents wont agree to the marriage until there is an apartment or house of some sort that one of them has... What I&amp;#039;m getting at, is like in the 19th century, not all couples have a place to move in to right away without leaning on someone or something to help them out. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think a distinction can be made between chapters two and three about newlyweds and that is based on their roles before and after they are married.  For instance, in the second chapter, the male held the pressures of being financially stable and maintaining an occupation that would hold the newlyweds family. The worries of the female were more based on her family&amp;#039;s dowry and how it would support the newlyweds after marriage.  The third chapter reflects the matrimony between the two and reflects more of today&amp;#039;s society&amp;#039;s marriage celebrations (ex. wife&amp;#039;s family pays for the wedding celebration).  I found it interesting how Quakers culture had a way of toning down the actual ceremony to a formal dinner for fear that the celebration would stray towards &amp;quot;unbecoming behavior.&amp;quot; (page 65) --Joe Cirenza&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtship ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were certain places that were considered acceptable for meeting and seeing potential suitors.  After church, picnics and parent&amp;#039;s parlors were the most frequent places.  Long relationships were seen as the most appropriate.  It was a way for parents to ensure the potential husband would be able to support their daughter.  Letter writing was also an important part of this process.  Why was letter etiquette so important? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it pretty clear through Stevenson&amp;#039;s reading that the informal meeting between men and women of the lower classes was much more &amp;quot;meaningful&amp;quot; than the &amp;#039;formal debuts&amp;#039; of the upper crust.  Instead of the ballroom environment where women tried to impress the men of nobility status, the informal meeting between men and women after church, at Sunday socials and walks in the park characterize a much more liberating experience. Therefore the question that popped into my head was whether the meeting between men and women in the Southern lower classes between 1820-1840 took on much more meaningful life-long relationships than the courtship based on each other&amp;#039;s class resume. --Joe Cirenza&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Parenting ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The significance of raising a child and the process of weening was particularly important to these families. Women were raising their sons to be good citizens.  The idea of self-control was a key part of this process. &amp;quot;All children, for example, had to learn basic physical, motor, and social skills- how to sit up, crawl, walk, talk, master their bowel and bladder functions, and how, what and when to eat- usually before their second birthday.&amp;quot; page 109. This concept amazes me. Most children today are not potty trained before they are 2 let alone, know how, what and when to eat. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Divorce ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the chapter on divorce in the South was very interesting and different then I would have expected. I was struck  by the concept that there were legally different levels of divorce, such as an absolute divorce versus &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a mensa et thora&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, the divorce which ended marital relations but did not allow remarriage. The role money played in the divorce proceedings also surprised me as did the large amount of community involvement and input throughout the process. It was sad to me that some individuals who wanted to make their marriages work felt obliged to get a divorce because of community expectations and judgment. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Health and Illness ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Stevenson repeatedly mentions the role that health and illness played in the lives of Southerners, particularly families. While many of our readings have touched on infant and early childhood illness and disease, I felt that this work emphasized the presence of illness and disease throughout the lives of individuals. Stevenson portrayed most individuals as constantly concerned about their health and cleanliness, especially that of their children of all ages. For instance, parents would write to their children telling them not to study too hard if it would impair their health. Was anyone else struck by how much ones health governed the actions of a person? I also found it interesting that it was in discussing the health of their children that couples &amp;quot;found enormous common ground to build a companionable relationship&amp;quot; (107). --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-09T23:42:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Courtship */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Preface ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having read the first part of Stevenson&amp;#039;s work, do you agree with her statement in the preface that Loudoun County was &amp;quot;a practical research site for this kind of study&amp;quot;? She states that the area is both &amp;quot;exceptional and typical&amp;quot; of the Upper South, do you agree with her, based on your reading thus far? (xi) Do you think the prevalence of prominent families in Loudoun impacts her interpretations of southern life or is it a fair representation of most communities? --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Henrietta ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t remember where I had read Henrietta&amp;#039;s story before Chapter 4&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Parenting&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but just like the first time I cringed at the story because of how horrifying it really is.  I know parents taught their young to think of themselves as the superior race at that was the point of the example was to show some of the ways parents did this... however, I also cringe and feel a little sad for poor Henrietta. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== NewlyWeds ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn&amp;#039;t changed all that much today either.  When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can&amp;#039;t always afford a separate residence from parents all that easily.  Its seen more today I guess, where people can afford something, but not all the time, like family helps them get into a new place, or the parents wont agree to the marriage until there is an apartment or house of some sort that one of them has... What I&amp;#039;m getting at, is like in the 19th century, not all couples have a place to move in to right away without leaning on someone or something to help them out. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think a distinction can be made between chapters two and three about newlyweds and that is based on their roles before and after they are married.  For instance, in the second chapter, the male held the pressures of being financially stable and maintaining an occupation that would hold the newlyweds family. The worries of the female were more based on her family&amp;#039;s dowry and how it would support the newlyweds after marriage.  The third chapter reflects the matrimony between the two and reflects more of today&amp;#039;s society&amp;#039;s marriage celebrations (ex. wife&amp;#039;s family pays for the wedding celebration).  I found it interesting how Quakers culture had a way of toning down the actual ceremony to a formal dinner for fear that the celebration would stray towards &amp;quot;unbecoming behavior.&amp;quot; (page 65) --Joe Cirenza&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtship ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were certain places that were considered acceptable for meeting and seeing potential suitors.  After church, picnics and parent&amp;#039;s parlors were the most frequent places.  Long relationships were seen as the most appropriate.  It was a way for parents to ensure the potential husband would be able to support their daughter.  Letter writing was also an important part of this process.  Why was letter etiquette so important? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it pretty clear through Stevenson&amp;#039;s reading that the informal meeting between men and women of the lower classes was much more &amp;quot;meaningful&amp;quot; than the &amp;#039;formal debuts&amp;#039; of the upper crust.  Instead of the ballroom environment where women tried to impress the men of nobility status, the informal meeting between men and women after church, at Sunday socials and walks in the park characterize a much more liberating experience. Therefore the question that popped into my head was whether the meeting between men and women in the Southern lower classes between 1820-1840 took on much more meaningful life-long relationships than the courtship based on each other&amp;#039;s class resume. --Joe Cirenza&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Divorce ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the chapter on divorce in the South was very interesting and different then I would have expected. I was struck  by the concept that there were legally different levels of divorce, such as an absolute divorce versus &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a mensa et thora&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, the divorce which ended marital relations but did not allow remarriage. The role money played in the divorce proceedings also surprised me as did the large amount of community involvement and input throughout the process. It was sad to me that some individuals who wanted to make their marriages work felt obliged to get a divorce because of community expectations and judgment. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Health and Illness ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Stevenson repeatedly mentions the role that health and illness played in the lives of Southerners, particularly families. While many of our readings have touched on infant and early childhood illness and disease, I felt that this work emphasized the presence of illness and disease throughout the lives of individuals. Stevenson portrayed most individuals as constantly concerned about their health and cleanliness, especially that of their children of all ages. For instance, parents would write to their children telling them not to study too hard if it would impair their health. Was anyone else struck by how much ones health governed the actions of a person? I also found it interesting that it was in discussing the health of their children that couples &amp;quot;found enormous common ground to build a companionable relationship&amp;quot; (107). --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-09T01:21:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Henrietta ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t remember where I had read Henrietta&amp;#039;s story before Chapter 4&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Parenting&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but just like the first time I cringed at the story because of how horrifying it really is.  I know parents taught their young to think of themselves as the superior race at that was the point of the example was to show some of the ways parents did this... however, I also cringe and feel a little sad for poor Henrietta. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== NewlyWeds ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn&amp;#039;t changed all that much today either.  When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can&amp;#039;t always afford a separate residence from parents all that easily.  Its seen more today I guess, where people can afford something, but not all the time, like family helps them get into a new place, or the parents wont agree to the marriage until there is an apartment or house of some sort that one of them has... What I&amp;#039;m getting at, is like in the 19th century, not all couples have a place to move in to right away without leaning on someone or something to help them out. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-05T01:31:59Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In Chapter 3 it talked about child labor in urban areas.  I found this very interesting to look at the differences between child labor in the midwest like we talked about earlier and child labor in urban areas.  This was very different from the urban family &amp;quot;ideal.&amp;quot;  Not only were children working in factories to help &amp;quot;earn their keep&amp;quot;, but older children were raising younger children so their mothers could work longer hours.  This once again proves that the ideal was never the norm.  It&amp;#039;s really interesting to read how different living situations affected family life. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Chapter 8 about Domestic Service.  It was interesting to read about the shift to immigrant workers and how women used immigrant workers to gain status in society.  Previously, mistresses were used to help the lady of the house out with domestic chores.  However, when issues of status came into effect, women started making their mistresses do everything.  Also, it was more respected to have an immigrant worker do everything so the lady of the house could do things such as read and other leizure activities. It sounds like women are trying to gain some independence and superiority by ordering around their servants. --Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Children&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  It just struck home again as to how vital children were to the working class economy.  They were errand-runners, scavengers, domestic workers and wage earners.  Without them, many working class families would not have, or did not, survive in urban areas like New York.  If the mother was able to stay home children were emissaries to the outside world, running errands to buy things, or scavenging them to save their family a few pennies, perhaps they were even sent outside the home to earn money for the family.  And yet, the middle class and upper class residents of the city did not deign to see that without these children the working class family would have collapsed and their lives of relative comfort and security would not have been possible.  Even working class families were not always able to appreciate their children because they did not meet their standards of production, thus the House of Refuge.  There are an incredible number of dynamics that affect the lives of children in such a place, so many that it seems a number of them were lost to the people who were there for the experience. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Domestic Service.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I have to say, that Chapter 8 gave me some new insights that I didn&amp;#039;t know beforehand.  One of the main things that was new to me was that even though there were so many new immigrants, and so much overcrowding, according to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;City of Women&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, young women who worked in domestic service had enough leverage to negotiate their terms of service because demand for them was so high.  This amazed me with the types of negotiations mentioned, and threats they used to get their way.  Granted, I doubt it worked every time, but it must have been nice having some say in what they would and would not do. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Children.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  The part of the excerpt from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;City of Women&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that discussed what the children&amp;#039;s roles in family were actually kind of amazed me.  I mean I always figured those old enough to walk around, but too young to do wage worked helped somewhere, I just never really thought of how.  The scavenging that some of them did is just amazing.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scavenging&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The bits in chapter 3 about scavenging really blew me away. Throughout this entire section, I kept picturing The Kid from Dick Tracy (yes, The Kid in capital letters. I checked it on IMDB to be sure) before he gets rescued. I think we tend to take the immense responsibility of the parents for granted in these situations, assuming that the children involved would not have to contribute at the same level. It really brought home the idea of family as a community, and not just the parents bringing in supplies and income. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; What is the main argument of Stansell&amp;#039;s work?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Connection&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; How do the sections of reading today connect to the understand we established yesterday between the diffrence between the ideal and the practical family system?&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Neighborhood&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The concept of the  neighborhood and its effect on working class women was a concept in Chapter 3 that I found extremely important.  The argument of Stansell is that working-class neighborhoods gave women leverage in their dealings with men and was the &amp;quot;court system&amp;quot; of urban working class society.  Although there was no glorifying physical aspect of the neighborhood,  the idea that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;aid to neighbors structured expectations of reciprocal help&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was the accepted tradition among the working class. -Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think the thesis of Stansell&amp;#039;s work is that although the role and class structure of women in 19th century urban society varied, they all shared an accepted inequality to men.  I think the argument also breaks down the class structure of all men and women in urban society and it describes how the lifestyle of working class women contrasted with those of the middle class.  Clearly there was much more freedom for women living in the upper echelon of urban society, yet they were also still subjected to a defined and accepted role that was unequal to their male counterparts. -Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Standards&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It seemed to me that the women in these chapters were dealing with standards they would never be able to achieve. How would it be possible for these women to scrounge for enough money to try and make ends meet for themselves and their families, while also finding it necessary to wear the CLOTHES to seem acceptable in society&amp;#039;s eyes? I realize I&amp;#039;ve been saying this a lot lately in these wiki entries, but I dunno if I would even have it in me to get out of bed in the morning with that kind of pressure on me. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Domestic Service&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  I think chapter 8 touches on a very big transition for women and the family, namely the strong shift towards domestic service.  With an influx of immigrants there was an abundance of domestic servants.  As it became fashionable to have servants, the family experienced a change.  I think that this is a big transition for the family because middle class families now included an extra member or members, the servants.  This certainly changed the role of women in relation to household duties and child care.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Children&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I am still amazed at how important the role of children was in working class families.  I understand that they needed to work in order to help provide support for the family but it never really occurred to me to what extent or how hard they had to work to help their families.  They had to put in just as much effort and work as their parents.  I guess part of me didn&amp;#039;t want to believe that these children would be put in that situation.  It is kind of depressing, but it really shows how close it could pull the family together. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Domestic Service&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I feel that if anything having domestic servants would cause families to grow apart.  Now children could look to the domestic servant for care instead of their mother, creating a new motherly figure. As these women became closer to a family it changed to role of family and redefined it as well. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-05T01:28:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In Chapter 3 it talked about child labor in urban areas.  I found this very interesting to look at the differences between child labor in the midwest like we talked about earlier and child labor in urban areas.  This was very different from the urban family &amp;quot;ideal.&amp;quot;  Not only were children working in factories to help &amp;quot;earn their keep&amp;quot;, but older children were raising younger children so their mothers could work longer hours.  This once again proves that the ideal was never the norm.  It&amp;#039;s really interesting to read how different living situations affected family life. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Chapter 8 about Domestic Service.  It was interesting to read about the shift to immigrant workers and how women used immigrant workers to gain status in society.  Previously, mistresses were used to help the lady of the house out with domestic chores.  However, when issues of status came into effect, women started making their mistresses do everything.  Also, it was more respected to have an immigrant worker do everything so the lady of the house could do things such as read and other leizure activities. It sounds like women are trying to gain some independence and superiority by ordering around their servants. --Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Children&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  It just struck home again as to how vital children were to the working class economy.  They were errand-runners, scavengers, domestic workers and wage earners.  Without them, many working class families would not have, or did not, survive in urban areas like New York.  If the mother was able to stay home children were emissaries to the outside world, running errands to buy things, or scavenging them to save their family a few pennies, perhaps they were even sent outside the home to earn money for the family.  And yet, the middle class and upper class residents of the city did not deign to see that without these children the working class family would have collapsed and their lives of relative comfort and security would not have been possible.  Even working class families were not always able to appreciate their children because they did not meet their standards of production, thus the House of Refuge.  There are an incredible number of dynamics that affect the lives of children in such a place, so many that it seems a number of them were lost to the people who were there for the experience. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Domestic Service.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I have to say, that Chapter 8 gave me some new insights that I didn&amp;#039;t know beforehand.  One of the main things that was new to me was that even though there were so many new immigrants, and so much overcrowding, according to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;City of Women&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, young women who worked in domestic service had enough leverage to negotiate their terms of service because demand for them was so high.  This amazed me with the types of negotiations mentioned, and threats they used to get their way.  Granted, I doubt it worked every time, but it must have been nice having some say in what they would and would not do. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Children.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  The part of the excerpt from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;City of Women&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that discussed what the children&amp;#039;s roles in family were actually kind of amazed me.  I mean I always figured those old enough to walk around, but too young to do wage worked helped somewhere, I just never really thought of how.  The scavenging that some of them did is just amazing.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scavenging&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The bits in chapter 3 about scavenging really blew me away. Throughout this entire section, I kept picturing The Kid from Dick Tracy (yes, The Kid in capital letters. I checked it on IMDB to be sure) before he gets rescued. I think we tend to take the immense responsibility of the parents for granted in these situations, assuming that the children involved would not have to contribute at the same level. It really brought home the idea of family as a community, and not just the parents bringing in supplies and income. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; What is the main argument of Stansell&amp;#039;s work?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Connection&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; How do the sections of reading today connect to the understand we established yesterday between the diffrence between the ideal and the practical family system?&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Neighborhood&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The concept of the  neighborhood and its effect on working class women was a concept in Chapter 3 that I found extremely important.  The argument of Stansell is that working-class neighborhoods gave women leverage in their dealings with men and was the &amp;quot;court system&amp;quot; of urban working class society.  Although there was no glorifying physical aspect of the neighborhood,  the idea that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;aid to neighbors structured expectations of reciprocal help&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was the accepted tradition among the working class. -Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think the thesis of Stansell&amp;#039;s work is that although the role and class structure of women in 19th century urban society varied, they all shared an accepted inequality to men.  I think the argument also breaks down the class structure of all men and women in urban society and it describes how the lifestyle of working class women contrasted with those of the middle class.  Clearly there was much more freedom for women living in the upper echelon of urban society, yet they were also still subjected to a defined and accepted role that was unequal to their male counterparts. -Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Standards&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It seemed to me that the women in these chapters were dealing with standards they would never be able to achieve. How would it be possible for these women to scrounge for enough money to try and make ends meet for themselves and their families, while also finding it necessary to wear the CLOTHES to seem acceptable in society&amp;#039;s eyes? I realize I&amp;#039;ve been saying this a lot lately in these wiki entries, but I dunno if I would even have it in me to get out of bed in the morning with that kind of pressure on me. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Domestic Service&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  I think chapter 8 touches on a very big transition for women and the family, namely the strong shift towards domestic service.  With an influx of immigrants there was an abundance of domestic servants.  As it became fashionable to have servants, the family experienced a change.  I think that this is a big transition for the family because middle class families now included an extra member or members, the servants.  This certainly changed the role of women in relation to household duties and child care.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Children&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I am still amazed at how important the role of children was in working class families.  I understand that they needed to work in order to help provide support for the family but it never really occurred to me to what extent or how hard they had to work to help their families.  They had to put in just as much effort and work as their parents.  I guess part of me didn&amp;#039;t want to believe that these children would be put in that situation.  It is kind of depressing, but it really shows how close it could pull the family together. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-05T01:27:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In Chapter 3 it talked about child labor in urban areas.  I found this very interesting to look at the differences between child labor in the midwest like we talked about earlier and child labor in urban areas.  This was very different from the urban family &amp;quot;ideal.&amp;quot;  Not only were children working in factories to help &amp;quot;earn their keep&amp;quot;, but older children were raising younger children so their mothers could work longer hours.  This once again proves that the ideal was never the norm.  It&amp;#039;s really interesting to read how different living situations affected family life. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Chapter 8 about Domestic Service.  It was interesting to read about the shift to immigrant workers and how women used immigrant workers to gain status in society.  Previously, mistresses were used to help the lady of the house out with domestic chores.  However, when issues of status came into effect, women started making their mistresses do everything.  Also, it was more respected to have an immigrant worker do everything so the lady of the house could do things such as read and other leizure activities. It sounds like women are trying to gain some independence and superiority by ordering around their servants. --Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Children&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  It just struck home again as to how vital children were to the working class economy.  They were errand-runners, scavengers, domestic workers and wage earners.  Without them, many working class families would not have, or did not, survive in urban areas like New York.  If the mother was able to stay home children were emissaries to the outside world, running errands to buy things, or scavenging them to save their family a few pennies, perhaps they were even sent outside the home to earn money for the family.  And yet, the middle class and upper class residents of the city did not deign to see that without these children the working class family would have collapsed and their lives of relative comfort and security would not have been possible.  Even working class families were not always able to appreciate their children because they did not meet their standards of production, thus the House of Refuge.  There are an incredible number of dynamics that affect the lives of children in such a place, so many that it seems a number of them were lost to the people who were there for the experience. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Domestic Service.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I have to say, that Chapter 8 gave me some new insights that I didn&amp;#039;t know beforehand.  One of the main things that was new to me was that even though there were so many new immigrants, and so much overcrowding, according to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;City of Women&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, young women who worked in domestic service had enough leverage to negotiate their terms of service because demand for them was so high.  This amazed me with the types of negotiations mentioned, and threats they used to get their way.  Granted, I doubt it worked every time, but it must have been nice having some say in what they would and would not do. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Children.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  The part of the excerpt from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;City of Women&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that discussed what the children&amp;#039;s roles in family were actually kind of amazed me.  I mean I always figured those old enough to walk around, but too young to do wage worked helped somewhere, I just never really thought of how.  The scavenging that some of them did is just amazing.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scavenging&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The bits in chapter 3 about scavenging really blew me away. Throughout this entire section, I kept picturing The Kid from Dick Tracy (yes, The Kid in capital letters. I checked it on IMDB to be sure) before he gets rescued. I think we tend to take the immense responsibility of the parents for granted in these situations, assuming that the children involved would not have to contribute at the same level. It really brought home the idea of family as a community, and not just the parents bringing in supplies and income. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; What is the main argument of Stansell&amp;#039;s work?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Connection&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; How do the sections of reading today connect to the understand we established yesterday between the diffrence between the ideal and the practical family system?&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Neighborhood&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The concept of the  neighborhood and its effect on working class women was a concept in Chapter 3 that I found extremely important.  The argument of Stansell is that working-class neighborhoods gave women leverage in their dealings with men and was the &amp;quot;court system&amp;quot; of urban working class society.  Although there was no glorifying physical aspect of the neighborhood,  the idea that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;aid to neighbors structured expectations of reciprocal help&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was the accepted tradition among the working class. -Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think the thesis of Stansell&amp;#039;s work is that although the role and class structure of women in 19th century urban society varied, they all shared an accepted inequality to men.  I think the argument also breaks down the class structure of all men and women in urban society and it describes how the lifestyle of working class women contrasted with those of the middle class.  Clearly there was much more freedom for women living in the upper echelon of urban society, yet they were also still subjected to a defined and accepted role that was unequal to their male counterparts. -Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Standards&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It seemed to me that the women in these chapters were dealing with standards they would never be able to achieve. How would it be possible for these women to scrounge for enough money to try and make ends meet for themselves and their families, while also finding it necessary to wear the CLOTHES to seem acceptable in society&amp;#039;s eyes? I realize I&amp;#039;ve been saying this a lot lately in these wiki entries, but I dunno if I would even have it in me to get out of bed in the morning with that kind of pressure on me. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Domestic Service&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  I think chapter 8 touches on a very big transition for women and the family, namely the strong shift towards domestic service.  With an influx of immigrants there was an abundance of domestic servants.  As it became fashionable to have servants, the family experienced a change.  I think that this is a big transition for the family because middle class families now included an extra member or members, the servants.  This certainly changed the role of women in relation to household duties and child care.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&amp;quot;Children&amp;quot;&amp;quot; I am still amazed at how important the role of children was in working class families.  I understand that they needed to work in order to help provide support for the family but it never really occurred to me to what extent or how hard they had to work to help their families.  They had to put in just as much effort and work as their parents.  I guess part of me didn&amp;#039;t want to believe that these children would be put in that situation.  It is kind of depressing, but it really shows how close it could pull the family together. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2009-02-05T01:20:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Charles Dew, Slave Ironworkers in Virginia */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Susan Danly, The Railroad in American Art ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Susan Danly’s article tracing the railroad in American art, it seems like art was definitely used as one of the primary sources of propaganda and advertising during this time. It mentions how painters were often asked to paint the scenic lure of the railroad as well as how nature and industry kind of combined into this idealistic view of how people could use and overcome sources of nature. One that stood out to me as a show of this idealized harmonization between nature and the industrial railroad was “The Delaware Water Gap” which implied the railroad as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“…to float upon this tide” seems to be a good example of how technology and development are only necessary when they are deemed so by society. The author points out how only a few years ago (previous to 1870) the land was more natural and not as controlled by people and technology. Those who lived there did so contently. However, with the prospect of the railroad and higher level of “civilization” that has been reached, it is far less desirable to live how the pioneers once did “with his axe and rifle as his sole companions,” (198). In the time that this author is writing, in order to be successful, technology has become a necessity. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Danly&amp;#039;s article really made me think about differing opinions on the integration of the railroad. The railroad can be seen as &amp;quot;progress of capitalism,&amp;quot; but not everyone wanted this. Various artists and Americans reacted in different ways in regards to embracing or criticizing the railroad&amp;#039;s implementation. I think it important to remember when talking about these technological inventions that they were not always immediately accepted.  -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have little experience interpreting art, let alone introducing it as a learning tool for historical purposes. Susan Danly&amp;#039;s writing style in this piece made it easy to match the historical thought to the art that was portrayed at the time. This is great interdisciplinary literature and I gained more understanding about art and history. The reading also related well to the primary documents in our text book. The culture shift and reaction to it was clearly portrayed in news articles and art forms, which shows the passionate opinions the American public had on industrialization and mechanization. -Kirsten Walleck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found that Danly&amp;#039;s writing on the art and it&amp;#039;s relationship to history was interesting and important. I have done quite a bit of art analysis in the past, but she does explain it well and I got some new ideas about it. I agree with Kirsten when she says that the culture shift was portrayed through the art and other media. It&amp;#039;s a good way for people all over to see how everyone in the nation feels. Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Charles Dew, Slave Ironworkers in Virginia ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;overwork&amp;quot; system was used by Weaver - he tried to give incentives to slaves that went beyond the minimum amount of production. As skilled laborers, slaves such as Weaver&amp;#039;s iron workers were valuable and less easily replaced, so cruel treatment of slaves was less likely. I think this was really interesting that in this case it seems that technology helped the slaves get better treatment and working conditions (or at least an opportunity to make some money). - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was rather taken back by the &amp;quot;overwork&amp;quot; system. Taken back meaning that I have not heard much about workers getting &amp;quot;overtime&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;overwork&amp;quot; in my past reading. I think it was a good thing, also the fact that there was not much physical abuse by the owner on the slaves. I guess the job was hard and dangerous enough without the extra abuse. I also was pleased to see that a slave family could do well for itself. It&amp;#039;s a shame that others did not follow Weaver&amp;#039;s example but not beating the slaves and using positive incentives to get more out of them. I say a happy worker is a productive worker.-Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The essay Slave Ironworkers in Virginia reinforces the same idea from Douglass’ essay that having skills as a slave can give you an advantage. A good question that Charles Dew brings up in the last paragraph is which is better, resistance, running away, and confrontation which could lead to being beaten or sold. Or, is it better to maneuver as best you can within the system to have the best possible life despite the physical and psychological confines of enslavement? I think that Douglass’ article would argue that the former would be better because no matter what, you are still a slave, and freedom is the ultimate goal. For Dew’s article, I think that the latter would be the best possible choice. It really goes into the life of Sam William, how he became a skilled ironworker and was able to over produce for his owner and make his own profit. With this, he was able to provide a good life for his family and keep them from being sold. The idea was, if you are a hard worker and you can get incentives there is no reason for you to try to go against your owner, and therefore your owner wont sell your family, and wont physically harm you. I don’t think there is a right or a wrong answer.  - Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how most of Charles Dew&amp;#039;s piece makes it seem as though slaves had a good life and then at the end there is a reminder of their condition of forced servitude when William Green runs away and is caught and sold. Some of the slaves, especially Sam Williams, did the best that they could under the given circumstances, and were probably in a better economic situation than if they had been freed, but there is no doubt that freedom would have been preferred. Sam used his leverage to ensure himself a higher standard of living, but this was no replacement for freedom, especially when there were everyday reminders of enslavement. - Karen Siegmund&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading Charles Dew&amp;#039;s essay made me wonder if this &amp;#039;pay for overwork&amp;#039; happened in any other types of industry such as maybe garment making for women. I agree with Karen, when she mentioned how Dew makes it seem like slaves, or at least skilled slaves, had a &amp;#039;good&amp;#039; life at first but then raises the questions about resisting the system versus maneuvering through it. Also the sections about what Sam Williams Jr bought for his family is very interesting not only in the fact that he was able to aquire these items but the pricing of them in 1850s. For instance, the 8 3/4 yds of fabric that he bought for his daughter for 1.75 sounds pretty good considering one is lucky if they find fabric that is $1.75/yard. -Lauren Milner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dew&amp;#039;s essay presents the idea of positive reinforcement in regard to slave treatment. His final question proposes two options slaves had. They could resist their masters and actively oppose the system they were a part of in order to gain complete freedom, or they could attempt to maneuver within their limited freedoms in order to earn as much freedom as possible. Knowing slavery&amp;#039;s eventual outcome, the question is easier to answer, but how would a slave conceptualize his choices during the height of slavery in the South? For some, I&amp;#039;m sure that resistance was the best option. If you could see no end to your life as a slave, actively opposing your master in order to change your surroundings would have been a good choice. However, Dew shows us that by working with your master, rather than against him, slaves were able to create more agency for themselves. For Dew, any form of freedom (gained by &amp;#039;overwork&amp;#039; earning pay) was better than none at all. - Lon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article defiantly shed more light on the concept introduced in Douglass&amp;#039; essay.  It can be a good thing to have certain skills as a slave. However, having a skill can not always be a good thing.  In this particular article, having a skill really seemed to benefit Dew. I wonder how many other cases were similar to this one? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Primary Sources on Steam, Space and a New World Order ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The articles about the first railroads really portrayed a controversy over railroads, which seemed to be a double-edged sword for those at the time. The first article spoke about how the steam locomotion was really a basis for our national identity. It cause the nation to be liberalized and bound together by trade and commerce, it was a means of excitement and unity. Charles Fraser brought up another side to this theory. Based off of his article it shows that the idea of the railroad as a unifying and harmonious force is a utopic idea and that there are negative aspects that would come out of it. He specifically speaks of the widening gap between the rich and the poor that was a result of the railroads. He also brings up the fact that the railroads meant the destruction of life and property. Further articles showed how the railroads accelerated the forced removal of Native Americans and the extinction of the buffalo. Do you think that it was worth it? Had canals been chosen as the preferred mode of transportation, would that mean the same repercussions for the Native Americans and the buffalo.  - Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Editorial about Railroads and Missionaries, I found what the writer said to be interesting and slightly ironic. He is putting down the religious folks who feel money (apparently American money) should be directed to the conversion of the world instead of building things like railroads. The writer points out that without technology being developed, like the railroad, missionaries would not be able to reach their audiences, which is a good point. However, he takes it a step further in saying that &amp;#039;railroads and railroads alone&amp;#039; are what will civilize India and China and bring &amp;#039;proper&amp;#039; Christianity to people etc. This is where the writer starts grasping as railroads bringing missionaries and Bibles probably wouldn&amp;#039;t singlehandedly stop massacres from occurring. In fact, as the next excerpt on buffalo and the railroad points out, railroads and other technology can actually help to start massacres. In this instance, railroads brought whites to Native American land and helped to destroy entire ways of life. Obviously there is the question of to what end should progress be pushed in the whole early American technology phase.- Lauren Milner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-02T23:40:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Boydston */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Cross-Document Questions/Comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Comparison&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  I thought the differences in the use of sources was very interesting.  Boydston used a lot of numerical data and analysis thereof to formulate an understanding of the meaning of being a poor woman in American cities.  Stansell on the other hand seems to be using other sorts of records, including first hand accounts of people who were living in New York at the time.  I found it fascinating to look at the similar outcomes that came from these two different methods of study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Boydston ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Invisibility:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Boydston talks about how the woman&amp;#039;s contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than in the mid 1800s. For example, a man reported in 1830 that &amp;quot;Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking.&amp;quot; Today we would not even think to comment on this. For instance, if a guy is a banker, we just assume that all of his income comes from banking. So, I would guess that this notion of &amp;#039;wage equals family subsistence&amp;#039; is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman&amp;#039;s contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Inequality:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Boydston talks about the impact of a worker&amp;#039;s wage being equated to his family subsistence. He mentions that employers would often talk about paying employees a certain amount because that is what they needed to support their families. This made me think about how women are typically paid less than men to do the same jobs. I suspect that the reasoning behind this is that women are either single, which means they probably have no kids and therefore don&amp;#039;t need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands&amp;#039; incomes and therefore don&amp;#039;t need to make as much. Men, on the other hand, can justify needing to be paid more because they are, ostensibly, supporting a family, or are saving up money to do so in future. I think that the issues that Boydston explores are still very relevant for women today, because the belief that men are supposed to be the primary, if not the sole, providers for families, and the belief that wages equate to subsistence, are beliefs that still hurt women&amp;#039;s earning potential today.  -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wanted to add to Rebecca&amp;#039;s first comment on the non-wage-earning woman because I think that there are other factors that play in.  To some extent the housewife&amp;#039;s role is more appreciated, because it means that their family is well-enough off to be able to afford to have a family member who does not earn an external income.  Also, there is the factor that the wife is willing to not work in order to take care of the household and any young children.  In both cases, I think the work of the homemaker is appreciated, but at the same time I think they are overlooked or dismissed because women now have the option of working outside the home and not being seen as amoral or pretending above their station.  I think many of these women would be passed off as not being able to stand up for themselves or able to support themselves outside of the nuclear family structure. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the role of none-wage-earning women is hard to compare to today.  Gender equality was not nearly as evolved as it is today and equality in the workplace is something women in the 1800s did not experience.  The contributions women made then and make today are very different as well.  I don&amp;#039;t think as many working-class wives and mothers today need to scavenge the docks for shoes or scrape flour out of an old barrel.  However this essay tells us of where women fit in with the transition to family wages and we know how important they were.  What I don&amp;#039;t understand is how men in some families could witness women&amp;#039;s contributions and still think they spent &amp;quot;more time trifling than a baby&amp;quot;? -Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To also comment on the non-wage-earning women, I also feel that there is growing acceptance now that housewives do work as well, that its not all fun and games.  Taking care of a household (cooking, cleaning, maintaining), taking care of any pet(s) there are/maybe in the household, along with taking care of her husband is actually a lot of work.  Its usually unpaid work, but I&amp;#039;ve heard of some husbands who give their wife part of his wages to spend as she wants (for little trifles she may want) that don&amp;#039;t come out of the normal family budget.  From reading Boydston&amp;#039;s article, I think its made clear that even though the housewife&amp;#039;s work was becoming more invisible it was still very important for her to do what she did because it saved the family money here and there, or in some cases also earned a little extra money.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Obligation&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; To what extent does Boydston provide evidence that the tasks performed by wifes were seen as obligations?  What evidence does she give? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Marx&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I find Boydston&amp;#039;s crtique of Marxism as fundemental to her understanding of the role and definition of subsistence in a family.  Does Boydston do a fair job in showing that housewives&amp;#039; labor was distinctive enough to be reconized outside of the typical Marxist analysis? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I the statement that the made the most sense to me was that the reason industrial capitalism grew was because of the denial of the economic value of housework.  This really seemed to make a lot of sense to me. It seemed that as long as men had control over the family&amp;#039;s income women would never truly be considered able to contribute to the family&amp;#039;s economic growth.  While they do accept the fact that women do work at home, such as, caring for the children or cooking and cleaning, they still hold the belief that their work had little to no economic value. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz &amp;amp; Kellogg ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Homestead&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; How does the Homestead example used by Mintz and Kellogg provide a good/bad example of the work life, hours, wages, lifestyle, and living standards of American working families at this time in history? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Destruction&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Do you agree with Carroll Wright (pg. 85) who maintained that the factory system destroys family life? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Immigration&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; What are the fundemental diffrences outlined by Mintz and Kellogg regarding immigrant families and those who were already established in this country? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stansell ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exert from Stansell&amp;#039;s book brings up a lot of the same point that I recall reading in Boydston&amp;#039;s article.  First of all, the poor section of the city was overcrowded, with filthy housing and living conditions, and bad sanitary problems.  Both also spoke of the disease epidemics that hit and spread in these areas from the bad sanitation conditions.  However, Boydston&amp;#039;s article seemed to exalt and shine light onto the lives of the non-wage-earner woman, while Stansell&amp;#039;s book exert made it sound like women were help to be pieces of crap that were evil and sinful and men could do whatever they wanted to women because women provided little to nothing for the household, even if they did manage to earn some kind of wage... at least that&amp;#039;s how I felt after reading it... --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Republic&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; How did &amp;quot;Republican ideas of government, authority, and power,&amp;quot; support already familiar justifications of sexual hierarchies?  That is to say &amp;quot;in a republican culture which placed the independence of the male citizen at its zenith,&amp;quot; how did the dependent status of women effect this era in understanding the family? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Debauchery&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; In the Bedlow/Sawyer rape trial it is argued that the girl should have been better attuned to the &amp;quot;etiquette of debauchery.&amp;quot;  Is this not both an example of the gender gap but also the inherent flaw of that gap? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Republican Motherhood:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Stansell points out other factors that related to the changing family situation.  The influx of immigrants, post-Revolution conditions, rise of the city, and economic and gender expectations all played a role in the change in family structure.  It seems though that &amp;quot;republican motherhood&amp;quot; did not apply to women outside the middle class, and in fact, lower-class women were looked down upon for not being able to be educators.  Also, as we discussed in class, the advent of American patriotism coincided with a new American family.  Stansell mentions how women craftworkers banded together to stop the importation of British goods.--Amanda&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2009-01-29T04:04:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Cross-Document Questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I was reading about the slaves, freemen, and women workers I started to think about some of my own jobs and the treatments I have had to endure in the 20th century. I could not imagine what it was like to work under those harsh conditions. Funny enough though piece work and sweat shops are still around today and people are still exploited. Sucks but it is true. People still fight for better hours, pay, and working conditions as did those back many years. Machines or new technology seemed to be a scary concept for the skilled craftsmen or artisan. It also seemed sometimes as new machines were introduced more problems for the worker arose. Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that most of the readings implied that the rapid expansion of technology often was paired with a decrease in (or at least a new strain on) workers rights. This is embodied in the Harper&amp;#039;s Ferry piece with the class struggle, and also in the Beaten in Blatimore Shipyard dealing with racial tensions. This rapid growth in technology really ended up dehumanizing the workers. As mentioned in Gender and Papermaking pg 161, there was a new pressure for workers to keep a fast pace, and there was a decrease in conditions. - Elle &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that another important aspect about new technology in factories is that it really stripped the laborers of their value - they no longer used or really even owned their own tools - thus they were at the mercy of greedy owners and hence tensions erupted. pg 183. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle&amp;#039;s point about industry. I was surprised that the more technology thrived and advanced the less attention was paid to the rights of the workers. If I think about it I guess I can understand why this happened; machines are doing the work and now industries care more about the machines rather than the work that runs the machine. It was different when industry relied on skilled workers to perform a task, but once machines began to take over the craftsmen positions, those machines became the focal point of the industry. I guess I never really paid much attention to this topic or issue... -- Jimmy Conroy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part about this reading was the surprise on behalf of the factory when the workers began to strike.  It just amuses me that they thought their working conditions were wonderful and didn&amp;#039;t understand why someone would ever want to strike.  But also, I think it&amp;#039;s important to note when the General says that the men can be replaced easily as if they were just machines themselves.  We learn that they believed that factory workers could be replaced with little to no effort but this is an actual instance when the workers were threatened with it.  I&amp;#039;m surprised they held their ground after that.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I really like this reading.  It really showed the difference of opinions between the workers and those in charge. It is much closer to reality, the boss always seems to think things are better than they really are. The workers really had to fight hard to stand up for themselves so that they would not be replaced.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece very depressing and shocking. Douglass remembered the incident in grave detail and I did not enjoy reading the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;fight scene,&amp;#039;&amp;#039; as I will call it. The second to last paragraph gave a little light on the situation as he learned a skilled trade, but the end of the recollection fizzled that out all together. I liked how he compared his situation to that of &amp;quot;the grim-visaged pirate upon the high seas.&amp;quot; However, that statement leaves the reader with an even more depressing view of his situation and race relations in 1835. Frederick Douglass of course wrote this for the purpose of shock as well as education and he succeeded. -Kirsten Walleck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things that stood out to me the most in Douglass&amp;#039; story was when the white carpenters suddenly decided to abandon their work until Gardner fired the blacks. The idea that blacks would replace poor whites in certain economic spheres undoubtedly contributed to this decision. I find all of this fascinating because in the first few centuries of the existence of the &amp;quot;New World,&amp;quot; Europeans generally worked well amongst Native Americans and blacks. Intermarriage was more frequent, and relationships formed through shared experiences (i.e. the workplace). However, as time progressed European-Americans became increasingly fanatical about preserving their ethnic identities as slavery became associated with one&amp;#039;s color through legislative acts and as Europeans no longer needed the assistance of Native Americans to survive in the &amp;quot;New World.&amp;quot; Although Douglass&amp;#039; incident is not directly related to the trends listed above, he is clearly indirectly effected like so many other blacks and Native Americans through the assertion of the WASP mentality that began to permeate society in the 18th and 19th centuries. -Bryan Lees&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The essay “Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard” by Frederick Douglass shows the importance of skill, even as a slave. His story begins in the shipyard of Mr. Gardner where he was supposed to learn calking, however due to a rushed order by the Mexican government for ships, he ended up doing whatever anyone needed at any given time. The whites feared that once blacks gained a skill, they would take jobs from the whites. Due to this fear, the whites threatened to quit and Douglass ended up badly beaten. &lt;br /&gt;
Master Hugh owned Douglas, and when he learned of what happened he allowed Douglas to work for Mr. Price where he was taught calking. In a year he was able to command high wages and sought his own employment. This shows how far a skill could get you at that time. -Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be different from those who already commented on this essay. While I find it depressing, I also find it inspirational to those who were in the same position. I realize that it isn&amp;#039;t easy to gain a skill and those who are qualified and willing to give a black or a slave a skill are limited. But at the same time it shows how far a skill can get you, even if you have to give your wages to a master, at least you are making your own work and able to demand a wage and know that you are worth something. Is that not comparable to how it is today? -Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read the other essays just as an assigned reading, but this essay drew my attention much more.  The last paragraph Douglas describes how he feels &amp;quot;compelled&amp;quot; to give his master his wages.  It is as if no matter the kindness his maters gave him, he felt that they were &amp;#039;pirates&amp;#039; who stole from him.  He felt that this act was immoral. --Maggie Wroe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Maggie, I felt that when Master Hugh became livid that Douglass was harassed and beaten to an inch of his life, that it wasn&amp;#039;t so much for the wrong doing that happened to Douglass as much that he could have lost his slave, the person who worked for him and gave him his weekly earnings. -Melissa Graham&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just found this reading so depressing. I was however, surprised at the skill that Douglass was able to master, even while the poor white were against him. It still surprises me that they would want to give that much skill to a black person. Wouldnt they rather the poor whites had the skill? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the women described in the Gender and Papermaking piece weren&amp;#039;t rushed by the new output and machinery (and I don&amp;#039;t really understand how that is the case). - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Elle, it seemed that the work that was done by women wasn&amp;#039;t necessarily tied directly to the machinery. They sorted and cut rags, so their work was more dependent on quality not quantity. But at the same time I see your point, because in theory the quantity produced by the machines should increase, so you would think they would get behind and the quality would decline as a result. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When looking at the different technologies that have evolved over time, the selection/rejection process is examined as well as the impact. But, as Judith Mcgaw seems to point out, the human experience is more often left out. We study the impacts of new machines on general social, economic, or political trends. But the creation of machines has different impacts on different individuals as well. Mcgaw points out “improved machines subjected workmen to a more hectic pace, longer hours, and periodic unemployment. Moreover, unlike earlier paper makers, machine tenders and many of their fellow male employees risked being killed or maimed.” I think she also does a good job in addressing the more distinct separations that arise in the male and female work industry as a result of the rise of mechanization. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found to be the most interesting part of this essay was not about gender. On page 160-161 Mcgaw discusses the impact of machines on paper mill workers. She notes, &amp;quot;Machines did not replace workers, reduce their level of skill, or subdivide their tasks.&amp;quot; However, the machines did increase output of the small number of skilled laborers. This section of the reading that Jessica also pointed out changed my outlook on mechanization. I feel as if we mostly discuss how mechanization took away the need of skilled workers and made tasks simple only requiring awareness. In contrast, Mcgaw claims that in this profession, mechanization &amp;quot;multiplied jobs for skilled paper workers,&amp;quot; who were trained while preforming less skilled tasks. So the mechanization trained new skilled workers and utilized the existing workers. Although Mcgaw continues by discussing the deterioration of work conditions, she also notes that there is some improvement in that as well. This just put a different spin on the topic for me. -Kirsten Walleck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with Kirsten, I found that the interesting part of this essay dealt not with gender. What I found interesting was the detailed description of the working conditions that the men and women had to deal with in paper mills. The hot damp rooms would breed all sorts of bacteria and fungi, I&amp;#039;m sure of it. On page 162 McGraw writes, &amp;quot;accidents involving paper-making machines, rag cutters, and machine shop tools caused fewer fatalities, but affected more workers, most of whom lost fingers, hands, or arms.&amp;quot; This sums up that the working conditions for the paper mill workers were harsh. Dealing with the gender issue of the article, McGraw later writes that men would use the loss of a finger as a way to scale his manliness for he would be able to find ways around his handicap and keep working. That I found interesting. - Melissa Graham  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the sections comparing men and women in the paper industry to be the most enlightening. For instance, it is common knowledge that men earned more than women but McGaw provided some numbers. While less than 5% of men working in the mills earned less than $6 per week, 70% of women earned less than that amount. However, women&amp;#039;s hours did not go up, nor did their working conditions change from a pre-industrial setting. Men worked alone but women worked in groups. Women&amp;#039;s most common danger in the workplace was not from machinery but from working around dangerous substances in the rag room. -Lauren Milner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Judith McGaw’s article title Gender and Papermaking because she touches on one question that has been in the back of my head for some time. She makes a point to show that we study the impact of inventions on our history. How that machine changed American industry or even our lives today, but we usually look over the impact that invention had on the person who invented it. This is a key to the study of any invention and I think it also sheds more light on the invention itself. – Jimmy Conroy   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The part of this essay that I found most interesting was McGaw&amp;#039;s description of the relationships between male employers and employees. So often we associate this area of history with the &amp;quot;us vs. them&amp;quot; mentality and this seems to have become the dominant historical narrative. Yet Smith gives numerous examples of how male employers and employees bonded with one another over notions of manhood, through pranking, and establishing personal &amp;quot;man to man&amp;quot; contracts with one another. While it&amp;#039;s undeniable that employers exploited their employees in numerous ways, it would be a mistake to assume that, despite increasing alienation in the factories, men did not value their &amp;quot;skilled&amp;quot; labor that they held in common with one another and that their employers needed in order to maintain factory production. -Bryan Lees&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the concept of equality based on shared masculinity is interesting. A sense of equality was reached and was not like other boss/worker relationships in which the boss is in a clear position of power and lords it over the employees. It also made protests more individualized. Workers were more likely to have control over their circumstances and to have their issues addressed because of their relative equality, which kept large-scale protests down. - Karen Siegmund&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In “The Political Economy of Pacing” it seems to me like technology and mechanization were actually detrimental to the amount of work that got accomplished. When these advancements occur, it is so that more can be produced at the same rate. However, unless I’m miss-interpreting the article it sounds like the workers used technology to complete the same amount of work in less time. So counter-intuitively, the mechanization of processes wasn’t as economically advantageous as it could have been given the mindset of the workers utilizing the new equipment.  Is that basically what this author is getting at? –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would agree with you Jessica that the amount of work that got done using machines or some other new technology was close to the same as without it. I supose in the early years you would have a lot of down time with new technology so things did not get done as fast. That really can&amp;#039;t be said for now in the 21st century. I would think as new technology came in people would not want to use it correctly, kinda like making the machine look bad, and say see we don&amp;#039;t need it in an effort to save their jobs. Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed in this essay, along with the counter-intuitive nature mechanization seemed to have at first, was the interactions between employers and employees. Smith compares it to the relationship between slaves and masters in the South, which I guess makes sense as there really was no labor rights at this time. The bosses were still able to work their employees to the bone but workers still were able to determine where they worked or how they worked, apparently much like slaves did, and could get away with it. -Lauren Milner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was quite surprised at Smith&amp;#039;s argument highlighting slaves&amp;#039; agency in the Slave-Slaveholder relationship. This is my first U.S. History class at UMW, so it may be common knowledge to others, but I had never thought about slaves having negotiating power when it came to their work. However, as Smith explains, it makes perfect sense. Slaves were in large demand, but short supply. By having a &amp;quot;push-and-pull&amp;quot; relationship, slave owners were able to capitalize on free labor without sacrificing their investment. - Lon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to explore the extent to which slaves exercised their limited agency. Where they aware of their high demand and the large sums owners had invested in them? To what extend did they communicate amongst other slaves in order to get more from their owners? - Lon&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2009-01-29T04:00:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Strike at Harpers Ferry */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Cross-Document Questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I was reading about the slaves, freemen, and women workers I started to think about some of my own jobs and the treatments I have had to endure in the 20th century. I could not imagine what it was like to work under those harsh conditions. Funny enough though piece work and sweat shops are still around today and people are still exploited. Sucks but it is true. People still fight for better hours, pay, and working conditions as did those back many years. Machines or new technology seemed to be a scary concept for the skilled craftsmen or artisan. It also seemed sometimes as new machines were introduced more problems for the worker arose. Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that most of the readings implied that the rapid expansion of technology often was paired with a decrease in (or at least a new strain on) workers rights. This is embodied in the Harper&amp;#039;s Ferry piece with the class struggle, and also in the Beaten in Blatimore Shipyard dealing with racial tensions. This rapid growth in technology really ended up dehumanizing the workers. As mentioned in Gender and Papermaking pg 161, there was a new pressure for workers to keep a fast pace, and there was a decrease in conditions. - Elle &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that another important aspect about new technology in factories is that it really stripped the laborers of their value - they no longer used or really even owned their own tools - thus they were at the mercy of greedy owners and hence tensions erupted. pg 183. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle&amp;#039;s point about industry. I was surprised that the more technology thrived and advanced the less attention was paid to the rights of the workers. If I think about it I guess I can understand why this happened; machines are doing the work and now industries care more about the machines rather than the work that runs the machine. It was different when industry relied on skilled workers to perform a task, but once machines began to take over the craftsmen positions, those machines became the focal point of the industry. I guess I never really paid much attention to this topic or issue... -- Jimmy Conroy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part about this reading was the surprise on behalf of the factory when the workers began to strike.  It just amuses me that they thought their working conditions were wonderful and didn&amp;#039;t understand why someone would ever want to strike.  But also, I think it&amp;#039;s important to note when the General says that the men can be replaced easily as if they were just machines themselves.  We learn that they believed that factory workers could be replaced with little to no effort but this is an actual instance when the workers were threatened with it.  I&amp;#039;m surprised they held their ground after that.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I really like this reading.  It really showed the difference of opinions between the workers and those in charge. It is much closer to reality, the boss always seems to think things are better than they really are. The workers really had to fight hard to stand up for themselves so that they would not be replaced.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece very depressing and shocking. Douglass remembered the incident in grave detail and I did not enjoy reading the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;fight scene,&amp;#039;&amp;#039; as I will call it. The second to last paragraph gave a little light on the situation as he learned a skilled trade, but the end of the recollection fizzled that out all together. I liked how he compared his situation to that of &amp;quot;the grim-visaged pirate upon the high seas.&amp;quot; However, that statement leaves the reader with an even more depressing view of his situation and race relations in 1835. Frederick Douglass of course wrote this for the purpose of shock as well as education and he succeeded. -Kirsten Walleck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things that stood out to me the most in Douglass&amp;#039; story was when the white carpenters suddenly decided to abandon their work until Gardner fired the blacks. The idea that blacks would replace poor whites in certain economic spheres undoubtedly contributed to this decision. I find all of this fascinating because in the first few centuries of the existence of the &amp;quot;New World,&amp;quot; Europeans generally worked well amongst Native Americans and blacks. Intermarriage was more frequent, and relationships formed through shared experiences (i.e. the workplace). However, as time progressed European-Americans became increasingly fanatical about preserving their ethnic identities as slavery became associated with one&amp;#039;s color through legislative acts and as Europeans no longer needed the assistance of Native Americans to survive in the &amp;quot;New World.&amp;quot; Although Douglass&amp;#039; incident is not directly related to the trends listed above, he is clearly indirectly effected like so many other blacks and Native Americans through the assertion of the WASP mentality that began to permeate society in the 18th and 19th centuries. -Bryan Lees&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The essay “Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard” by Frederick Douglass shows the importance of skill, even as a slave. His story begins in the shipyard of Mr. Gardner where he was supposed to learn calking, however due to a rushed order by the Mexican government for ships, he ended up doing whatever anyone needed at any given time. The whites feared that once blacks gained a skill, they would take jobs from the whites. Due to this fear, the whites threatened to quit and Douglass ended up badly beaten. &lt;br /&gt;
Master Hugh owned Douglas, and when he learned of what happened he allowed Douglas to work for Mr. Price where he was taught calking. In a year he was able to command high wages and sought his own employment. This shows how far a skill could get you at that time. -Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be different from those who already commented on this essay. While I find it depressing, I also find it inspirational to those who were in the same position. I realize that it isn&amp;#039;t easy to gain a skill and those who are qualified and willing to give a black or a slave a skill are limited. But at the same time it shows how far a skill can get you, even if you have to give your wages to a master, at least you are making your own work and able to demand a wage and know that you are worth something. Is that not comparable to how it is today? -Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read the other essays just as an assigned reading, but this essay drew my attention much more.  The last paragraph Douglas describes how he feels &amp;quot;compelled&amp;quot; to give his master his wages.  It is as if no matter the kindness his maters gave him, he felt that they were &amp;#039;pirates&amp;#039; who stole from him.  He felt that this act was immoral. --Maggie Wroe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Maggie, I felt that when Master Hugh became livid that Douglass was harassed and beaten to an inch of his life, that it wasn&amp;#039;t so much for the wrong doing that happened to Douglass as much that he could have lost his slave, the person who worked for him and gave him his weekly earnings. -Melissa Graham&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the women described in the Gender and Papermaking piece weren&amp;#039;t rushed by the new output and machinery (and I don&amp;#039;t really understand how that is the case). - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Elle, it seemed that the work that was done by women wasn&amp;#039;t necessarily tied directly to the machinery. They sorted and cut rags, so their work was more dependent on quality not quantity. But at the same time I see your point, because in theory the quantity produced by the machines should increase, so you would think they would get behind and the quality would decline as a result. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When looking at the different technologies that have evolved over time, the selection/rejection process is examined as well as the impact. But, as Judith Mcgaw seems to point out, the human experience is more often left out. We study the impacts of new machines on general social, economic, or political trends. But the creation of machines has different impacts on different individuals as well. Mcgaw points out “improved machines subjected workmen to a more hectic pace, longer hours, and periodic unemployment. Moreover, unlike earlier paper makers, machine tenders and many of their fellow male employees risked being killed or maimed.” I think she also does a good job in addressing the more distinct separations that arise in the male and female work industry as a result of the rise of mechanization. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found to be the most interesting part of this essay was not about gender. On page 160-161 Mcgaw discusses the impact of machines on paper mill workers. She notes, &amp;quot;Machines did not replace workers, reduce their level of skill, or subdivide their tasks.&amp;quot; However, the machines did increase output of the small number of skilled laborers. This section of the reading that Jessica also pointed out changed my outlook on mechanization. I feel as if we mostly discuss how mechanization took away the need of skilled workers and made tasks simple only requiring awareness. In contrast, Mcgaw claims that in this profession, mechanization &amp;quot;multiplied jobs for skilled paper workers,&amp;quot; who were trained while preforming less skilled tasks. So the mechanization trained new skilled workers and utilized the existing workers. Although Mcgaw continues by discussing the deterioration of work conditions, she also notes that there is some improvement in that as well. This just put a different spin on the topic for me. -Kirsten Walleck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with Kirsten, I found that the interesting part of this essay dealt not with gender. What I found interesting was the detailed description of the working conditions that the men and women had to deal with in paper mills. The hot damp rooms would breed all sorts of bacteria and fungi, I&amp;#039;m sure of it. On page 162 McGraw writes, &amp;quot;accidents involving paper-making machines, rag cutters, and machine shop tools caused fewer fatalities, but affected more workers, most of whom lost fingers, hands, or arms.&amp;quot; This sums up that the working conditions for the paper mill workers were harsh. Dealing with the gender issue of the article, McGraw later writes that men would use the loss of a finger as a way to scale his manliness for he would be able to find ways around his handicap and keep working. That I found interesting. - Melissa Graham  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the sections comparing men and women in the paper industry to be the most enlightening. For instance, it is common knowledge that men earned more than women but McGaw provided some numbers. While less than 5% of men working in the mills earned less than $6 per week, 70% of women earned less than that amount. However, women&amp;#039;s hours did not go up, nor did their working conditions change from a pre-industrial setting. Men worked alone but women worked in groups. Women&amp;#039;s most common danger in the workplace was not from machinery but from working around dangerous substances in the rag room. -Lauren Milner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Judith McGaw’s article title Gender and Papermaking because she touches on one question that has been in the back of my head for some time. She makes a point to show that we study the impact of inventions on our history. How that machine changed American industry or even our lives today, but we usually look over the impact that invention had on the person who invented it. This is a key to the study of any invention and I think it also sheds more light on the invention itself. – Jimmy Conroy   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The part of this essay that I found most interesting was McGaw&amp;#039;s description of the relationships between male employers and employees. So often we associate this area of history with the &amp;quot;us vs. them&amp;quot; mentality and this seems to have become the dominant historical narrative. Yet Smith gives numerous examples of how male employers and employees bonded with one another over notions of manhood, through pranking, and establishing personal &amp;quot;man to man&amp;quot; contracts with one another. While it&amp;#039;s undeniable that employers exploited their employees in numerous ways, it would be a mistake to assume that, despite increasing alienation in the factories, men did not value their &amp;quot;skilled&amp;quot; labor that they held in common with one another and that their employers needed in order to maintain factory production. -Bryan Lees&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the concept of equality based on shared masculinity is interesting. A sense of equality was reached and was not like other boss/worker relationships in which the boss is in a clear position of power and lords it over the employees. It also made protests more individualized. Workers were more likely to have control over their circumstances and to have their issues addressed because of their relative equality, which kept large-scale protests down. - Karen Siegmund&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In “The Political Economy of Pacing” it seems to me like technology and mechanization were actually detrimental to the amount of work that got accomplished. When these advancements occur, it is so that more can be produced at the same rate. However, unless I’m miss-interpreting the article it sounds like the workers used technology to complete the same amount of work in less time. So counter-intuitively, the mechanization of processes wasn’t as economically advantageous as it could have been given the mindset of the workers utilizing the new equipment.  Is that basically what this author is getting at? –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would agree with you Jessica that the amount of work that got done using machines or some other new technology was close to the same as without it. I supose in the early years you would have a lot of down time with new technology so things did not get done as fast. That really can&amp;#039;t be said for now in the 21st century. I would think as new technology came in people would not want to use it correctly, kinda like making the machine look bad, and say see we don&amp;#039;t need it in an effort to save their jobs. Aislyn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed in this essay, along with the counter-intuitive nature mechanization seemed to have at first, was the interactions between employers and employees. Smith compares it to the relationship between slaves and masters in the South, which I guess makes sense as there really was no labor rights at this time. The bosses were still able to work their employees to the bone but workers still were able to determine where they worked or how they worked, apparently much like slaves did, and could get away with it. -Lauren Milner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was quite surprised at Smith&amp;#039;s argument highlighting slaves&amp;#039; agency in the Slave-Slaveholder relationship. This is my first U.S. History class at UMW, so it may be common knowledge to others, but I had never thought about slaves having negotiating power when it came to their work. However, as Smith explains, it makes perfect sense. Slaves were in large demand, but short supply. By having a &amp;quot;push-and-pull&amp;quot; relationship, slave owners were able to capitalize on free labor without sacrificing their investment. - Lon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to explore the extent to which slaves exercised their limited agency. Where they aware of their high demand and the large sums owners had invested in them? To what extend did they communicate amongst other slaves in order to get more from their owners? - Lon&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-01-29T03:57:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Faragher */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Faragher ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faragher says that the “Notion of born self-sufficiency should not conjure up images of isolated, impoverished farmers…” yet he created this image as well.  Where is the clarity? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe not impoverished because they were self-sufficient, so impoverished may not have entered their minds.  However, they seemed fairly isolated during the spring-fall time, except maybe in the winter they saw people as there was less work to do than in the planting, taking care of, and harvesting the crops. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think a very intresting point Faragher brought up is the role childbareing played in the female farmer&amp;#039;s role on the farm.  How is this similar/different to an understanding of work before and after childbirth elseware in location and history? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say that I did like this article because it did not paint women as having to be this picture perfect ideal woman, it was what real women did in the midwest to help support the family.  Which is awesome compared to Mintz and Kellogg who consider basically urban middle-class New Englanders the way the US was at the time.  It drives me nuts because its obvious that places in the United States was vastly different and this article is a perfect example, the women are planting crops, milking cows, feeding livestock, butchering, cooking, sewing, weaving, mending, etc.  This article I feel provides an awesome incite into what families did do to survive.  They all bucked up and did their share, however tiresome to get by, to live, to survive. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the economic aspect of this article to be particularly interesting. Faragher briefly discusses the Market Revolution, which we touched upon in class, explaining the changes in farming due to market opportunity as well as market competition. I think this is one of the first times we have really have been able to see how technology has directly influenced the family. The introduction of farm tools, particularly an evolution away from hand tools, plus the introduction of improved and more widespread transportation allowed farmers to produce and sell more to a wider population, thus changing the role and responsibility of a farming family. I think it is important to remember that these farmers first relied on a local market for goods exchange and the opportunity to move beyond sustenance farming and then to a wider market as it became available. I believe that is where Faragher challenged the idea of farm self-sufficiency as isolated and impoverished since there was a significant change within local communities as well as local and larger markets, thus forcing farmers to interact socially and economically as well as view farming as a way to obtain other goods or money, not simply survive. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article was definitely different from what we have been previously reading.  I really liked not reading about New England for a change. :) However, I did find it interesting that the study by Dr. W.W. Hall defended women&amp;#039;s role on the farm.  It also talks about the separate domestic sphere for women and a loving and nurturing relationships between a husband and wife.  It was interesting how Hall was trying to put the ideal of New England into the Midwest. --Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article as well. Not only did it feed my Laura Ingalls Wilder fascination, it was a great window into the daily lives of 19th century self-sufficiency farmers. The quote &amp;quot;a Woman&amp;#039;s Work is never done&amp;quot; pretty much sums up this article. I think of the magazine Real Simple and imagine them frantically trying to figure out a way to dish out tips to these women in order for them to simplify their lives. First of all, I want to rag on that song towards the end where it lists all the chores a woman can do, yet she is &amp;quot;dumb, dumb, dumb.&amp;quot; Well, of course she is! Look at all the work she has to do; families feel they don&amp;#039;t have the need to educate a girl because all she needs to know is the insanely long list of chores she will eventually have to do. Moving to the end of the article, where Faragher talks about how women make  &amp;quot;tanglible articles&amp;quot; out of the man&amp;#039;s products. So while women are actually doing a majority of the work, it is hidden and out of public sight as men&amp;#039;s work is more involved in the wider commercial and social circles. And though they may help bring the family with them into bigger social circles, it seems unfair that the women don&amp;#039;t get the credit they deserve. Celia   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s really nice to read about how important women were in a farming family.  Yes the men do a lot of the manual labor as far as plowing and tending to the crops goes, but the women had to help men with the crops but also take care of the kids, the house and any of the items the family manufactured.  Women did a lot more than they were given credit for and reading how important they were to a family&amp;#039;s success is a nice change from the &amp;quot;women are jipped in every way&amp;quot; articles.  -Kelly W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree Kelly, most of the time it really doesn&amp;#039;t seem as though women are given credit for the amount of work they do in the farming family.  Every job on a farm is equally important in making sure that the farm runs.  Without one task no matter who is responsible for it, it is necessary. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Dublin ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how the women at Lowell created a sort of familial relationship with other women at the mill.  There are examples of a relationship between new workers and those more experienced that toes the line between sisterly and motherly.  The more experienced workers teach the newer ones how to perform the day-to-day tasks in the mill in a kind of elder sister fashion.  It appears also that they formed a community outside of the workplace and became moral support for their sister workers.  I imagine this sort of sorority was what made it possible for them to think it possible that they could achieve something by going on strike. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think part of the reasons these relationships were created was because there wasn&amp;#039;t anyone else for them to bond and for connections with...  I think that these relationships helped to keep the mill running -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lowell was intended to be different than the factory towns of Europe.  It was to be an example of a community that was more wholesome and healthful than the industrial cities of Europe.  Was it succesful?  Or was it more of the same? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I only kind of liked this article, it was mostly a boring read for me.  :-(  However, I did find the sense of such a strong community a little interesting and was wondering if this was just a Lowell, MA thing, or if it happened at other places around the US? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the emphasis on economic security and the role of their “Yankee heritage” as interesting driving factors for this particular group of women to protest working conditions and wages. Dublin argues that these women were capable of returning to the farm to work and therefore did not necessarily have to completely depend upon the work at the mill. He notes that during times of economic depressions that protesting diminished or ceased completely, thus marking a relationship between economic security and their job at the mills. I think it also points to a trend of using immigrant workers or workers from poorer families later on who would be dependent upon their wages from the mill and consequently be less likely to strike. I also found it interesting that Dublin noted their “Yankee heritage” and revolutionary rhetoric as driving forces for an idea that these women deserved certain rights. I wonder if we would be able to find non-Yankee women of this time that felt and demanded what they deemed were their rights in the mills. – Mary Beth &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was refreshing to read an article about women that seemed to be more empowering, as opposed to the rest of the stuff that seemed to really be showing the unfortunate plight of women at the time. What struck me as most impressive throughout the Dublin reading was the fact that the women in the piece were all so determined to stick up for each other, down to picking up the slack when one of their own was sick or had to miss work. In today&amp;#039;s times, I feel like it&amp;#039;s rare to hear of such camaraderie in the work force, regardless of gender. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the importance of the Dublin&amp;#039;s reading was to emphasize the significant active role of women in the factory town.  Women&amp;#039;s success in the factory was contributed to their ability to create an autonomy and development of a close-knit community.  I found it interesting that the author mentioned that women&amp;#039;s success in organizing a community in the workplace was the major factor that contributed to the turn-out strikes.  It was also interesting to learn about the contrasts between the first two turn-out protests where women demonstrated against reduced wages and were able to garner more people in their support.  -Joseph C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked reading about women who actually stood up for themselves.  They knew they were being treated unfairly and they gathered together and did something about it.  Even though they failed, they still persevered and created The Lowell Female Labor Reform Association.  The elected officers and sent delegates to the New England Workingmen&amp;#039;s Association.  It was definitely a huge change from the supposed &amp;quot;submissive&amp;quot; women we read about before. -- Kari W.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was probably also empowering for these women to know that they were independent women who were able to provide a little for their families back home. They were also able to choose to stand up for and demand what they wanted and for what they thought was right, through protests, literature and politics. I was looking at the questions at the end of this chapter and question 2 really caught my attention. The women who were the forefront of industrialization probably had different views of family and community than the men back home because the women depended on friends and co-workers. Their sense of community with the other women was based more on equality and support, whereas the men who had families were connected to their loved ones through a sort of familial hierarchy. Within families, it was harder to &amp;quot;challenge...paternalism.&amp;quot; (122)- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this to be a very interesting article. While reading it, I was struck by the contradiction of exploitation and liberation which Dublin addresses. The fact that I really noticed was that women were empowered by their employment to protest against their exploitation at the job which had liberated them initially. The mills seem to represent women&amp;#039;s independence but also their susceptibility. They were able to leave their homes and farms to make their own living but by doing so they exposed themselves to another means of being put beneath men. It seems that at the heart of their protesting was the issues of the dignity of women. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also seem to recall that working in the mills was often very harmful to the health of women as they were stuck in a closed room with little ventilation for 10 hours or more everyday and then went home to sleep in very close quarters. However, health is never really addressed in this issue. Does anyone know if there really were a lot of negative health affects caused by working in this mills? If so, why were they not included in their grievances along with the decreased wages? I was also trying to ascertain what the average &amp;quot;career&amp;quot; of a mill woman was. Due to the huge number of women in training, it would seem that there must have been a rather high turnover rate. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was actually really surprised to read about how the women in factories actually formed a strong bond with one another.  When you think of factories, typically everything seems to individual and just removed -- not a place of big conversation.  But to read about how these women helped each other learn and formed a sense of community is refreshing and a nice change to what we normally read about factory life.  -Kelly W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comparative comments/questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
It was neat to look at the different ways that people tried to create a better life for themselves in very different ways.  Some families who could manage to send their daughters to the mills did so, and others used newly innovative tools to be able to produce enough to turn a profit on their farms.  All of this was so that they could afford to purchase goods in what was quickly becoming a highly competitive, capitalistic world. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow. I have to say, both of these articles honestly left me in a much better mood than any of the other reading we have previously done. It seems like finally, the women have a legitimate role in familial society, instead of just being responsible for birthing and raising children. From organizing labor strikes to tilling the land, both of these articles finally began to give women a chance to roar. -Cash Nelson&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-01-29T03:54:54Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Dublin */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Faragher ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Faragher says that the “Notion of born self-sufficiency should not conjure up images of isolated, impoverished farmers…” yet he created this image as well.  Where is the clarity? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe not impoverished because they were self-sufficient, so impoverished may not have entered their minds.  However, they seemed fairly isolated during the spring-fall time, except maybe in the winter they saw people as there was less work to do than in the planting, taking care of, and harvesting the crops. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think a very intresting point Faragher brought up is the role childbareing played in the female farmer&amp;#039;s role on the farm.  How is this similar/different to an understanding of work before and after childbirth elseware in location and history? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say that I did like this article because it did not paint women as having to be this picture perfect ideal woman, it was what real women did in the midwest to help support the family.  Which is awesome compared to Mintz and Kellogg who consider basically urban middle-class New Englanders the way the US was at the time.  It drives me nuts because its obvious that places in the United States was vastly different and this article is a perfect example, the women are planting crops, milking cows, feeding livestock, butchering, cooking, sewing, weaving, mending, etc.  This article I feel provides an awesome incite into what families did do to survive.  They all bucked up and did their share, however tiresome to get by, to live, to survive. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the economic aspect of this article to be particularly interesting. Faragher briefly discusses the Market Revolution, which we touched upon in class, explaining the changes in farming due to market opportunity as well as market competition. I think this is one of the first times we have really have been able to see how technology has directly influenced the family. The introduction of farm tools, particularly an evolution away from hand tools, plus the introduction of improved and more widespread transportation allowed farmers to produce and sell more to a wider population, thus changing the role and responsibility of a farming family. I think it is important to remember that these farmers first relied on a local market for goods exchange and the opportunity to move beyond sustenance farming and then to a wider market as it became available. I believe that is where Faragher challenged the idea of farm self-sufficiency as isolated and impoverished since there was a significant change within local communities as well as local and larger markets, thus forcing farmers to interact socially and economically as well as view farming as a way to obtain other goods or money, not simply survive. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article was definitely different from what we have been previously reading.  I really liked not reading about New England for a change. :) However, I did find it interesting that the study by Dr. W.W. Hall defended women&amp;#039;s role on the farm.  It also talks about the separate domestic sphere for women and a loving and nurturing relationships between a husband and wife.  It was interesting how Hall was trying to put the ideal of New England into the Midwest. --Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article as well. Not only did it feed my Laura Ingalls Wilder fascination, it was a great window into the daily lives of 19th century self-sufficiency farmers. The quote &amp;quot;a Woman&amp;#039;s Work is never done&amp;quot; pretty much sums up this article. I think of the magazine Real Simple and imagine them frantically trying to figure out a way to dish out tips to these women in order for them to simplify their lives. First of all, I want to rag on that song towards the end where it lists all the chores a woman can do, yet she is &amp;quot;dumb, dumb, dumb.&amp;quot; Well, of course she is! Look at all the work she has to do; families feel they don&amp;#039;t have the need to educate a girl because all she needs to know is the insanely long list of chores she will eventually have to do. Moving to the end of the article, where Faragher talks about how women make  &amp;quot;tanglible articles&amp;quot; out of the man&amp;#039;s products. So while women are actually doing a majority of the work, it is hidden and out of public sight as men&amp;#039;s work is more involved in the wider commercial and social circles. And though they may help bring the family with them into bigger social circles, it seems unfair that the women don&amp;#039;t get the credit they deserve. Celia   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s really nice to read about how important women were in a farming family.  Yes the men do a lot of the manual labor as far as plowing and tending to the crops goes, but the women had to help men with the crops but also take care of the kids, the house and any of the items the family manufactured.  Women did a lot more than they were given credit for and reading how important they were to a family&amp;#039;s success is a nice change from the &amp;quot;women are jipped in every way&amp;quot; articles.  -Kelly W &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Dublin ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how the women at Lowell created a sort of familial relationship with other women at the mill.  There are examples of a relationship between new workers and those more experienced that toes the line between sisterly and motherly.  The more experienced workers teach the newer ones how to perform the day-to-day tasks in the mill in a kind of elder sister fashion.  It appears also that they formed a community outside of the workplace and became moral support for their sister workers.  I imagine this sort of sorority was what made it possible for them to think it possible that they could achieve something by going on strike. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think part of the reasons these relationships were created was because there wasn&amp;#039;t anyone else for them to bond and for connections with...  I think that these relationships helped to keep the mill running -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lowell was intended to be different than the factory towns of Europe.  It was to be an example of a community that was more wholesome and healthful than the industrial cities of Europe.  Was it succesful?  Or was it more of the same? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I only kind of liked this article, it was mostly a boring read for me.  :-(  However, I did find the sense of such a strong community a little interesting and was wondering if this was just a Lowell, MA thing, or if it happened at other places around the US? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the emphasis on economic security and the role of their “Yankee heritage” as interesting driving factors for this particular group of women to protest working conditions and wages. Dublin argues that these women were capable of returning to the farm to work and therefore did not necessarily have to completely depend upon the work at the mill. He notes that during times of economic depressions that protesting diminished or ceased completely, thus marking a relationship between economic security and their job at the mills. I think it also points to a trend of using immigrant workers or workers from poorer families later on who would be dependent upon their wages from the mill and consequently be less likely to strike. I also found it interesting that Dublin noted their “Yankee heritage” and revolutionary rhetoric as driving forces for an idea that these women deserved certain rights. I wonder if we would be able to find non-Yankee women of this time that felt and demanded what they deemed were their rights in the mills. – Mary Beth &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was refreshing to read an article about women that seemed to be more empowering, as opposed to the rest of the stuff that seemed to really be showing the unfortunate plight of women at the time. What struck me as most impressive throughout the Dublin reading was the fact that the women in the piece were all so determined to stick up for each other, down to picking up the slack when one of their own was sick or had to miss work. In today&amp;#039;s times, I feel like it&amp;#039;s rare to hear of such camaraderie in the work force, regardless of gender. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the importance of the Dublin&amp;#039;s reading was to emphasize the significant active role of women in the factory town.  Women&amp;#039;s success in the factory was contributed to their ability to create an autonomy and development of a close-knit community.  I found it interesting that the author mentioned that women&amp;#039;s success in organizing a community in the workplace was the major factor that contributed to the turn-out strikes.  It was also interesting to learn about the contrasts between the first two turn-out protests where women demonstrated against reduced wages and were able to garner more people in their support.  -Joseph C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked reading about women who actually stood up for themselves.  They knew they were being treated unfairly and they gathered together and did something about it.  Even though they failed, they still persevered and created The Lowell Female Labor Reform Association.  The elected officers and sent delegates to the New England Workingmen&amp;#039;s Association.  It was definitely a huge change from the supposed &amp;quot;submissive&amp;quot; women we read about before. -- Kari W.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was probably also empowering for these women to know that they were independent women who were able to provide a little for their families back home. They were also able to choose to stand up for and demand what they wanted and for what they thought was right, through protests, literature and politics. I was looking at the questions at the end of this chapter and question 2 really caught my attention. The women who were the forefront of industrialization probably had different views of family and community than the men back home because the women depended on friends and co-workers. Their sense of community with the other women was based more on equality and support, whereas the men who had families were connected to their loved ones through a sort of familial hierarchy. Within families, it was harder to &amp;quot;challenge...paternalism.&amp;quot; (122)- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this to be a very interesting article. While reading it, I was struck by the contradiction of exploitation and liberation which Dublin addresses. The fact that I really noticed was that women were empowered by their employment to protest against their exploitation at the job which had liberated them initially. The mills seem to represent women&amp;#039;s independence but also their susceptibility. They were able to leave their homes and farms to make their own living but by doing so they exposed themselves to another means of being put beneath men. It seems that at the heart of their protesting was the issues of the dignity of women. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also seem to recall that working in the mills was often very harmful to the health of women as they were stuck in a closed room with little ventilation for 10 hours or more everyday and then went home to sleep in very close quarters. However, health is never really addressed in this issue. Does anyone know if there really were a lot of negative health affects caused by working in this mills? If so, why were they not included in their grievances along with the decreased wages? I was also trying to ascertain what the average &amp;quot;career&amp;quot; of a mill woman was. Due to the huge number of women in training, it would seem that there must have been a rather high turnover rate. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was actually really surprised to read about how the women in factories actually formed a strong bond with one another.  When you think of factories, typically everything seems to individual and just removed -- not a place of big conversation.  But to read about how these women helped each other learn and formed a sense of community is refreshing and a nice change to what we normally read about factory life.  -Kelly W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comparative comments/questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
It was neat to look at the different ways that people tried to create a better life for themselves in very different ways.  Some families who could manage to send their daughters to the mills did so, and others used newly innovative tools to be able to produce enough to turn a profit on their farms.  All of this was so that they could afford to purchase goods in what was quickly becoming a highly competitive, capitalistic world. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow. I have to say, both of these articles honestly left me in a much better mood than any of the other reading we have previously done. It seems like finally, the women have a legitimate role in familial society, instead of just being responsible for birthing and raising children. From organizing labor strikes to tilling the land, both of these articles finally began to give women a chance to roar. -Cash Nelson&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-01-26T21:37:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The first section of chapter seven of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;American Manhood&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading struck me as really interesting.  I had known that there was a change in the way the actual marriage ceremony took place, but I admit I was largely unaware of the scope and significance of the changes.  There were some particularly obvious things, such as the fact that wedding dresses previous to this change could be the nicest dress that the bride already own, or if a new one was made it usually was not today&amp;#039;s standard white, at least on the information we have today about known or attributed wedding gowns.  It was interesting to begin to understand the changes that took place in regards to community interaction and the focus on the two individuals being wed.  I also found the modern sense of the feeling of intimacy, on all counts, increased in the nineteenth century.  That we get more sense that men and women thus united found themselves knowing, if not every last detail, but a great deal more of the personal aspects of their spouse is very interesting.  Of course there are other aspects to marriages, such as divorce and alienation of the partners, that counterbalance this ideal and give history the character it deserves. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just continuing what Lacey was mentioning about with the dresses, I know my grandmother didn&amp;#039;t have a white dress or a big wedding or anything of that sort in the early 1900s... erm, I think it was in the mid 1940s that she married her husband.  They went down to the church, no one went with them and she wore what she had at the house.  None of the family went to her wedding except her brother who passed by the church while he was out hunting.  (They lived in the hollows of West Virginia).  My mother on the other hand borrow a pink cocktail dress from a friend and married my dad in the priest&amp;#039;s office of the church, I think mom said that 2 other people were there as witnesses and they married in the 1960s.  So weddings and things may have begun to change in the 19th century, I believe this was probably more or less for the urban area wealthier people.  Some rural areas probably had some of the bigger type of wedding, but it still wasn&amp;#039;t universal for the couple in the center of it all surrounded by friends and family in the 1960s, who knows if it is yet. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the changes in the family that Mintz and Kellogg describe in this chapter (the home became a sanctuary, family members were supposed to give emotional support to one another, women took on purely domestic roles rather than productive roles, etc) they attribute to the fact that men were working outside of the home. Instead of producing everything they needed from within the household, they were working elsewhere, making a salary, and buying what they needed. So what about more rural families? They were still living on largely self-sufficient farms, so did they not undergo these changes? I would guess that the advice manuals, magazine articles, and other bits of literature about the new ideal family were reaching them (at least to some extent). So I wonder if they felt pressure to conform to this new ideal of the family even though their lifestyle was not really conducive to it. I think it would be hard for some woman on a farm, who has to work alongside her husband producing everything the household needed, to also conform to the ideal mother who is totally focused on domestic tasks and sensitive child rearing. It reminds me of &amp;quot;Little House on the Prairie.&amp;quot; Laura&amp;#039;s mom would do something like build a barn or drive hostile indians off of her land, and then she would put on a nice dress and act very feminine and delicate and totally dependent on her husband. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that as they have in the past, Mintz and Kellogg are making generalizations about society in America.  It seems that their argument for this chapter is focused very much on urban areas, like Scholten&amp;#039;s argument on obstetrics for last week.  It seems that in more rural areas it would take time for this new &amp;quot;Democratic Family&amp;quot; to articulate itself.  They were still relatively independent and self-sufficient to the extent that they could be.  Again, I think that these changes would have taken time and not come entirely to fruition until travel and the intermingling of the rural and urban became possible. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Lacey here, Mitz and Kellogg seem to be focusing on just urban and mostly New England area.  They then apply this to the rest of the nation, which is absurd because the rest of the nation is vastly different from New England.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am curious as to how the rural families adapt to the changes that those in cities were facing? Did they change to where the family was mainly supported by the husband as they did in urban areas?  I think that part of the reason the family became so private was the rapid growth of cities. It was easier to have a close family from the community in small towns but as they grew this became harder. --Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even with the men working outside the home, why would the need for the family to provide emotional support change? It seems that no matter where the husband/father worked, the home should have been a place where you could receive emotional support. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-01-26T21:34:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The first section of chapter seven of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;American Manhood&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading struck me as really interesting.  I had known that there was a change in the way the actual marriage ceremony took place, but I admit I was largely unaware of the scope and significance of the changes.  There were some particularly obvious things, such as the fact that wedding dresses previous to this change could be the nicest dress that the bride already own, or if a new one was made it usually was not today&amp;#039;s standard white, at least on the information we have today about known or attributed wedding gowns.  It was interesting to begin to understand the changes that took place in regards to community interaction and the focus on the two individuals being wed.  I also found the modern sense of the feeling of intimacy, on all counts, increased in the nineteenth century.  That we get more sense that men and women thus united found themselves knowing, if not every last detail, but a great deal more of the personal aspects of their spouse is very interesting.  Of course there are other aspects to marriages, such as divorce and alienation of the partners, that counterbalance this ideal and give history the character it deserves. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just continuing what Lacey was mentioning about with the dresses, I know my grandmother didn&amp;#039;t have a white dress or a big wedding or anything of that sort in the early 1900s... erm, I think it was in the mid 1940s that she married her husband.  They went down to the church, no one went with them and she wore what she had at the house.  None of the family went to her wedding except her brother who passed by the church while he was out hunting.  (They lived in the hollows of West Virginia).  My mother on the other hand borrow a pink cocktail dress from a friend and married my dad in the priest&amp;#039;s office of the church, I think mom said that 2 other people were there as witnesses and they married in the 1960s.  So weddings and things may have begun to change in the 19th century, I believe this was probably more or less for the urban area wealthier people.  Some rural areas probably had some of the bigger type of wedding, but it still wasn&amp;#039;t universal for the couple in the center of it all surrounded by friends and family in the 1960s, who knows if it is yet. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the changes in the family that Mintz and Kellogg describe in this chapter (the home became a sanctuary, family members were supposed to give emotional support to one another, women took on purely domestic roles rather than productive roles, etc) they attribute to the fact that men were working outside of the home. Instead of producing everything they needed from within the household, they were working elsewhere, making a salary, and buying what they needed. So what about more rural families? They were still living on largely self-sufficient farms, so did they not undergo these changes? I would guess that the advice manuals, magazine articles, and other bits of literature about the new ideal family were reaching them (at least to some extent). So I wonder if they felt pressure to conform to this new ideal of the family even though their lifestyle was not really conducive to it. I think it would be hard for some woman on a farm, who has to work alongside her husband producing everything the household needed, to also conform to the ideal mother who is totally focused on domestic tasks and sensitive child rearing. It reminds me of &amp;quot;Little House on the Prairie.&amp;quot; Laura&amp;#039;s mom would do something like build a barn or drive hostile indians off of her land, and then she would put on a nice dress and act very feminine and delicate and totally dependent on her husband. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that as they have in the past, Mintz and Kellogg are making generalizations about society in America.  It seems that their argument for this chapter is focused very much on urban areas, like Scholten&amp;#039;s argument on obstetrics for last week.  It seems that in more rural areas it would take time for this new &amp;quot;Democratic Family&amp;quot; to articulate itself.  They were still relatively independent and self-sufficient to the extent that they could be.  Again, I think that these changes would have taken time and not come entirely to fruition until travel and the intermingling of the rural and urban became possible. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Lacey here, Mitz and Kellogg seem to be focusing on just urban and mostly New England area.  They then apply this to the rest of the nation, which is absurd because the rest of the nation is vastly different from New England.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am curious as to how the rural families adapt to the changes that those in cities were facing? Did they change to where the family was mainly supported by the husband as they did in urban areas?  I think that part of the reason the family became so private was the rapid growth of cities. It was easier to have a close family from the community in small towns but as they grew this became harder. --Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-01-21T22:29:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Paul Johnson */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catherine Scholten ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, I never realized that was when they started making women lay down on their backs to give birth.  That is like, the absolute worse way to give birth (Except perhaps trying to do it on your stomach...).  So because men wanted to break into that field and take over it, midwives were kicked out the door for the most part.  To be honest, this is something I&amp;#039;ve researched a little in the past (the hubby and I have been talking about pregnancies the past year), and lying on your back is the hard way to give birth because of the way your trying to push the baby out, however, with walking around and standing/squatting/sitting gravity works with the body and the baby goes straight out instead of having to do a bit of a curve.  At least from what I have read and what my friend who is a doula has explained to me.  Then, at that time (and I understand the whole humility/embarassment thing), making women lay down on their back and covered up just seems more dangerous because the person can&amp;#039;t see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can&amp;#039;t even see, thats just stupidity.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, maybe I missed it in the reading, but at what point did society have that epiphany and realize that women and their children were worth saving during childbirth and that women deserved to have the most pain-free birthing (an oxymoron, I know)? Also, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that men wouldn&amp;#039;t allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the &amp;quot;power of action&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;active power of mind,&amp;quot; yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading Scholten&amp;#039;s essay, I found it very surprising that childbearing after the American Revolution and into the early 20th century became dominated by male physicians.  Scholten argues in her essay that the replacement of female midwives were preferred by most women than male physicians.  I also found it interesting and bizarre that American midwifery which had dominated childbearing before the American Revolution nearly disappeared at the advent of new discoveries in medical science.  Wouldn&amp;#039;t it make sense to allow women to enroll in early 20th century medical schools and participate in childbearing, when they previously were the dominant participants before the American Revolution.  All the excuses by male doctors of women making them nervous in the room or their ability to be a distraction was extremely bizarre. -Joseph C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say that I was incredibly excited about reading this essay because medicine and midwifery in the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth incredibly fascinating.  (It probably doesn&amp;#039;t help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.)  So that brings me to Ashley&amp;#039;s comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph&amp;#039;s comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the &amp;quot;lying-in.&amp;quot;  Scholten doesn&amp;#039;t mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn&amp;#039;t until the end of the eighteenth century that obstetric forceps came into widespread use, nearly a century after their initial conception.  Such instruments fell into the realm of the doctor rather than the midwife, and women were seen as less able to understand and facilitate the same things that men were, thus women were pushed out of the birthing room.  Subsequently, women were made to lie on their backs to allow their male physician to use equipment to examine them, of which the forceps are an example.  Personally, I think that such changes were nearly useless at the time, because other than extreme cases the physicians could only do a little more than the midwives. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this essay.  It was rather interesting to read about the start of our customs regarding childbirth. I was amazed to find that males quickly took over this profession and women soon preferred to switch over to the more modern practices as medicine improved.  It is strange that now many women turn to older practices and choose a midwife over conventional methods of childbirth. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Paul Johnson ==&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn&amp;#039;t help but feel sorry for Abigail and the kids, I was actually happy to read that the daughters changed their names.  In a sense this could be an example of women taking control of the household in the end and being a single-parent household (to show that divorces happened and that women still maintained custody of children in some cases).  I know the reading said that the case was fairly unique, but I wonder how unique it really was, like... how much of this actually happened but just wasn&amp;#039;t recorded anywhere?  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with you about Greenleaf. The whole time I was reading about it my particular dislike for him grew. I was curious, as well, about how many households were in similar situations. It is interesting to note that Abigal was, initially, very subordinate and wanted a good friend as a husband, something like a companion. But when Greenleaf cast aside his family duties, or responsibilities, she pretty much rolled up her sleeves and became more decisive and domineering. It doesn&amp;#039;t seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn&amp;#039;t. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I really found myself not liking Greenleaf while reading this article.  I think that many women might have been in similar situations, having to take control of their family when their husband failed to do so. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extra Credit: What did the President&amp;#039;s inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He said that past generations have faced much difficulty and sacrificed things to ensure that future generations could live happily with more freedom.  Specifically he mentioned the American Revolution, Civil War, westward expansion and immigrating to America. He also said that parents need to continue to nurture children and instill the values of honesty, loyalty and patriotism so that our country can become an even better place. Families are definitely a key part of correcting society&amp;#039;s problems. --Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-01-21T22:26:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Catherine Scholten */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catherine Scholten ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, I never realized that was when they started making women lay down on their backs to give birth.  That is like, the absolute worse way to give birth (Except perhaps trying to do it on your stomach...).  So because men wanted to break into that field and take over it, midwives were kicked out the door for the most part.  To be honest, this is something I&amp;#039;ve researched a little in the past (the hubby and I have been talking about pregnancies the past year), and lying on your back is the hard way to give birth because of the way your trying to push the baby out, however, with walking around and standing/squatting/sitting gravity works with the body and the baby goes straight out instead of having to do a bit of a curve.  At least from what I have read and what my friend who is a doula has explained to me.  Then, at that time (and I understand the whole humility/embarassment thing), making women lay down on their back and covered up just seems more dangerous because the person can&amp;#039;t see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can&amp;#039;t even see, thats just stupidity.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, maybe I missed it in the reading, but at what point did society have that epiphany and realize that women and their children were worth saving during childbirth and that women deserved to have the most pain-free birthing (an oxymoron, I know)? Also, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that men wouldn&amp;#039;t allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the &amp;quot;power of action&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;active power of mind,&amp;quot; yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading Scholten&amp;#039;s essay, I found it very surprising that childbearing after the American Revolution and into the early 20th century became dominated by male physicians.  Scholten argues in her essay that the replacement of female midwives were preferred by most women than male physicians.  I also found it interesting and bizarre that American midwifery which had dominated childbearing before the American Revolution nearly disappeared at the advent of new discoveries in medical science.  Wouldn&amp;#039;t it make sense to allow women to enroll in early 20th century medical schools and participate in childbearing, when they previously were the dominant participants before the American Revolution.  All the excuses by male doctors of women making them nervous in the room or their ability to be a distraction was extremely bizarre. -Joseph C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say that I was incredibly excited about reading this essay because medicine and midwifery in the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth incredibly fascinating.  (It probably doesn&amp;#039;t help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.)  So that brings me to Ashley&amp;#039;s comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph&amp;#039;s comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the &amp;quot;lying-in.&amp;quot;  Scholten doesn&amp;#039;t mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn&amp;#039;t until the end of the eighteenth century that obstetric forceps came into widespread use, nearly a century after their initial conception.  Such instruments fell into the realm of the doctor rather than the midwife, and women were seen as less able to understand and facilitate the same things that men were, thus women were pushed out of the birthing room.  Subsequently, women were made to lie on their backs to allow their male physician to use equipment to examine them, of which the forceps are an example.  Personally, I think that such changes were nearly useless at the time, because other than extreme cases the physicians could only do a little more than the midwives. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this essay.  It was rather interesting to read about the start of our customs regarding childbirth. I was amazed to find that males quickly took over this profession and women soon preferred to switch over to the more modern practices as medicine improved.  It is strange that now many women turn to older practices and choose a midwife over conventional methods of childbirth. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Paul Johnson ==&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn&amp;#039;t help but feel sorry for Abigail and the kids, I was actually happy to read that the daughters changed their names.  In a sense this could be an example of women taking control of the household in the end and being a single-parent household (to show that divorces happened and that women still maintained custody of children in some cases).  I know the reading said that the case was fairly unique, but I wonder how unique it really was, like... how much of this actually happened but just wasn&amp;#039;t recorded anywhere?  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with you about Greenleaf. The whole time I was reading about it my particular dislike for him grew. I was curious, as well, about how many households were in similar situations. It is interesting to note that Abigal was, initially, very subordinate and wanted a good friend as a husband, something like a companion. But when Greenleaf cast aside his family duties, or responsibilities, she pretty much rolled up her sleeves and became more decisive and domineering. It doesn&amp;#039;t seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn&amp;#039;t. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extra Credit: What did the President&amp;#039;s inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He said that past generations have faced much difficulty and sacrificed things to ensure that future generations could live happily with more freedom.  Specifically he mentioned the American Revolution, Civil War, westward expansion and immigrating to America. He also said that parents need to continue to nurture children and instill the values of honesty, loyalty and patriotism so that our country can become an even better place. Families are definitely a key part of correcting society&amp;#039;s problems. --Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-01-21T22:15:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ksorb2yv: /* Extra Credit: What did the President&amp;#039;s inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catherine Scholten ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, I never realized that was when they started making women lay down on their backs to give birth.  That is like, the absolute worse way to give birth (Except perhaps trying to do it on your stomach...).  So because men wanted to break into that field and take over it, midwives were kicked out the door for the most part.  To be honest, this is something I&amp;#039;ve researched a little in the past (the hubby and I have been talking about pregnancies the past year), and lying on your back is the hard way to give birth because of the way your trying to push the baby out, however, with walking around and standing/squatting/sitting gravity works with the body and the baby goes straight out instead of having to do a bit of a curve.  At least from what I have read and what my friend who is a doula has explained to me.  Then, at that time (and I understand the whole humility/embarassment thing), making women lay down on their back and covered up just seems more dangerous because the person can&amp;#039;t see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can&amp;#039;t even see, thats just stupidity.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, maybe I missed it in the reading, but at what point did society have that epiphany and realize that women and their children were worth saving during childbirth and that women deserved to have the most pain-free birthing (an oxymoron, I know)? Also, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that men wouldn&amp;#039;t allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the &amp;quot;power of action&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;active power of mind,&amp;quot; yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading Scholten&amp;#039;s essay, I found it very surprising that childbearing after the American Revolution and into the early 20th century became dominated by male physicians.  Scholten argues in her essay that the replacement of female midwives were preferred by most women than male physicians.  I also found it interesting and bizarre that American midwifery which had dominated childbearing before the American Revolution nearly disappeared at the advent of new discoveries in medical science.  Wouldn&amp;#039;t it make sense to allow women to enroll in early 20th century medical schools and participate in childbearing, when they previously were the dominant participants before the American Revolution.  All the excuses by male doctors of women making them nervous in the room or their ability to be a distraction was extremely bizarre. -Joseph C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say that I was incredibly excited about reading this essay because medicine and midwifery in the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth incredibly fascinating.  (It probably doesn&amp;#039;t help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.)  So that brings me to Ashley&amp;#039;s comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph&amp;#039;s comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the &amp;quot;lying-in.&amp;quot;  Scholten doesn&amp;#039;t mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn&amp;#039;t until the end of the eighteenth century that obstetric forceps came into widespread use, nearly a century after their initial conception.  Such instruments fell into the realm of the doctor rather than the midwife, and women were seen as less able to understand and facilitate the same things that men were, thus women were pushed out of the birthing room.  Subsequently, women were made to lie on their backs to allow their male physician to use equipment to examine them, of which the forceps are an example.  Personally, I think that such changes were nearly useless at the time, because other than extreme cases the physicians could only do a little more than the midwives. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Paul Johnson ==&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn&amp;#039;t help but feel sorry for Abigail and the kids, I was actually happy to read that the daughters changed their names.  In a sense this could be an example of women taking control of the household in the end and being a single-parent household (to show that divorces happened and that women still maintained custody of children in some cases).  I know the reading said that the case was fairly unique, but I wonder how unique it really was, like... how much of this actually happened but just wasn&amp;#039;t recorded anywhere?  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with you about Greenleaf. The whole time I was reading about it my particular dislike for him grew. I was curious, as well, about how many households were in similar situations. It is interesting to note that Abigal was, initially, very subordinate and wanted a good friend as a husband, something like a companion. But when Greenleaf cast aside his family duties, or responsibilities, she pretty much rolled up her sleeves and became more decisive and domineering. It doesn&amp;#039;t seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn&amp;#039;t. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extra Credit: What did the President&amp;#039;s inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He said that past generations have faced much difficulty and sacrificed things to ensure that future generations could live happily with more freedom.  Specifically he mentioned the American Revolution, Civil War, westward expansion and immigrating to America. He also said that parents need to continue to nurture children and instill the values of honesty, loyalty and patriotism so that our country can become an even better place. Families are definitely a key part of correcting society&amp;#039;s problems. --Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ksorb2yv</name></author>	</entry>

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